Seanad Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 8 Jun 1960

Vol. 52 No. 14

Intoxicating Liquor Bill, 1959—Second Stage.

Question proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time".

Minister for Justice (Mr. Traynor)

In outlining the general principles on which this Bill is based, I do not propose to talk at length. The policy of the Government has been made clear to all and, at this stage, nobody would expect me to make any departure from that policy. I have no doubt that Senators who have decided to speak on the Second Reading have already their own ideas as to what line they propose to take. They are in the happy position of having all the arguments, of both the Government and the Opposition in the Dáil, assembled in the printed records of the proceedings in the Dáil where Government policy was enunciated and threshed out at great length. Furthermore, they have at their disposal an official printed memorandum which explains the provisions of the Bill as it has come to this House.

I am sure the members of the House will appreciate that in not making as detailed a speech as I did at the corresponding Stage of the Bill in the other House, I am not concerned with sparing myself, so much as sparing Senators from listening to arguments with which they must be all too familiar from the wide publicity already given to them.

The immediate cause of the promotion of this Bill was the Report of a Licensing Commission set up by my predecessor in July, 1956, with the following terms of reference:—

To enquire into the operation of the laws relating to the sale and supply of intoxicating liquor and to make recommendations.

The Commission included members of the Dáil and Seanad, representatives of the licensed trade from both the county boroughs and the rural areas, the trade unions, Bord Fáilte and temperance associations. Their Report was presented in July, 1957, after they had held about 40 sittings and took oral evidence from over 70 witnesses representing every possible point of view, including members of the judiciary, the police, the temperance associations, representatives of the publicans, the hoteliers, and trade unions and so on. The Report has been printed and placed on sale and I hope that it has been studied by every Senator who will speak on this Bill. Generally speaking the Government accepted the Commission's main recommendations: they accepted that there should be uniformity of hours for all parts of the country, that there should be general opening outside the four county boroughs on Sundays in place of the bona fide and area exemption order provisions; and that the general opening hours on week-days should be extended to cater for the public demand manifested in the patronage of bona fide houses under the present laws and an illegal after-hours trade which the Guards say was being carried on extensively.

These are the cardinal points which the Government have kept in mind in their consideration of this Bill: they are satisfied first that, except in very limited respects, there should be uniformity of trading hours for all parts of the country; secondly, that the bona fide trade and area exemption orders should be abolished; thirdly, that the weekday hours of trading need to be adjusted; and fourthly, that there should be general opening for limited periods on Sundays and on St. Patrick's Day.

The Government's proposals for changes in the hours of trading received overwhelming support in the Dáil. There were differences, of course, as to whether the hours of closing should be at one particular time or another but I was left in no doubt that the desirability of having uniformity of hours, abolishing the bona fide provisions, adjusting the hours on weekdays and having general opening on Sunday, was almost universally acknowledged.

I think that it would facilitate discussion, perhaps, if I were to mention the Government's main proposals in the order in which they appear in the Bill.

First of all, the bona fide provisions are being repealed. As there seems to have been considerable confusion elsewhere in relation to what is the bona fide law, I had better explain it. The bona fide provisions are provisions whereby a ‘traveller’ may lawfully be served with drink at any time between 6 a.m. and midnight on week-days and, outside the county boroughs, between 1 p.m. and 7 p.m.—8 p.m. in summer—on Sundays. A traveller is a person who had lodged, on the previous night, at least three miles away, or if in a county borough, at least five miles away.

All this is well known to Senators, but the point I want to stress is this. The point can be made—and indeed has been made—that the bona fide law allowed drink to be served only to genuine travellers and that it did not cater for people who travelled specially to get drink. But—so the argument runs—most of those concerned did in fact travel to get drink, especially on Sundays, up and down the country, and therefore it is alleged that most of the trade done under cover of the bona fide law, on Sundays especially, was in fact illegal.

I think it well, therefore, to draw the attention of the House to the fact that the 1927 Act explicitly provided that it was a good defence for a publican prosecuted for the after-hours sale of drink to a person who was not a bona fide traveller to show that the sale took place during bona fide hours, that the customer had represented himself to be a bona fide traveller and that the publican had no reasonable ground for disbelieving him. We must therefore recognise that the distinction between those who travelled in order to drink and those who had drink only as an incidental on their journey was largely meaningless: the distinction could not be enforced in practice.

Every licensed trader in the country, whether within or without the county boroughs, was entitled to sell drink to bona fide travellers within certain hours. Very few publicans in the county boroughs availed of the provisions for one reason or another but publicans around the fringes of the cities and large towns catered for that kind of trade. Outside Dublin, in particular, the so-called bona fide trade had assumed large-scale proportions in which the publicans had virtual immunity from the law in selling drink to people whose sole purpose in travelling was to get drink.

An agitation has been fostered, particularly during the final Stages of the Bill in the Dáil, that the publicans who had engaged in this after-hours trade—which was contrary to the spirit of the licensing code and succeeded only because of difficulties of proof of offence—should be compensated for loss of trade. I want to say here, firmly and finally, that the question of compensation will not be considered by the Government.

I do not admit the right of any trader to compensation in this connection, but if I were to leave the question open for consideration, I should have to ask these questions: Who should be compensated, seeing that every publican in the State, both inside and outside the county boroughs had a right to sell to bona fide travellers? On what possible basis would compensation be paid? Who should pay the compensation? Is it the taxpayer who knows this trade for what it is, a trade largely carried on in defiance of the law? Or should the compensation be levied on the rest of the licensed trade?

I know the answer that would quickly be given to that one if it were put to the trade. The minute one puts questions like this it is apparent that even if the principle of compensation were admitted—which it is not —there would be insuperable difficulties in the way of devising an effective scheme.

As regards the hours of trading which should operate on week-days, this has always been a difficult and controversial question with respect to which there are, as I recognise, legitimate differences of opinion. The principle I am asking the House to accept is that the general opening hours are too short and ought to be extended in the evenings and that there should be abolition of bona fide trading as a consequence.

The hours proposed in the Bill are reasonable and moderate. They are intended to meet what experience has shown to be the needs and convenience of the public. The Commissioner of the Garda Síochána has left me in no doubt that the police have found it impossible to enforce the law as it stands and I am satisfied myself that it has not the support of public opinion. At present, the offence of selling drink after hours is visited by many courts with very mild penalties.

Dissatisfaction with the present hours has been voiced in the Dáil on more than one occasion. Indeed my precedessor as Minister for Justice had this to say—I am quoting from the Official Report of the Dáil Debates, Volume 152, Column 752:

I know that drinking after hours is against the law, but in the country places there are many more serious things than that. I see nothing criminal in five or six men sitting in a country public house at night-time after a wet day or talking about the threshing. They would not spend 10/- in a whole night while there would be £10 spent in a club in Dublin. I see nothing criminal at all in the instance I have mentioned and I ask the Guards to use their common sense and if they do so we will have a better country and better respect for the law.

When a Minister for Justice feels constrained to speak in this way—a Minister who, like myself, is a teeto-taller—it may be taken that there is something wrong with the provisions of the law that have led him to do so. That there is something wrong with compulsory closing at half-past ten in the evening, is I think the opinion of most sensible people. The hours we are proposing are not precisely those that were recommended by the majority. They are, in fact, a compromise. They are later than one section of the licensed trade and organised labour would wish and they are earlier than other sections of the licensed trade and some sections of the general public want. To the trade as a whole, I believe that they are not unacceptable. But even if they were, the principle upon which I would have to recommend the Legislature to act is that the licensed trade and organised labour are engaged in a catering trade, and that their convenience must give way to the reasonable demands of the general public.

As regards Sundays, I think that there is no support whatsoever in any quarter—by the general public or in the trade, in the unions, or amongst the temperance people—for a continuation of the existing provisions whereby there is general opening for specified periods in the four county boroughs and in the rest of the country the sale of drink is prohibited in public houses except to bona fide travellers and to people attending on special occasions at football matches, seaside resorts and the like under area exemption orders. The principle which the Commission reported in favour of, and which the Government and the Dáil accepted, is that there should be uniformity of opening on Sundays in all parts of the country and that the bona fide provisions and the area exemption orders provisions should be repealed.

Again there were differences of opinion before the Commission and by the Commission and by members of the Dáil as to what the hours of opening on Sundays should be. I have little doubt that the hours in the Bill will not have universal acceptance in the Seanad either, but I am confident that the hours specified have a greater chance of general acceptance than any other proposal that might be put forward.

I should not like to pass on without making a reference to St. Patrick's Day. On two previous occasions—when the Licensing Act of 1927 and the Act of 1943 were being enacted—the Dáil on each occasion provided for opening on St. Patrick's Day in the same fashion as on Sundays and each time the Seanad opted for keeping public houses closed on that day. The Government have had overwhelming evidence—including the recommendation of the Commission— in favour of general opening on St. Patrick's Day as on Sundays and the Dáil accepted that proposal without a division and without, as far as I can recollect, dissent from more than one or two individuals. I think that the Legislature has profited by experience since the earlier enactments and that there can no longer be any question about general opening on St. Patrick's Day.

The provisions relating to general opening which I have just mentioned are the primary provisions of the Bill. They are of concern to practically every person living in this country. I do not propose, on Second Reading, to particularise as to why certain hours were acceptable to the Government in preference to others. These are matters for debate on Committee Stage.

There are a number of other provisions in Part II which are of considerable importance: there are the provisions for increasing the penalties for after-hours trading, that is, for compulsory endorsement of licences after the first conviction and a minimum fine of £1 on the offending customer. The Government are determined that the licensing laws, when re-enacted, must be obeyed and they have no doubt that they will have the general support of this House in that respect. Then there is the provision which allows public houses, under a certificate from the courts, to serve drink with meals in a dining room separated from the bar, up to midnight on week-days and during certain hours on Sundays. This provision has had a general welcome and is in the interests of the tourist trade. I, myself, have had some misgivings about the provision but I have been reassured that there are adequate safeguards against abuses.

In Part III of the Bill, we are providing for the grant of a new licence in a rural area on the extinguishing of two licences of the same character elsewhere. The main purpose behind this proposal is to enable licensed premises to be established in parts of the country where there are no licensed premises at present, a situation, I might mention, which has given rise to considerable inconvenience in some remote areas and a fairly substantial poteen traffic as a consequence.

Then again there is a proposal whereby a person erecting a new premises or making substantial alterations in existing premises can get a declaration, on the basis of plans, from the courts as to whether on completion of the premises the courts will be prepared to authorise the granting of a licence. This proposal is of importance to the trade and one they have been looking forward to since the Tourist Traffic Act of 1952 made provision of this kind in respect of hotels.

Part III also enables certain classes of hotels to have a public bar on extinguishing a public house licence. Such a provision was recommended by the Commission and seems to be generally acceptable.

Part IV of the Bill deals with miscellaneous matters, each of importance to particular interests or in particular circumstances. It provides, for instance, for increased powers of search and seizure for the police and excise officials in relation to illicit distillation offences. It provides that the licensee of a premises the licence of which has lapsed for more than five years cannot recreate that licence, but this provision will not come into effect until two years after the passing of the Act so as to keep intact the rights of the owners of existing premises who would be affected.

It provides also for a substantial extension of the provisions of the law under which the owners of restricted licences can obtain full seven-day licences. The case in favour of giving special concessions to six-day licensees in order to enable them to operate their premises as seven-day premises was argued at great length, both inside and outside the Dáil, and, as a result, you see the provisions of Section 26 of the Bill. The proposals in the Bill represent the ultimate which the Government are prepared to sponsor. They represent a considerable advance on the provisions of existing law.

In particular, I would refer to a proposal that, within a period of two years, a seven-day licence may be established on a six-day premises on payment of £200 to the Exchequer. The Government are not prepared to accept any proposal for a whittling down of this figure. As I explained in the other House, any moneys received into the Exchequer in this connection will be placed in a special fund and if, at the end of two years, the fund is of sufficient proportions the moneys will be spent in buying up and extinguishing publicans' licences.

As Senators are aware, no doubt, there are far too many licensed premises in the country—the Licensing Commission of 1925 estimated that there were several thousands too many and on their recommendation an attempt was made under the Act of 1927 to devise a scheme of compensation for publicans whose licences would be extinguished. After the scheme had operated for one year when 299 licences were abolished at a cost of over £50,000 in compensation with £10,000 for costs, etc., it was abandoned. It was found to be too costly and too cumbersome to operate. In consequence, this Bill provides for the repeal of the compensation provisions of the Act of 1927.

This Part of the Bill also gives the public health authority a right, which it has not had up to now, of objecting to the grant of a new licence and to the renewal of an existing licence because of the unfitness of the premises. But the publican is safeguarded against sudden objection to the renewal of his licence by a clause which requires that he be given 12 months notice by the health authority of the intention to object.

The remaining sections of the Bill are of limited interest, perhaps, save for the provisions in Section 37 which was brought in on Report Stage in the Dáil. It provides against the consumption of liquor in cafes and restaurants which are not licensed premises. Of late, complaints had been reaching the police that some cafes in the city were permitting customers to drink liquor on their premises late at night. Some of these cafe proprietors were suspected of shebeening, too, but there were difficulties in proving the offence. This provision will put a stop to that kind of illicit trading.

In conclusion, I would like to say that the Government have given very careful consideration to each section of this Bill. The Licensing Commission spent a year before they made their recommendations for changes in the law; the various Government Departments concerned spent another year in making a close analysis of the licensing position in the light of the Commission's Reports; and from June, 1958, onwards the Government and I, myself, in particular, as the Minister responsible for licensing matters, have been making a continual study of the subject. Only time will tell whether the Bill is a good one. I feel that it is a fair effort in that direction and I recommend its provisions for the consideration of this House.

Professor Hayes

The Minister has given a fair and comprehensive account of the Bill and I think he proved himself in the Dáil receptive to amendments. The Bill is a better Bill now than it was when it came into the Dáil. Apart from the statement I should like to congratulate the Minister and his Department for having circulated an excellent memorandum and a table showing the various hours as they now obtain and will obtain if this Bill is passed in the form in which it left the Dáil. The memorandum is not only the usual one circulated on Second Stage but has been kept up to date. That is something for which we should be grateful. It was very helpful and very time-saving.

The Bill is one which, I think, the House will have no difficulty in passing through its Second Stage. It is, in the main, a Committee Bill. I was constrained to say on the Bill in 1943 that it was a dreadful example in 1943 of legislation by reference and so, indeed, is this Bill. It amends Acts of Parliament going back as far as the Illicit Distillation (Ireland) Act of 1831 and comes up from there to an Act of the Oireachtas of 1953. The Bill, therefore, is comprehensive but it is not a consolidation measure.

I was wondering whether it would be possible to include in the Bill, when it becomes an Act, the very satisfactory table we have in this memorandum. I know that is not usually done and there may be objections from the draftsman's point of view to doing it but it would certainly be very useful. I wonder whether it could be done on the same basis as the marginal notes. The marginal notes are an assistance to reading the Bill but they are not citable in a court of law and are not taken into consideration, I understand, in construing a Bill in a court of law. Certainly, the tables we have in the memorandum are very useful and it is a pity that a person, instead of having to feel his way through the Bill, could not have these tables at his disposal to show at a glance what the hours of opening and closing are.

There are two principles in the Bill on the whole. One is, as the Minister has said, uniform opening in all areas on Sundays, town and country, and the other the abolition of the bona fide trade. Like the Minister, I look on this matter from the outside. There is a curious habit in this country of giving us Ministers for Justice who bring in licensing Bills and who preface their remarks by saying that their own experience is limited. The Minister's predecessor in the inter-Party Government was a teetotaller and his predecessor in the Fianna Fáil Government also told us that he was very far from being an expert; and when I, speaking from this side of the House, said that I was not an expert, a member of the House was moved to say that he was not like the Minister or Senator Hayes in that he had a lifelong experience of public houses from both sides of the counter. Neither the Minister nor myself can boast of that experience. I am a neutral and, I hope, a benevolent observer.

It has always seemed to me absurd that in the country a man had to travel, I think, five miles to get a drink, and that a man going from a village to a town five miles away to get a drink would pass a man coming from the town to the village on the same errand. There was also the position, as the Minister indicated and as his predecessor said, that the law was not observed. As far as I have been able to see it, it has always been quite easy to get a drink in the country on Sunday, and that was very bad for public morale. It would be much better if we could have permitted opening and the law strictly enforced. Whether that is feasible or not is rather a different thing, and it is possible to have differences of opinion as to the particular hours of opening, but there is no doubt at all that both logic and the moral effect of having the law properly observed are on the side of having hours fixed for country opening on Sundays.

The same thing applies to the bona fide trade. The idea is that a person travelling in good faith, a genuine traveller, gets refreshment, but as a matter of fact the person who gets refreshment now under the bona fide law is not a traveller, is not in good faith, and the only really genuine thing about him is his thirst. He has a genuine thirst but he is not a traveller and is not seeking for refreshment because he is a traveller. Under modern conditions of transport, even when ordinary push bicycles came in, apart from the present buses, autocycles and motor cars, the notion of a traveller weary after three miles and requiring a drink was absurd. There is no argument whatever that can be made in favour of carrying on that trade.

As the Minister says, it was impossible to enforce the law because who was to say whether a person had come from a particular place or not? The publican could plead that he had no evidence, and indeed he very rarely had.

As far as these two matters are concerned, therefore, we could accept these proposals. It has been suggested —the Minister did not refer to it at all —that the best arrangement for us to make would be to have no hours at all and to let the thing adjust itself; but the Minister was wise in not accepting that view because it would run contrary to our habits, outlook and traditions, and you cannot dispose of all those things suddenly. It would not suit us at all if there were to be no hours for opening and closing.

Apart from the question of Sundays, another main objective in the Bill is opening on St. Patrick's Day. I am old enough to remember that the closing on St. Patrick's Day was a Gaelic League notion. More than 60 years ago, the Gaelic League idea was that drinking was so rife and degrading at that time that public houses should be closed on St. Patrick's Day as a national gesture. It is also interesting to remember that they also inaugurated the notion of an industrial parade on that day. I remember giving out handbills before public houses to see that they were closed. I also remember that in Dublin a number of people closed their front door on St. Patrick's Day and opened the back door so that they had it both ways. Our drinking habits were then much worse. On consideration generally, it is reasonable now that public houses should be open on the same conditions on St. Patrick's Day as on Sunday.

With regard to the hours themselves, they can be dealt with in Committee, but it is worth saying that the hours in the Bill are not compulsory. They are merely permissive. Eleven thirty p.m. in Dublin seems to me rather late, and it seems that it will be rather hard on both owners, employers who work, and workers in these shops. Certain employees would not get home till after midnight, and their position is already pretty bad.

It seems hard, again, on Sundays. To open from 12.30 to 2 p.m. is better than from 1.30 to 3 p.m. but closing at 2.30 p.m. and resuming at 5 p.m. means that for the person who works on Sunday, the Sunday is completely destroyed. There is nothing you can do if you have to take a meal and there is hardly any leisure involved in that period. However, my own note here says—and I notice the Minister's speech has the same idea— that by trial and error and goodwill and consultation, probably a satisfactory solution will be found. The Minister's version of that note of mine is that time will show whether these hours are satisfactory or not. We can deal with that in Committee.

The great difficulty in this country about drinking is that it was formerly drinking without eating. Not only did people not eat but very often they drank before they had had a meal. That is very largely going now and habits are changing for the better. People go home to eat and return for a drink and for a talk, so the drink does them less harm than it used to. There is also a change, I am told, that public houses are becoming less dedicated to drinking alone and more inclined to providing food. That is a very desirable tendency, and it may well be that we are on the verge of a considerable change in drinking habits.

I speak therefore as what you might call a benevolent observer. My acquaintance with public houses is on a linguistic rather than a drinking basis. I know some public houses in remote areas extremely well and I have remarked that in those areas there is no law at all, and there was no law long ago when I remember them in the British days.

It seems to me that the Bill is a great improvement. We can arrange on Committee Stage what we want to do with regard to the hours, but from the point of view of national morale, of seeing that there is a law, a law which is observed, it is better that we should have uniform opening hours throughout the country. It is also highly desirable from every viewpoint that the complete fraud of bona fide drinking should be abolished. From the point of view of owners, workers and the general public, the Bill will be an improvement. I therefore commend it in its principles, and hope that in Committee the Seanad will be able to improve it and make it more acceptable to all concerned.

Tomás Ó Maoláin

Every sensible person who has given any thought to this matter has long been convinced of the absurdity of our licensing laws and of the need for a change. The Bill before the House is a modest effort to meet that need. When it is enacted, as I am sure it will be, there will be uniform hours of trading on weekdays and Sundays. The bona fide system and the area exemption orders will disappear. Any citizen or any visitor will be free to drink a toast in a pub on St. Patrick's Day and to get a drink up to a late hour on weekdays and on Sundays.

It is not, in my opinion, a revolutionary Bill and it does not go as far as I should like it to go. Nevertheless, I should like to give it a hearty céad mile fáilte as a first step towards the complete liberalisation of trading hours by what I hope to see in due course, namely, the enactment of legislation permitting a man to buy a drink at any time of the day or night, if he feels like it. Unlike Senator Hayes, I do not think it would be contrary to our traditions or do any damage to our reputation. In this situation of people being free to buy a drink around the clock, it is obvious that the laws of nature and economics would operate to bring about a rational pattern of trading, resulting in the elimination of most of the abuses associated with drinking under our present code.

This is the sixth decade of the twentieth century and this is a civilised community. We are no better and no worse perhaps than others but certainly we are as well-conducted as any. We are building up a modern progressive democracy. There is no reason why we should fear to get into line with other modern and progressive States which trust their people to be rational in using the liberal facilities they provide for drinking.

Critics of this measure should realise that we are not the only ones who are making an effort to reform the licensing laws which operate in our country. It will be remembered that across the Border last year, under a Liquor Bill enacted by the Stormont Parliament, the closing-time for rural pubs was extended by an hour and this brought them into line with the position obtaining in the towns and cities.

Just like ourselves here, our neighbours across the Irish Sea are far behind most European countries in the facilities available to them for drinking. The wind of change, of which Mr. MacMillan spoke recently in another connection, is now blowing at home, too. Public opinion in the three nations which make up the island known as Britain has made itself felt at last and licensing reform is on the way in that part of the world, too. Therefore, we are not out of line in seeking to reform our licensing laws.

It might be interesting to have a look at the present position elsewhere. In England, pubs are open for 8½ hours on weekdays and for five hours on Sundays. On Sundays, incidentally, the hours are from 12 to 2 p.m. and from 7 to 10 p.m. In Scotland, pubs are closed on Sundays but a bona fide system, the same as we have here, enables a man to drink if he becomes a traveller. As regards Wales, the grim desolation of the Welsh Sunday is so well known to all that I do not think there is any need to go any further into it.

In support of the demand in England, Scotland and Wales for longer opening hours it is pointed out that existing laws are largely ineffectual, particularly in towns and cities. That is just the situation which exists here and to which the Minister referred.

It is interesting to note also, in view of certain criticisms of this Bill, that English publicans fix their own hours of service—within the prescribed limits, of course. Maybe some will do so here, too, because, as Senator Hayes pointed out, the hours are permissive and not compulsory.

In London, as anyone with any acquaintance of the capital of England is aware, pubs in the Covent Garden area, that is, the vegetable market area, are opened at 2 a.m. In the Smithfield meat market area, they open a few hours later. Public demand and the availability of a passing trade decides the matter in different streets throughout the length and breadth of London. One can get a drink with food in night clubs up to and even after 1 a.m. But, in effect, it is possible for anyone who takes, the trouble to do so and who is willing to exert himself in the matter to drink around the clock in London.

How do we compare in this matter with other countries? Let us take an imaginery Aer Lingus holiday on the Continent to see how we fare in a few tourist countries, how far behind we still are and how far we must go to catch up with them. In Denmark, for example, which is a progressive and prosperous democracy, as we know, the bars may open for any length of time from 5 a.m. to 2 a.m. the next morning and that includes Sunday. The owners decide how long it is worth while keeping open on the basis of the amount of trade they expect to have. In Denmark, too, any hotel or restaurant, on obtaining a licence, can sell beer, spirits and wine. More remarkable still is the fact that tobacconists, grocers and general merchants are permitted to sell spirits, so the competition is particularly keen.

In Belgium, where many thousands of Irish people go on holidays, facilities for those who want a drink are ample and generous. There is provision in the Belgian licensing code for the operation of a pub around the clock. Strong liquor, however, cannot be sold in the pubs, although it can be bought without reservation in any of the shops. It can be taken away and drunk at home. Even the Belgian law, however, has had stagecoaches rolled through it. I was tickled to find that this regulation is very adroitly liquidated through so-called non-profit private social clubs. These clubs make all their clients members and under the law they are entitled to sell spirits. If anybody wants strong drink, he becomes a client of a private club so as to be entitled to liquor as a member.

Mr. O'Quigley

Senator Ó Maoláin must never have been thirsty on the Continent.

Tomás Ó Maoláin

The beer there is to be commended to the Senator. I was strongly impressed—as Senator-O'Quigley reminds me of thirst—by the open air beer gardens in Belgium where a man with his wife and his children can sit and drink large glasses of beer and gossip with his neighbours in a very homely friendly atmosphere free from the hypocritical cant and nonsense which we find levelled at families who like to take a drink together in parts not very far away from here.

If you travel further down through Europe to Switzerland, you find that there is little or no restriction, though in one or two regions there are regulations which insist that bars must close at midnight. Generally speaking, however, in the cities and in a great part of the country, there is no restriction.

In Spain, where again thousands of Irish visitors go year after year—for the sunshine, I presume—most of the bars stay open until 3 a.m. but there are all-night bars all over the place. Sunday trading hours are the same in Spain as weekdays and in Spain, of course, spirits may be bought in stores around the clock so that competition there is equally keen. In Austria, however, closing hours are staggered. Some pubs close at 11 p.m.; some close at 1 a.m.; and some find it worth their while to keep open until 2 a.m. Spirits are sold without restriction in restaurants, grocery stores and, believe it or not, in milk bars.

In Germany, the pubs are open from 9 a.m. to 2 a.m. on weekdays and from 11 a.m. on Sundays. Cabarets and many pubs are licensed by State and municipal authorities to stay open all night. Here, too, as in other countries, a variety of stores sell spirits at all hours. Anyone who has had the good fortune to visit the modern city of Berlin will appreciate the tremendous sense of happiness and general air of buoyancy that pervades the place as a consequence of whole families sitting in kerbside cafés or restaurants enjoying life, talking with the aid of the excellent lager beer.

In Holland, licensing hours vary from town to town, but, as in Spain and most of the Continental countries, one can always get a drink. Pubs in the city are open all day and close at 2 a.m. while night clubs, of course, are licensed until 4 a.m. or 5 a.m. In normal business hours, as in Denmark and other countries, spirits are sold in general retail shops.

Italy, of course, is the most liberal of all in providing facilities for drink. It even grants special licences to bars to operate in Rome and other big cities from 3 to 7 a.m. Night clubs are going to 4 a.m. where people can drink the excellent Italian wines or pay extra money for excellent foreign brews which they import. An interesting proviso in the Italian licensing laws is that there must be 50 metres between bars to prevent overcrowding the excellent market.

In France, there are no prescribed hours for opening and closing, an ideal situation for tourists. There are regional regulations in France, however, to fix trading hours for shops which sell spirits.

In all these countries, there is the question of children and I should add that the sale of strong drink to children under 18 is prohibited in Denmark and Germany and under 16 in most of the other countries I have named. In some of the countries, children under 18 are not allowed into any place that sells spirits, whether accompanied or unaccompanied. One remarkable exception to this is Spain where there are no age limits or restrictions whatever.

We have to compete with all these countries for tourist traffic and therefore it is obvious, to me anyway, that the hours proposed in the Bill are the minimum required to help us to stay in the tourist race. But tourists apart, our own people have to be considered first and the proposals before us will provide better facilities for them too. The ban on St. Patrick's Day opening is an insult to our people and should never have been imposed—with all due respect to the members of Seanad Éireann who were here in those days. In my opinion, it is an insinuation that we are so lacking in self-control that we cannot be trusted with the right to drink on our national holiday and foreign visitors cannot be blamed for poking fun at us when they come here on St. Patrick's Day as being the only civilised country in the world which deprives its citizens of the right to toast their national saint in something stronger than milk on the national feast day. Besides which, I believe it is a classic example of class legislation. It undoubtedly operates in favour of the better off section of the community and its abolition will undoubtedly be enthusiastically welcomed by every person who believes in equal rights for all citizens.

The long standing grievance of people who live outside Dublin that they must become law breakers to get a drink in their own locality on Sundays is ended by the limited general opening for pubs which is one of the best provisions in the Bill. The termination of the urban bias which is a feature of existing legislation is long overdue and, I am quite certain, is assured of a great welcome in rural Ireland.

The abolition of the bona fide system was strongly advocated, as the Minister told us, by the Garda representative who gave evidence to the Liquor Commission, and I feel that public opinion is unanimous in support of the decision to end it.

I am sorry, however, that with regard to closing hours the Bill makes a distinction between the holiday period and the rest of the year. I should have preferred 11.30 p.m. closing all the year round. In the circumstances, however, the proposed hours are not unreasonable and should help to soften the blow to those who are regularly accustomed to doing the bona fide.

I am particularly pleased that hotels and restaurants will be entitled to serve drink with meals to midnight on weekdays and to 10 p.m. on Sundays. This extension of the right to serve drink at meals will remove a cause of irritation which has existed for a long time for locals and visitors alike and is an excellent provision in the Bill. Lest some of our killjoys might get the impression that the Bill goes too far in this respect it should be remembered in view of what I have said about opening and closing hours in Continental Europe, that drink may be obtained at meals around the clock in every country. If I had the choosing of the times, I should have plumped for 2 a.m. on weeknights and midnight on Sundays. However, we are advancing and the provisions in the Bill are a reasonable compromise.

I think that there will be general agreement on the provisions covering holiday camps and clubs, and on the facilities given to hoteliers to get a licence for a public bar in their hotels by extinguishing an ordinary seven-day licence. While the days of the Dickensian gin-palace have long since gone, there is no doubt of the existence of some public house slums in urban and rural areas. The provisions which authorise the health authority to object to the granting of a new licence, or the renewal of an existing licence, on the grounds of unfitness of the premises, if widely availed of by the health authorities, should bring such places into line with modern requirements of cleanliness and comfort of the premises.

A tribute is due, however, to the enterprising publicans who have made such spectacular changes for the better in the lay-out of their premises during the past 10 years. Many of our lounges can compare more than favourably with the best in the world but we are still a long way off, as I have pointed out, from the facilities and comfort offered by the German beer cellar and the Paris street-side cafés which provide family meeting places and thus enhance community life. However, these will come.

From time to time during the past few years, I have heard complaints from people living in the residential districts of some of our cities about the emergence of a new type of drinking place, a late-hour drinking place, stated to be camouflaged as a hotel. Some of these houses with ten bedrooms qualified for a licence and went into competition with the ordinary legitimate traders already operating in the district. If what I am told is correct, their hotel business was almost nil. Therefore, I am very glad, if these statements are true, that the provision in the Bill requiring a minimum of 20 bedrooms as a pre-requisite for a hotel licence is being made operative in county boroughs.

The Minister referred to the problem of the six-day licences. It was a thorny problem and, as he said, it was long and carefully examined during the debate in Dáil Éireann. Having regard to all the pros and cons of the matter, I am satisfied that the provisions in the Bill are the best in the circumstances. There are many other points in this 40-Section Bill which are best suited to discussion on Committee Stage, on which I hope to offer some observations at the appropriate time.

I should like to add my tribute to those already expressed about the work of the Commission and to the chairman and members of the Commission. Although it is not covered by this Bill, I should like to congratulate the Minister for Finance on giving effect to an important recommendation in the Commission's report, that is, instituting a standard rate of excise duty in place of the system based on rateable valuation which has existed for 50 or 100 years.

One small point which I should like to ventilate is that in the days of the British occupation, it was illegal for any publican to display a flag over his premises. I could appreciate the reasons which the British had for that ban and I should like to know if it still obtains. If it does, it is high time it was lifted so that publicans can enjoy the same rights as every other citizen. I am mentioning this now only because we may not have another Liquor Bill for a long time and this opportunity might be availed of, if the Minister thinks fit to attend to that matter.

When this Bill is enacted, we shall have a law covering the sale of beer and spirits which will command respect and which the Garda can enforce and enforce with public opinion and public support behind them in rural as well as in urban Ireland. I must, with Senator Hayes, compliment the Minister for Justice and his officials on the excellent explanatory memorandum which accompanied the Bill. Because this memorandum was written in English and not in gobble-de-gook, it was a great help to all of us and I strongly support Senator Hayes in his suggestion that the tables should, if possible, be inserted in this Bill. The Minister had an unenviable task in trying to reconcile so many conflicting views on this highly controversial problem. In my opinion, he has done a very good job and has produced an excellent Bill, an excellent Bill in the circumstances, and I think it will commend itself to the House.

Mr. Barry

I shall be able to squeeze what I have to say into a few minutes. I do want to say that Senator Ó Maoláin continues to amaze me with his encyclopaedic knowledge of nearly everything. I think he should produce a handbook for the perambulating imbiber. The Minister was pessimistic on the closing stages of this Bill in the Dáil when he said that the Seanad might take some time to deal with it. I think that all that has to be said was said in the Dáil and there is not much for us to do because I can see nothing that we can improve in what is before us.

There are two important changes in our licensing laws. The countryman can now get his drink on Sundays. That is desirable. He might have done so before but he did not do so legally. And the bona fide abuse is contained and I think that is desirable. I agree with the Minister that any attempt to provide compensation in the case would be deplorable. In regard to the night hours of closing, it is something we can leave for Committee Stage. It is perhaps a bit too late but then no man is compelled to keep open. I think Senator Hayes is extremely unreliable in a matter of this kind. He has no experience of it at all.

I do want to say this: there has been a great deal of exaggeration about Irish drinking. Even to-day, we had a trade union leader making an unreal and unwarranted and sensational speech which was a completely foolish utterance and I think it time we should say something like that in public. There is much less drinking to-day than there was in my boyhood. A drunken man is a most rare sight in our streets. The days of Lover and Charles Lever are gone for ever and the excesses they wrote about are gone because the things that caused them are gone—the hopelessness and misery of the common Irishman. In those days, drink was a kind of curtain behind which he retired. The Irish drinker is a well conducted man and so is the house of the Irish publican. Of course the price of alcohol is a Pioneer pin in itself.

Mr. O'Quigley

Certainly it is a pin-prick.

Mr. Barry

I have been thinking about the question of penalties and I want the Minister to consider, before we get to the later Stages, whether making a closing order for one, two, three or maybe four days might not be quite effective as a penalty for a publican. After all, we all know that after-hours drinking brings the law into contempt. There I agree with Senator Ó Maoláin. That is one of the things that would be attractive. There is a kind of easy attractiveness about 24 hours open. Let them open when they like and close when they like and we shall not have this breaking of the law. That is a bad thing if it has to be done by decent people, and we have all done it—everyone of us. The only drawback is that in the countries where there is no legal hour, bad drinkers tend to become worse, and there are bad drinkers in all societies.

If I had the power to make any change, and I think it is a good proposal, I would put a "closed" notice on the bar stating that it was closed for 24 hours, 48 hours or 72 hours, because the owner had broken the law. That would be more effective than any financial penalty. If I had the power I would do it, and I think the majority of good law-abiding publicans would be pleased about it, because they see their law-breaking colleagues making profits. That must be very irritating to them.

As I said, there is not much to be said on this Bill. It is good law and I welcome it. I welcome it as one who has a great deal of experience— sometimes regrettably so.

Business suspended at 6.5 p.m. and resumed at 7.15 p.m.

Mr. Murphy

Might I follow the example of the other speakers by declaring my interest immediately? I am not a teetotaller. Indeed, I think, without any disrespect to the Minister or his predecessor, that they might be better qualified to deal with intoxicating liquor legislation and its enforcement, if they took a drink in moderation.

However, let me be serious. This is a very important measure and I want to make some comments on what I regard as the four principal features of the Bill: first—and certainly the most important—the extension of the facilities, the later closing hours for all public houses; secondly, the change in the Sunday trading hours; thirdly, the Sunday opening outside the county boroughs; and fourthly, the repeal of the provisions for bona fide trading.

In regard to the first feature, that is, the extension to 11.30 p.m. and 11.0 p.m., quite frankly, I feel that the Minister and the Bill have gone too far. I was left with the impression, from the very start, that the Minister brought in these hours in the Bill without being terribly serious about them at all. He perhaps was expecting such pressure and such opposition that he gave himself room in which to pull back and compromise. I was rather disappointed, therefore, in listening to his speech this afternoon, to hear a firm declaration that the Government were not prepared to compromise at all on the closing hours. However, I hope that having listened to Senators who may have views similar to my own, the Minister will take another look at the problem.

I agree right away that 10 p.m. closing during the winter hours is rather too early. It is a hardship to people who take a drink. It is just that bit too early, and from my own experience and from speaking to people who do take drinks, the impression I have got is that there would be fairly general satisfaction all round if the closing time were 10.30 p.m. all the year round. Instead, in this measure, it is proposed to have 11.30 p.m. from June to September inclusive and 11 p.m. for the rest of the year. In spite of what the Minister and Senator Ó Maoláin said, I do not agree that there is any real demand for the extension.

I would divide the people affected by this change into three categories, namely, the public, the publicans and the employees. Let us consider the public for a moment, the people who take a drink, and see what sort of demand there is for pubs remaining open until 11.30 p.m. during the summer months. I do not think there is any real demand. Since this Bill was introduced, I have taken the opportunity of exchanging viewpoints with people and I am satisfied that there is no real demand, anyway in the city of Dublin, for the pubs to remain open until 11.30 p.m. from the public who take a drink.

We are told about the tourists, and Senator Ó Maoláin took us on a rather entertaining tour this afternoon; but let us think about the people who come to visit Ireland. Do any of us imagine for a moment that those people outside who try to make up their minds what countries they will visit for a holiday go through the brochures—they would not get the information there, incidentally—or make inquiries as to what are the drinking facilities, the opening and closing hours in Ireland, as compared with other countries, and make their decision as to whether or not they will visit Ireland on that basis, or that indeed, it would affect them in any way?

Let us look at it from another viewpoint. I should imagine that if I could afford to go to the Continent for a holiday, I would not be very interested in finding out at what hours the pubs closed in Denmark or Italy or any such information, even though I like to take a drink. It would not affect the issue. and I do not think it materially affects the extent of tourism in this country.

In any case, let us look at the type of tourist who comes here. Apart from our own people visiting us for the holidays, the large majority of what I would term really valuable tourists are generally middle-aged couples, sometimes with their children, from Britain. These people are not really interested as to whether the public houses close at 10.30 p.m. or 11.30 p.m. during the summer months when they visit Ireland; indeed, I think that they would be rather horrified at the prospect of public houses remaining open until 11.30 p.m. These people come into the public houses for a drink and usually they go away before the closing hour as it exists at present.

I think we should therefore write down very much the argument that it would be good for the tourist industry to have a later closing hour. I do not think that is so, and I appeal to the common sense of Senators and ask them to think about that matter and see if they would not agree that my approach is right and logical, and that in fact there is no great merit in the argument that the public houses should remain open because the tourists might like it and might come here in greater numbers if we kept them open longer.

There is another section of the public involved in this—not the drinking public, not the tourist but the public who do not take a drink at all. They have rights as well as we people who take a drink. Most public houses are not situated up the sides of mountains. Usually they are situated in centres of population. Look at any public house you may frequent. You usually find houses nearby with people and children living in them. Those people have rights as well as anybody else.

Even as it is, their rights are, I suppose, somewhat interfered with by the fact that people are leaving the public houses at 10.30 or 11 p.m. and, at that stage of the evening, with a few drinks. The car doors are banging and the people living nearby do not get to sleep until well after 11 p.m. Under this proposal, they can look forward to an extra hour's wait at night until finally the people have cleared away from the neighbouring public house. There are very few public houses which are not situated somewhat near places where people are residing. These people, as well as the people taking a drink, have rights. This proposal would be a hardship on them, especially when there is no really well-established demand that the public houses should be kept open for that hour later during the summer months.

I hope I do not sound like a hypocrite to the Seanad when I say that other people have rights. The families of people who go for a drink must be considered. It is not very good for family life when the people who take a drink stay out for an hour longer during the summer months or an hour longer during the year. You may easily answer me by saying: "There is nothing to compel these people to stay out. They need not go to the public houses. They can go away at the existing hours." Bear in mind that we are talking about the taking of drink. Senator Ó Maoláin said something about our being rational beings. It struck me that certainly when I take a drink or two, I am less rational than I was before. Bear in mind also that we are talking about public houses, about drinking habits, about the taking of intoxicating liquor.

We come to the second group affected by these proposed changes, the publicans. A few years ago, if you told publicans there was a prospect of later closing hours, they would have been delighted. When you talk to them now and ask their opinion on the proposal to allow the public houses to remain open an hour later at night, you do not find any enthusiasm. Like the people who drink— and drink in moderation, maybe— they express the view that 10.30 p.m. is late enough and that if it were 10.30 p.m. all the year round, they would be quite satisfied, provided the law is enforced and the public houses —theirs as well as all the others— closed at that hour.

Publicans are also affected by the situation which will develop in houses where trade union people are employed. The trade unions involved have made it quite clear that their people will not work the extended hours, unless some arrangement is made with the employers for shift work. In other words, if they remain open until 11.30 p.m., the publicans will have to agree with the trade unions to shift work, to more assistants being employed. That will entail a consequential effect on their profits and, I think, a consequential effect on the price of drink. This would be all right but when you reach the situation that there is a fair prospect of an increase in the price of drink in respect of an hour which is not really required by the drinking public, the situation is rather Gilbertian.

Let me come back again to the position of the employees. These are human beings. These are the people in the public houses up to 11.30 p.m. and for probably half an hour or an hour afterwards, clearing up. They are not taking a drink. To be sober, without a drink at that hour of the morning, and to be dealing with a drinking public, must be difficult. I pity the people concerned. The situation with them is that if this goes through unamended, they will finish work when public transport is off the streets. That is a hardship on them and it may have an adverse effect on their health.

It has been drawn to my attention that, as well as the assistants we usually meet in public houses, there are female workers who also will have to work an hour later than they do at present. One of the unions involved in this told me, and I accept what they say, that the effect on their membership will be that more of them will emigrate. Already, there is not that disposition amongst the people who generally come from the country and take jobs in public houses here to stick to the trade as there was formerly. There is an inclination to emigrate. If they must put up with the hardship of working an hour later every night, the trade union is satisfied that more of them will emigrate, that fewer of them will stick to the trade.

I think Senators will agree with me in what I am about to say in respect of trade union houses in Dublin. The employees there are, generally speaking of a very good type. It is also true to say that trade union houses are very well conducted. According to the trade union concerned, they will not agree to work these extended hours, unless there can be agreement with the publicans for shift work, which will put up the cost for the publican. It will also inevitably put up the cost of drink. Furthermore, there will be that extra pressure on these assistants to chuck the job and emigrate to Britain where they think they will get more satisfactory employment.

To come back to the arguments in favour of later closing, one is tourism; another which was touched upon by the Minister this afternoon was the difficulty of enforcing the law as it stands at the moment. I think the Minister said it was impossible. A sort of general principle seems to be thrown out that what has not the support of the general public is not a good law. In other words, if enough of us do not care to observe the law, on that basis of reasoning the law is not a good law and apparently a serious attempt should not be made to enforce it.

It is quite true—I shall agree with the Minister—that it is impossible to enforce the licensing law as it exists at the moment, not because people do not like the licensing hours but simply because the habit has grown up over the years of saying: "Ah well, it is all right; we will not bother attempting to enforce these laws." Apart from the trade union houses in Dublin where the employees themselves enforce the law, there is not a real disposition to have the law implemented. In this democracy, it is for the Oireachtas to pass the laws and for the Minister and the people appointed to enforce them, not to express the opinion that the law might not be very much good and that they would not bother making an attempt to enforce it.

I am not engaging in general criticism on this, but from my experience there is the disposition among the people appointed to enforce the law to say: "Ah, it is not very much good. The public do not generally observe it so really we should not bother too much about it." If the law as it may now be amended is not to be respected by the public, does that make it a bad law? Are we wasting our time trying to enact legislation, trying to lay down closing and opening hours if next year people do not observe the law and it is therefore a bad law? I shall not go into traffic offences as that is out of order, but it is generally accepted that if a law is not generally observed by the public, it is not a good law. That is very bad reasoning and very bad in a democracy. The Oireachtas is here to enact legislation and it is for the Minister, for the Gardaí and their officers, to see that the law as passed by the Oireachtas is enforced.

The second major change in this legislation is Sunday opening and again I feel that the Minister has possibly gone a little too far. I feel strongly that 7 p.m. is late enough for closing on a Sunday because it is Sunday. I do not want the Seanad to think me a hypocrite in any way, but on Sunday in Ireland 7 p.m. is late enough. The Bill proposes that public houses should open before last Mass is over and stay open when evening devotions are on. Again do not think me a hypocrite, but I do think that in Ireland 7 p.m. is late enough for public houses to close on one day of the week. What we are asked to approve here is a closing hour of 9 p.m. from June to September inclusive and 8 p.m. for the rest of the year. I do not think it would be any hardship on the drinking public or on tourists if they were asked to leave the public house on one day of the week, Sunday, by 7 p.m.

The Minister, in introducing the Bill, sounded very uncompromising but I hope that if there are enough Senators who think like me, we may be able to persuade him to change his mind on these major issues: the 11.30 p.m. closing on weekdays and the 9 p.m. closing on Sundays.

I welcome what the Minister is doing regarding bona fide trading. I welcome the abolition of this trade and the bad practices that have grown up with it, but I wonder is it being introduced in a slightly different form in the provision that drink will be served with meals, or maybe meals served with drink, for an hour later in a part of the premises apart from the public bar. I do not think, however, that that is any major problem because it is only one hour and I should not imagine that people leaving a public house in Dublin at 11.30 p.m. or 11 p.m. in winter will be disposed to drive out to one of these establishments in the suburbs for the sake of another hour to get more drink. I do not think that is any great danger at all, but there is one anomaly which I see in the proposals. On Sundays— during the winter—there is provision for two hours extra to serve drink with meals after the normal closing hour. There would, I think, in those circumstances exist a temptation to do the bona fide for the sake of those two extra hours. That is an anomaly which I hope the Minister will look at. I do not think an hour extra is a grave problem but two hours would be a problem and might tempt people when they are less rational than they ordinarily are to drive out to a place in the suburbs to continue drinking.

I want to appeal to the Seanad to look carefully at this Bill. There is no real demand for these longer drinking hours from the drinking public, from the publicans or from the employees who will be affected. Apart from those altogether, there are the general public and their rights in the matter. I think the Seanad would be doing a disservice if it passed the Bill as it stands and if it did not appeal to the good sense of the Minister to look again at this question of the closing hour at night and the closing hour on Sundays. Those are important measures. The public will not really thank us for an 11.30 p.m. closing on weekdays or a 9 p.m. closing on Sundays. They do not really want it. They would be quite satisfied with a 10.30 p.m. closing all the year round. Try it yourselves. If you take a drink, try talking to the people you meet, to the publicans and to the people working there and you will find that there is practically a unanimous viewpoint that a 10.30 p.m. all the year round closing, with the law being enforced, would be satisfactory to everybody.

Éamon Ó Ciosáin

Is maith liom a chloisint ó na Seanadóirí a labhair ar an mBille seo go bhfuil fáilte acu roimis. Cuirim fíor-chaoin fáilte roimis féin mar táim sásta go bhfuil na hathraithe seo atá ins an mBille ag teastáil. An dlí fé mar atá sí go dtí seo, tá sí mí-oiriúnach don saol atá anois ann agus traoslaím leis an Aire mar gheall ar go dtuigeann sé sin.

Maidir le Billí den tsórt seo a bhaineann le hiompair agus le nósanna imtheachta na ndaoine, is ceart tuairimí na ndaoine a chur san áireamh agus tagann athrú ar na tuairimí sin uaireannta le h-imtheacht aimsire.

I find it very difficult to follow the line of argument pursued by the last speaker, Senator Murphy. He complains that the hours of closing, as proposed in the Bill, are not suitable in the city of Dublin, 11 p.m. for the winter months and 11.30 p.m. for the summer months. If the publicans of Dublin, or anywhere else, find that these hours are too late, as the Senator suggests they are, there is nothing in the Bill to prevent them from coming to an agreement among themselves in regard to having an earlier closing. This extension of closing time by one hour is not mandatory on any publican. The law will be permissive in this respect and if people have, as indeed they have, organisations of their own, there is nothing, as I have said, in the Bill to prevent them from coming to any agreement they like as to when they will close, provided they do it within the law.

The Senator also referred to what he said the public want and what they do not want and that we should not take that into account at all. I do not agree with him at all on that point, either. I think one of the criteria that should guide us in a measure like this is public opinion. A Minister, or a Government, or legislators, must always have regard to public opinion and anybody who tries to run counter to public opinion is running into difficulty. There is no doubt about that. Everybody knows that the licensing law as it stands has not got public opinion behind it and it is because of that that the Garda authorities find it difficult to put it into effect. It is the same, of course, in every walk of life. Whoever is in charge of any Bill brought in here to regulate the welfare and habits of the people must always have regard to what the people think. That is democracy, is it not? If anybody tries to get any piece of legislation enacted against the wishes of the people, he is doing something which is undemocratic.

Personally I believe that what we are doing here in passing this Bill is a good thing and that the changes enshrined in the Bill will bring about a better understanding of the law, a better appreciation of the law, and that it will enable the Garda authorities to do their duty with the co-operation and appreciation of the people. The law as it stands is outmoded and I congratulate the Minister on his courage in bringing in this Bill so as to bring the licensing laws into conformity with present day requirements.

Reference has been made to the bona fide traffic. We are all agreed that the time had come when the abuses that had grown up around the bona fide traffic had to be eliminated. At the same time, in eliminating these abuses, we should try to make sure that as little dislocation as possible takes place in other directions. Of course different problems arise in connection with a Bill like this. You have the metropolitan outlook and the urban outlook and the needs and outlook of the people in these different places.

While I entirely approve of the abolition of the bona fide regulations, there is another thing not very far removed from that to be considered. I refer to the discretion which district justices had up to now in granting an area exemption order in special circumstances. This discretion which district justices had is now being taken away under this Bill. Since that is so, I am inclined to think that the tourist industry in certain parts of the country will be affected. My submission is that a way could be found to do away with the bona fide traffic without removing entirely this discretion to grant area exemption orders. I refer, of course, to seaside resorts. It may be argued that they are now being given extra hours on Sunday but those extra hours on Sunday may not suit them—that is from 5 o'clock to 9 o'clock. We have, of course, to look at this matter from the point of view of the people in those areas and also from the point of view of tourism.

Sunday closing at 9 o'clock in tourist centres such as Ballybunion which is the leading seaside holiday centre in the country and in which I am naturally interested since I come from there, is too early for their requirements there. At present they can obtain an area exemption order which enables them to open from 8 to 11. This has been found to operate very satisfactorily and it is a serious step to do anything that would interfere with it. They have but a short tourist season there and the livelihood of the business people there depends on it. I appeal to the Minister therefore to consider between now and Committee Stage leaving it in the power of the people in these tourist areas to make application to the District Court as heretofore to obtain whatever opening hours they find suitable from experience. I make that suggestion to the Minister and perhaps he will consider it between now and Committee Stage.

A lot has been said on this Bill already. As the Minister said, we have the advantage of having been able to read the report of the debate in the Dáil. Sometimes I do not know whether or not that is an advantage. It could be a disadvantage because there are so many conflicting views on measures of this kind that one would be just as well off not to read the report at all. In any event, the general view is that a change in the licensing laws was necessary. I do not know whether in the operation of this Bill, it will be found that other points will arise that should be dealt with. Other aspects of the case may present themselves. It is not easy to look ahead and cater for changing circumstances. If they do arise and if there are any aspects of the licensing laws which this Bill does not deal with, there is nothing to prevent the Minister from bringing in amending legislation at a later stage.

Senator Ó Maoláin mentioned the question of the owners of public houses, the licensees, not being able to display the national flag on their premises. He suggested, I think, that something should be done in this Bill to change that situation. As a matter of fact, it is being done in this Bill. The change which is envisaged is contained in the Schedule to the Bill which refers to Sections 8 and 9 of the Licensing (Ireland) Act, 1836.

Tomás Ó Maoláin

It is well camouflaged.

Éamon Ó Ciosáin

It is a bit camouflaged and it requires a bit of study.

Tomás Ó Maoláin

I have never read the Licensing (Ireland) Act, 1836.

Éamon Ó Ciosáin

In this Bill we are repealing Sections 8 and 9 of that Act which deals with that very matter of the display of flags and things like that. There is a bit of history behind that, but we shall not go into it now.

Mr. O'Quigley

There can be no doubt at all that the time had long since come to make some amendment of the licensing laws. The Minister is to be congratulated on the effort he has made to reform the licensing laws and make them conform somewhat more closely to modem requirements and modern needs.

There are a number of issues in this Bill upon which there will never be agreement or anything like unanimity. I hope that notwithstanding what the Minister has said, his mind is not closed to suggestions which may come from this House and if he should happen to find a large measure of agreement upon a particular aspect of this Bill, I should hope the Minister would take serious note of any such unanimity of opinion. Everyone would be agreed that the creation of unanimity of trading hours throughout the country is absolutely desirable. It will make for easier enforcement of the law and easier observance of the law on the part of the drinking public.

There has been a great deal of controversy about the extension of drinking facilities on Sundays to rural Ireland. In my view, it has taken a considerable amount of courage to face up to that problem and to deal with it. The view I take of the extension of drinking facilities to rural Ireland on Sundays is quite a simple one. There has been no objection on any grounds, moral or otherwise, to the granting of these facilities in the cities up to the present time. The drinking of intoxicating liquor, per se, is not wrong; drinking on Sunday in one's home is not wrong; drinking in a public place or in a public house on Sunday is not wrong; therefore, the extension of drinking facilities to rural Ireland on Sundays, in my view, is not wrong.

In the interests of the people living there and, having regard to the number of disabilities under which they live and to the fact that there is so much migration and emigration from rural Ireland, the extension of drinking facilities to the people in rural Ireland is well warranted. There is nothing that could be said against it on moral grounds. On that aspect of the Bill it appears to me that the hours which are provided—12.30 p.m. to 2 p.m.— are far preferable to the hours which were contained in the Bill as introduced.

I do not agree that the hours of 5 p.m. to 9 p.m. or 5 p.m. to 8 p.m. on Sunday are in any way suited to the needs of rural Ireland. It would appear as if a facility is being given to the people in the country by saying they can drink on Sunday afternoons on the one hand, and effectively taken away from them on the other hand, because in my experience it is between 5 p.m. and 7 p.m., 7.30 p.m., or 8 p.m. that the farmers and farm workers are getting in the cows, foddering them, milking them, putting the milk in the churns and straining it. Then they have their evening meal, and it is only some time after 7 p.m. or 7.30 p.m., that they are ready to clean up and go anywhere. That is quite common throughout the country.

I must say that it rather baffles me how the hours 5 p.m. to 8 p.m. in wintertime or 5 to 9 in summertime could in any sense be considered suitable for rural Ireland. If we want to grant people reasonable facilities for drinking on Sunday, certainly 5 p.m. to 9 p.m. is not suitable. If I had the decision in the matter, I would say something like from 7 p.m. to 10 p.m. would be much more reasonable and much more suitable.

Even from the point of view of the people living in the towns, I very much doubt if 5 p.m. to 9 p.m. or 5 p.m. to 8 p.m. is a suitable period. Again, for people in my age group and circumstances who have children, it is not uncommon, as far as my experience in or around Dublin is concerned, particularly at the week-ends, for fathers of young families to give assistance to their wives on Sunday, to give them that day free as far as possible from domestic cares. The very hours at which husbands are most needed at home, are the hours from 5 p.m. to 7 p.m. or 5 p.m. to 8 p.m. in getting the children their tea and putting them to bed. Again, for that type of individual, the hours of 5 p.m. to 8 p.m. seem to be quite unsuited. That category of people form a fairish proportion of the drinking classes of the city. I realise there is a certain desire to facilitate people who attend football matches and things like that on Sunday. They do not by any means form anything near a majority of the people in the community. I think that from the point of view of the farmers and even people in the city, the hours straddling the normal ordinary tea hour of 6 p.m. to 7 p.m. on Sundays are not suitable. I do hope that the Minister, when we come to the Committee Stage, will be at least susceptible to opinions which will be expressed on this aspect of the Bill.

With regard to the late closing hours. Senator Ó Ciosáin is entirely correct. It is the kind of thing one expects from a lawyer. The hours are not mandatory. Everybody knows that. We are sometimes inclined to forget that Senator Ó Ciosáin is a lawyer. While they are not mandatory in law, as a practical proposition, people will expect publicans to keep open for the full stretch which they are allowed under this Bill. It would be quite impossible, unless human nature and particularly the Irish version of it has changed, to get people who want a few extra drinks out of the public house at 8 o'clock on a Sunday evening in summer because the publican says: "I have an agreement with the trade unions that we should close at 8 o'clock."

I do not think it would be possible in the first place to get all publicans to agree to that kind of self-imposed restriction. It would probably be possible to get the trade unions to agree to that but I do not believe that you would ever get all publicans in an area prepared to impose restrictions upon themselves within the limits fixed by this Bill. Therefore, in regard to the hour of 11.30 p.m. I take the view —it is my experience—that that particular hour is too late for summertime drinking as is also the hour of 11 p.m. in wintertime.

My experience of the drinking habits of sober people who like a drink and who form, I think, the overwhelming majority of the drinkers in this country is that they have a certain amount of money in the week which they can spend on having a few drinks on so many nights in the week. I think it is common practice that people will leave their homes in the winter time at say ten minutes to 9 o'clock and get down to the local at 9 o'clock. If they want to, they have an hour in which to drink. They never want to be in the pub for longer than an hour and if they are they will spend more money than they should. Consequently, if the hours are extended to 11 o'clock, it will, in effect, mean that they will not leave their houses until an hour later, at say ten to 10 o'clock. They will go down to the local and come home some time after 11 o'clock.

I know quite a number of people who do not want to be put in that position. They know perfectly well that if they leave at ten minutes to 9 o'clock—as they have been accustomed to—and wander down to the local for a few pints, when it comes to 10 o'clock they are not going to go home at that hour. All the inclination will be to stay on. They will find themselves spending more money than they ought to. That is the strong objection that has been raised to the extension of the hour to 11 o'clock in wintertime and 11.30 in summertime. That is a recognised habit among many people in this city.

In fact, I have noticed, attending meetings of various kinds, that if there is any chance a meeting would end at 8.30 something becomes extremely important around a quarter past 8 and the discussion goes on until about 9 o'clock or ten past 9, because people do not want to go into a public house for a longer time than an hour or whatever is their usual drinking time. That is a deeply ingrained habit and a way people have for remaining both sober and financially solvent.

While there is something to be said for a compromise between the 12 o'clock bona fide and the 10 p.m. or 10.30 p.m. non-bona fide at the present time, I think the hours of 11.30 p.m. in summertime and 11 p.m. in wintertime are each half an hour too late. On that aspect of the Bill, I do not suppose we shall be able to shift the Minister but I hope that in that connection and in connection with other aspects of the Bill, if time shows that public habits are stronger and more resistant to legislation than is expected at the present time and if it becomes clear that these hours are not suitable whoever happens to be the Minister in two, three, five or seven years' time when these deficiencies show themselves will see to it that this kind of legislation will be amended. I do not think it would be fair that any Minister should be expected to anticipate public tastes and public requirements in a matter of this kind with such accuracy that the legislation may not require to be amended at some time in the future.

I further welcome the abolition of the bona fide drinking traffic. I do not think it is necessary to add anything to what has already been said on that. It has long since been an anomaly since the introduction of fast means of transport. Perhaps the abolition of bona fide drinking may be one of the greatest contributions that can be made to road safety. A great deal of the night-time traffic accidents occur as a result of people going out to bona fide premises, tanking themselves up with an undue amount of liquor, and then driving home fast and furious. In this regard the Minister is incidentally making what I believe is a substantial contribution to road safety.

I do not at all agree with the views expressed so entertainingly by Senator Ó Maoláin about having no drinking hours whatever. He gave us a most entertaining dissertation on the licensing laws of nearly a dozen countries, and somewhat reminded me of myself giving a review of the constitutions of the world on the occasion of a particular Bill here around this time last year, but whereas my task was a very dry and dusty one, his was obviously a labour of love. One gathered the impression that if one were on holiday on the continent with him, one would have a real rollicking time and need never be short of a drink.

There is one very important point that does arise out of what he said. When he mentioned the fact that they have no drinking hours in France, it brought back to me something I saw in the papers a year or eighteen months ago, that the cost of alcoholism in France was as high as the cost of the Algerian war to the French people, and the Algerian war was at that time costing something like £365 million a year. I do not think that it behoves us in those circumstances to follow the primrose path of the French. We have our own peculiar drinking habits and temperament, and in regard to legislation of this kind, we ought to legislate having full regard not alone, as Senator Ó Cíosáin has pointed out, to public opinion but also to public habits and our own particular temperament.

Neither do I think that our legislation in regard to drinking should hinge upon the requirements of tourists. The Minister would do well to ignore that kind of pressure because in fact what many people want when they come to this country is a change, and some people require a quieter time than they can get in England or France or coun tries of the kind Senator Ó Maoláin referred to. If we have our own individual peculiar kind of drinking laws, they provide at least a topic of conversation for tourists, and seldom a topic of complaint, because most of the tourists and visitors are inclined to go to bed a great deal earlier than the native inhabitants and they do not require very long drinking hours. The contrary is the position.

With regard to enforcement of the law, I share the view so clearly put by Senator Murphy upon the failure up to the present to enforce the law, whatever it be. It is regrettable to say that a law becomes a bad law when it is sufficiently often and widely broken and disrespected. That is an extremely bad principle, and I trust that in so far as the impression has been given that that is the reason for amending the licensing laws, that impression will be corrected. The fact that a former Minister did not regard as wrong deliberate breaches of the law does not seem to me to justify the present Minister saying that those laws were bad because they were not respected and obeyed.

Whatever the law is for the time being, whether it is licensing hours or, as we had in this House last week, an old and dusty charter, it should be obeyed and enforced. That is a principle on which we ought all to stand, and I trust that the Minister will take an early opportunity of correcting the impression that the way to effect repeal or amendment of any particular law is by widespread public disobedience to it and breaches of it.

Another point of great controversy in this measure was the position of the six-day licensees. I am glad the Minister found some kind of solution to the position of six-day licensees on the Report Stage of the Bill in the Dáil. Views may differ as to the practicability of a six-day licensee being able to pay a fine of £200. I think it would have been better if the fine were somewhat smaller, but the Minister has gone a fair distance to meet the difficult position in which those six-day licensees might have found themselves.

There is one point I want to mention to the Minister at this stage. It may well happen in particular cases that a six-day licensee may not within the period provided in this Bill be able to convert a six-day licence into a seven-day licence because he may not be able to raise the money. That could happen in particular circumstances where perhaps he has recently renovated his public house or had unusual expenditure and this difficult situation will arise. I know a number of six-day licensed premises which are half-way houses between different towns and which are quite near the parish churches in the particular areas. Everybody knows that the public house with the six-day licence is open on Sunday, and he can get what drink he wants.

That position will not obtain if this Bill becomes law, but if it should happen that within the prescribed period, a six-day licensee has not converted his licence into a seven-day one, it seems to me that an extremely anomalous situation will be created. In such circumstances, it will be virtually impossible for the six-day licensee to remain closed on Sunday, because he will know that the people in town A are able to go in after Mass and have what drink they like and people in town B on the other side can do the same but people going to Mass at a particular church within a stone's throw of these licensed premises will not be able, because of the poverty or financial stringency of the licensee, to get a drink.

That situation may well obtain and I suggest that the principle of the fine of £200 might be extended to enable people not financially well off to pay it over a period and so convert their six-day licence into a seven-day licence within the period set out in the Bill.

As has already been said, the Bill is one which best lends itself to treatment on Committee. I congratulate the Minister on the courage he has shown in introducing this measure and on the resilience he has shown in accepting a number of amendments to it during its passage through the Dáil. I trust that by the time the Bill leaves this House, the Minister will have shown himself to be a person open to persuasion and that he may be able to accept some amendments on which I believe there will be a fair degree of unanimity.

Mr. Lenihan

In principle, I agree with Senator Ó Maoláin that the proper situation should be that there would be no restriction as to closing hours. That would be the ideal situation. In time, as public opinion becomes used to it, I think we shall have that situation here. In the circumstances of to-day and as opposition to the Bill has shown, it would not be practicable in our community to introduce such a sweeping measure but the ideal situation would be if there were no such restrictions, combined with a very strict enforcement of high standards of hygiene and sanitation and very strong penalties for drunkenness or excessive drinking to any degree. For that reason, I believe this Bill is excellent. It is progressive inasmuch as it is reforming existing legislation. It is moving in the right direction.

This Bill is an attempt to bring our licensing legislation into accord with the way of thinking of people in our community to-day. In that respect, I disagree entirely with the rather fantastic theory put forward by Senator Murphy that no Government should have any regard for public opinion in the formulation of legislation. Public opinion must surely be a very weighty factor to be considered by any Government in a democratic community. If the views of people or of a large section of people are flouted in legislation, then there will be trouble. It is not the job of the legislature to impose a moral code. Its laws must be in accordance with morality but there is no obligation on the legislature of any country to impose a moral code. That is a matter for another authority.

The classical example of the danger in trying to impose a certain point of view too strictly and in disregard of public opinion is the attempt in the United States in the 1920s, the prohibition days, to bar the sale of drink entirely. That was one of the major causes of the greatest outburst of crime ever in that community. It is a classical example of the terrible dangers involved in a legislature going too far in flouting public opinion in an effort to pursue some supposedly moral course. The notion that no account should be taken of public opinion in the formulation of legislation is entirely fallacious.

Nobody has any regard for the present licensing legislation. Public opinion thinks it is a joke. Let us face it. The view of 99 per cent. of the people in the country to-day is that the licensing laws are a joke. It is a very reasonable view when anybody can get a drink in any public house in any town I know of in rural Ireland any time up to midnight on a week day and up to 10 o'clock on Sundays. That situation is bad for the morale of people. It is bad for the community that legislation should exist for which there is no respect and observance.

Mr. Murphy

The law is not enforced.

Mr. Lenihan

The enforcement of a law which has not the co-operation of the community can lead only to repression, trouble and danger. The main argument against more liberal hours is, again, a moral argument that it will lead to more drinking. I do not think that is a well-founded argument. The two limiting factors on the consumption of drink are economics and the physical capacity of the consumer. I do not think that extending the hours will lead to increased drinking. Anybody who wants to drink more can do so under existing trading hours. The limiting factors are money and the physical capacity to consume the drink. Therefore, the argument that extended hours will lead to more drinking falls to the ground.

The two main principles of the Bill are uniformity of trading hours and extended trading hours. From the administrative point of view, uniformity is to be desired and, from the enforcement point of view, is very much to be desired. Nobody can have a word to say in favour of the bona fide traffic. It was unjustified and an archaic institution. It was time it was got got rid of from our Statute Book.

Most of the difficulties and disagreements I can think of in regard to the proposed hours arose from the fact that they are in accordance with the principle of unanimity. In other words, Senator O'Quigley can state, and I agree with him, that the Sunday opening hours in rural Ireland are not the best, that probably 6 p.m. to 10 p.m. or 7 p.m. to 11 p.m. might be better on Sunday evening in the country. However, we must consider the Dublin closing hours on Sunday evening and what the Dublin trade unions, the Dublin public and the Dublin publicans agree to. If we think the ideal time in the country is from 6 p.m. to 10 p.m. and the ideal hours in the city are from 5 p.m. to 7 p.m., or something of that nature and we incorporate these hours in legislation we straightway bring in the bona fide trade by the back door in having a differential in the trading hours.

Most of the disagreement on trading hours arose because people did not recognise that the principle of the Bill is the principle of uniformity. What suits Dublin may not suit the country and vice versa but each has to suffer a little in order to enshrine the principle of uniformity. The opening hours are a compromise and the only possible compromise in the circumstances. Taking the week day hours for the country, the ideal closing time would be 12 midnight all the year round.

I do not think that would be a practical proposition in Dublin. The argument as regards Dublin city would be for shorter opening hours. It is probably true as regards the proposed closing time that for Dublin city half an hour or an hour less would be ideal but for the country the ideal would be an hour more. In order to preserve the principle of uniformity, the Government have hit on 11.30 p.m. for the four summer months and 11 p.m. for the winter months all round —and I think rightly so. In order to preserve the basic principle of uniformity, a compromise has been arrived at. I think it is the only practical thing to do in the circumstances.

Rural Ireland entirely welcomes the change in respect of Sunday opening. Senator Murphy said that there was no public demand for this piece of legislation. We may have arguments about whether or not various aspects of it were a matter of public demand, but certainly in rural Ireland there was an overwhelming demand to legalise Sunday opening. There is no question of doubt on that. It was a complete anomaly, an insult to the people of rural Ireland. You had in this community of ours a state of affairs where the Dublin man was thought fit to serve a drink to on Sundays and the country man was not. That state of affairs was entirely anomalous and could not be defended on any rational basis. I welcome it more than any other single feature in the Bill and rural Ireland welcomes it, too.

We come up against the principle of uniformity again. In the country, I would say that the hours on Sunday evening should be 6 p.m. to 10 p.m. or 7 p.m. to 11 p.m. The ideal period would be 6 p.m. to 10 p.m. possibly but that would not be acceptable in Dublin city and it was fixed at 5 p.m. to 9 p.m. in summer and 5 p.m. to 8 p.m. in winter. Five p.m. to 8 p.m. in winter is too short. I would prefer 5 p.m. to 9 p.m. all the year round, winter and summer, but that is a detail.

I welcome the Minister's meeting the suggestion that the time should be changed from 1 p.m. to 3 p.m. to 12.30 p.m. to 2 p.m. on Sundays. That is very welcome and desirable.

Senator O'Quigley mentioned that 6 p.m. to 10 p.m. would be more desirable hours in the country on Sunday evening. One snag would arise, however, in relation to functions and fixtures, particularly football matches. People would be knocking around from 5 p.m. and undoubtedly they would want a drink. They would try to get it another way unless they are allowed to get it in law. Keeping in mind the principle of uniformity 5 p.m. to 9 p.m. is the proper time. It would be improved if it were 9 p.m. all the year instead of 8 p.m. in winter time.

Senator Murphy came out with another proposition regarding people working in the business. What are they in this business for? They are in the licensing business catering for the people and performing a service for the people. People working in taxis, in buses, in hotels or restaurants have to work various hours, some all night long. That is their job. It is necessary in their trade.

If people go into the licensed business, let them do it like people in the catering business in hotels, like night watchmen and night porters in hotels. Let them by all means fight for more pay and better conditions within those hours but I hold no brief for anybody who has to work at some particular hours, if that is necessary.

I do not see why public house assistants should be singled out as people who should get more particular treatment than people in other trades who work in a service capacity for the public.

There are smaller aspects of the Bill on which I disagree with the Minister. I disagree with Section 36 providing for compulsory endorsement on the second offence. Under existing legislation, if a licence is endorsed three times, it is automatically forfeited. I think it is rather harsh on the publican that endorsement should become compulsory or automatic, that the district justice should have no discretion but must endorse a publican's licence on his second offence. It means, in effect, that, after four offences, the publican loses his licence. I would be against it. I would prefer that he should be given a chance to the third offence.

Section 4 sets out longer hours in June, July, August and September. I think May and October could easily be added to that. Instead of four months, we should have six months of the year in which extended hours would apply.

I welcome very much the Minister's meeting of the case of the six-day publicans. They had a case morally, a case in justice, all along the line and the effect of the original Bill would have been to wipe them out of existence. They were met very fairly by the Minister. With regard to the £200 proviso, where they can apply to the Government and get a licence, I do not think many people would apply in that fashion. Its main effect is to operate as a ceiling wherein trading may be done for six-day and seven-day licences. The provision whereby six-day licensees can apply for and get a seven-day licence which comes on the market anywhere in the country will have more effect. Heretofore, he could apply only in his own or the adjoining district court area and now he can apply anywhere in the country for a seven-day licence or two six-day licences and become a seven-day licensee. If he acquires one in his own area, apart from his own, he can become a seven-day licensee. All those provisions will be widely used and in many cases prices will not exceed £100. There are 2,000 or 3,000 lapsed licences in the country which can be revived and purchased by a six-day licensee who wishes to do so. The provision that seven-day licences can be purchased anywhere from Cork to Donegal at a £200 ceiling will ensure free trading and will bring the licences to six-day people at a very cheap rate. This is a very welcome development in this legislation.

Senator Ó Ciosáin referred to hardship with regard to area exemption orders, and I think there is something in his point of view. I appreciate again that the abolition of area exemptions is in accordance with the major principle of uniformity. In other words, if you have an area exemption, you bring in the bona fide evil by the back door by trading outside normal hours, but there is a special case for tourist areas, and I think it might be met by area exemption orders up to two hours trading and no more. The present order for four hours on Sundays is supplanted by the present Bill which provides Sunday opening but only up to 9 o'clock. In many tourist areas during the summer, it would not be unreasonable to have trading on Sunday evening to 11 p.m. On a summer Sunday evening, drinking to 11 p.m. would not represent any evil at all.

If such exemption orders of two hours were available, it would result in applications being made for drinking from 9 p.m. to 11 p.m. or in some cases in the afternoon, from 3 p.m. to 5 p.m. In any case, I do not think the two hours incorporated in such an order would represent an evil. However, I do appreciate the Minister's difficulty that it would unfortunately bring in the state of affairs from which we are trying to get away. It would bring in the thing we are trying to get rid of, a differential in trading hours.

The main purpose of the Bill is to provide for uniformity in opening and closing and any such concessions of the sort I have mentioned, even to the extent of two hours, would reintroduce the evil at the back door. In spite of that, I think the tourist areas have a case. Anybody who has visited these places will appreciate that 9 o'clock on a summer evening, in many places on the west coast, for instance, when the night is still young and the sun is still shining, is a very early hour to expect festivities to finish. I do not think that the two hours' extension in such places, from 9 to 11 o'clock, would represent an evil. Even though it is against the main principle of the Bill, it would not bring in the evil which we had existing on the fringes of Dublin night after night. It would be principally confined to the local tourist resorts. I can, however, appreciate the Minister's difficulty as he is seeking to bring in the principle of uniformity.

Having some knowledge of drinking habits and coming from rural Ireland, I welcome the Bill. The Minister has had great difficulty in meeting the various viewpoints and in striking a balance between what is wanted in the city of Dublin and in the country. By and large, his Bill, with the amendments he brought in to meet the viewpoints expressed, is one to be welcomed and I congratulate him on it.

Miss Davidson

At the risk of being classified as one of Senator Ó Maoláin's killjoys, I oppose this Bill chiefly because its proposals will enable licensed premises to remain open for an hour longer. In spite of what has been said, the later hour will be the closing hour because there will be great difficulty in securing agreement between the publicans. If one remains open, they will all remain open. These longer hours will increase rather than diminish the dangers which arise from the excessive consumption of intoxicating drink.

So far as I have been able to discover, there has been no demand from any quarter for an extension of the hours beyond the existing hours of 10 p.m. in winter and 10.30 in the summer. To extend these hours to 11 and 11.30 p.m. will constitute a grave danger to the customers who will be tempted to drink for an additional hour, when this Bill is passed. As already pointed out, the proposed extension of hours will be a serious hardship on the workers engaged in the trade who, when the premises are closed, will have to tidy up, count cash, lock up and then endeavour to find transport to their homes which may be a very considerable distance away, and this after the normal public transport has ceased to operate.

I cannot find any reason for the proposed lengthening of the trading hours of these premises. Those who know the trade say that the public have never indicated any desire for extended hours; the owners do not want them; and there is ample evidence that tourists do not want them. Those engaged in the trade insist that tourists, and even the type of trippers who crowd into the cities on the occasion of international matches, all leave the public houses for their hotels and boarding houses long before the existing closing hours.

It is my belief that there is a grave danger in extending the weekday closing hour. We are all aware of the temptation, there is for a man to leave a cramped, maybe not too comfortable, home, where his wife might want to talk to him about the things he does not want to hear, such as the inadequacy of the housekeeping money to meet the ever increasing costs. It is no doubt a great temptation for a man wearied by his work to seek the cheery atmosphere of what used be called the "gin palaces". The result is that such a man, absent all day at his work, is also absent all evening in the public house until closing time. His wife and children see very little of him and certainly he is not on the spot to supervise the children who consequently may run the streets until he is due home. Now we, in this Bill, are seeking to allow this father and these children, to remain outside the home for an hour longer.

It may be said there is no reason why a man should remain until closing hour but we have the evidence of the workers in the trade that local drinkers tend to concentrate their drinking into the last hour before closing, no matter what that hour may be. The proposals contained in the Bill therefore make the real drinking hour an even later hour so that these people will emerge, at best, befuddled into the heavy home going traffic. If they are pedestrians, the danger is great; if they are drivers, they will be the greatest possible danger to themselves and the public at large.

Then, as mentioned before, there is the case of the employees who are having their conditions of employment very considerably worsened. These men understand the liquor trade and they maintain there is no need whatever for the longer hours. Many of them— assistants and bar managers—are family men who are purchasing houses in the suburban areas too far away to be reached by walking or by bicycle. They cannot afford cars and unless some change is made, public transport will have ceased when they are free to go home. As will be seen therefore, if the hours in the Bill are imposed, these workers cannot reach their homes until after midnight. After what we heard this afternoon, it would not be surprising if somebody came along and suggested the re-introduction of the iniquitous living-in system which was abolished in comparatively recent years after many years of struggle on the part of the trade unions.

There is very little chance for these men as their conditions stand, and there will be less when the Bill passes, to lead the normal family life to which all are entitled. Their children and their wives can rarely enjoy their company at home or on the normal outings of ordinary people. It would be more in keeping with the conditions and traditions of our country if the hours during which licensed premises are open for the consumption of intoxicating drink were shortened and that the employees were freed at an earlier hour and some steps taken to educate those who frequent public houses for long hours to appreciate that there are more edifying ways in which they can use their leisure time.

We are constantly hearing complaints about the decline in family life, the growth of juvenile delinquency, the regrettable lack of parental control with resultant over-freedom for children at too young an age. Yet we here are solemnly proposing to loosen further the home ties and the parental control by permitting fathers of families, freed from their daily work, to drink for an hour longer than usual, in many cases using up the housekeeping money in the process, and, on the other hand, compelling the workers in the trade to be away from their homes until long after midnight. To anyone interested in the future of the young people of the State the situation is one of the greatest concern.

Confessions being in order to-day, I shall state that I am not a frequenter of public houses, nor do I drink intoxicants, so lest I should be accused of lack of knowledge, it might be well to quote those who have expert knowledge of the trade. The trade unions of the workers engaged in the licensed premises have stated emphatically:

We are in a position to state that there is far too much drinking and that much of the money spent on drink should be devoted to domestic needs."

No less a person than the Most Rev. Dr. Browne, Bishop of Galway, has this to say:—

The traffic in drink is not like the fish and chip business, when a man stops when he has had enough.

The fundamental social fact is that drinking in this country does not mean the satisfaction of a natural thirst. With the habits of the Irish people, and the strength of beer and spirits consumed, drinking only too often leads to drunkenness and alcoholism. Who can ignore to-day the medical, social and economic moral effect of even moderate drinking, especially with the increase of motor traffic on our roads?

That quotation is taken from the Irish Times of 22nd February, 1960.

I should like here, without putting myself forward as another Carrie Nation, to air something regarding licensed premises that has often caused me to ponder deeply. It is the excessive and the increasing luxuriousness of some licensed premises. What chance has the mother of a family, working herself almost into ill-health in her efforts to keep a home together to keep her husband and her growing boys together in the home, with its limited facilities for amusement and its lack of luxury, in competition with the rose-lighted, mirrored glamour of the public house? Something should be done, if at all possible, to prevent the over-embellishment of these establishments.

With regard to Sunday opening, I cannot do better than to repeat the words of the Irish bishops who have described the proposals in the Bill as a

... mortal blow to the sacredness of the Christian Sunday that will increase servile labour and is an encouragement to intemperance and disorder as well as being a serious interference with religious devotions.

The existing arrangement of drinking hours on Sunday, where Sunday opening is permissible, are such as to lead the father of a family to be absent or late on the only day when it is possible for the whole family to dine together. The workers in the trade are, of course, banned from these family occasions, and the Bill proposes to extend the ban and to worsen the Sunday situation all round.

With regard to St. Patrick's Day, it it my opinion that on the Feast of our national Saint, the licensed premises should remain closed as at present. This day, like Christmas Day, should be a family day and I, for one, feel that by keeping the public houses closed, we shall help our people to realise there are better ways of using their leisure than in consuming, in the main, far too much intoxicating drink, to the danger of morals, of life and of limb.

All citizens are entitled to time free for their normal occupations. We know there are certain essential undertakings where the employees cannot have the normal holidays and all reasonably-minded workers accept this situation. I hold that the sale of intoxicating liquor is not an essential service and the retention of workers to give this service on Sundays and certain special holidays is unnecessary, and should cease as soon as possible.

The Minister's intention to abolish the bona fide traffic is commendable and I should like to support him in this, but, as the Bill stands, I could not give it my support. I would, therefore, ask the Minister even at this late date, to reconsider his intentions, particularly the proposal to extend the night hours of licensed premises which can result only in harm to those who drink, their dependants, those who work in the trade and those whose legitimate business takes them out late at night and who will, if the Bill becomes law in its present form, be exposed to the increased danger of drivers even more drunk than usual after an extra hour's indulgence.

Pádraig Ó Siochfhradha

Is maith liom féin an Bille seo. Is dóigh liom go raibh gá leis. An chaint a rinne an tAire bhí le tuiscint agam uaidh na neithe atá taobh thiar den Bhille féin. Sé an príomh-cheann, más féidir é, laghdú a dhéanamh ar uimhir na dtithe óil agus na dtithe tábhairne. Fé mar is cuimhin liom, do luaigh sé an imirce agus aontaim ar fad leis san dtuairim sin. Níl aon chiall ná réasún le baile beag go bhfuil míle duine ann agus leath-chéad tithe óil sa tsráid chéanna. Tá a lán de sin ar fuaid na tíre. Níor mhiste, pé slí a dhéanfar é, an uimhir sin a laghdú agus is dóigh liom go bhfuil iarracht san mBille seo chun tosnú ar an obair sin. Má éiríonn leis beidh gnó maith déanta ag an Aire.

Bímid ag caint ar an ól agus ceart an duine chóir chun deoch d'ól nuair is maith leis é. Ní hé sin an t-ól a cháintear. Ní hé sin an t-ól a thugann olc ach an t-ól gur fearrde d'ainm air nó craos nó ól an-spianta, ól dá dtagann iompar coiriúil uaidh; ól dá dtagann meisce uaidh; ól dá dtagann achrainn uaidh; ól dá dtagann bualadh ban uaidh tar éis don bhúistéir fir teacht abhaile. Sin é an t-ól atá ag déanamh an oilc. Sin é an t-ol a chaithfear a chlaoi, a laghdú agus a dhíthiú.

Ní hamhlaidh is áil liom a rá go bhfuil gach duine a ólann tugtha do na beartanna a luaigh mé. Níl tugtha dóibh sin ach cuid bheag den lucht óil. Na rialacha atá ann chun cosc a chur leo tá siad mí-éifeachtach. Sin iad na neithe gur ceart dúinn cuimhneamh ortha. Ní dóigh liom go bhfuil éinne ann a chuirfeadh cosc le duine a bheadh ag múchadh a chuid tarta ach ní scéal tarta a bhíonn i gceist ag na daoine a luas ach craos agus an míiompar a thagann de. Má oibrítear na cómhachtaí a tabharfar don lucht dlí, na giústis agus na breitheamhain faoin mBille seo raghfar í bhfad chun cosc a chur leis an gcuid mí-bhéasach a bhaineann leis an ól.

Ba cheart a bheith cinnte go ndíbreofar na neithe sin. Níor luaigh an tAire—agus ba mhaith liom go luafadh sé—na píonóis a ghabhann le briseadh na neithe seo. Chualamar go mbeidh píonóis le cur ar an dream a gheobhfar sna tithe óil le linn na dtrátha atá luaite san mBille. Tá tagairt le clos, ach níl sé san mBille, ar an bhfíneál a chuirfear ar thithe óil má bhriseann siad an dlí. Ba mhaith an rud é dá bhfógraítí arís agus arís eile ná beidh aon laghdú maidir leis na rialacha agus go gcuirfear na píonóis i bhfeidhm. Ar son na gcuspóiri atá taobh thiar den Bhille, do mholfainn don Aire a rá arís agus arís eile go ndéanfar na neithe sin gan cur siar ná aniar iontu.

Tá neithe beaga san mBille—"drinks with meals". Tá sin maith go leor maidir le tithe ósta ach cad mar gheall ar na daoine a bhaineann úsáid as chun uair go leith san mbreis d'fháil le haghaidh óil?

Cad is "substantial meal" ann? Chun uair go leith óil san mbreis d'fháil an leor go gcaithfí luach pinginne de bhrioscaidí nó bullog aráin agus gan iad d'ithe in aon chor? An mbeidh orthu fearais cócaireachta a chur ar fáil sna tithe seo? Caithfear deimhin cinnte a dhéanamh de nach cleasaíocht atá ann d'fonn uair an chlog nó dhá uair breise óil d'fháil.

Tá dhá rud riachtanach is dóigh líomsa chun barr feabhais agus toradh a bhaint as an mBille seo. Caithfear na píonóis atá luaite a chur ar dhaoine gan lúbaireacht dlí, ná cleasaíocht dlí. Caithfear seasamh leis na Gárdaí chun an dlí a chur i bhfeidhm. Ná bíodh ann feasta an rud atá ann le fada. Má bhíonn Gárda ann agus fonn air na dlithe ólacháin a chur i bhfeidhm is minic gur "damn nuisance" a tugtar ar an bhfear céanna. Ba cheart deireadh a chur leis sin. Is ceart seasam leis an Gárda, an dlí agus an Rialtas agus a chur ina luí ar an bpobal nach cúrsaí magaidh iad na píonóis agus na rialacha seo i dtaobh uaireannta dúnta na dtábhairní, agus go mór mhór gan ól a thabhairt do dhuine a bhfuil a dhóithin ólta aige cheana. Níl aon locht ar dheoch nó dhó chun tart a mhúchadh ach is é an craos chun óil gan tart ar bith gur ceart dúinn a bheith dian air.

Mr. Donegan

I agree with the Senators who say that there was need for a change. At the same time, I feel that any Puritan approach that regarded all drinking as wrong would not get us what we wanted. I do not think the Bill represents any sort of Puritan approach. At the same time, there were grave flaws in our drinking laws. The first flaw I would point to is the bona fide traffic during week nights. The bona fide traffic on Sundays was not very bad because the hours were not very late, but the situation in which the local public houses having closed, men who had been drinking there got into their cars and travelled three miles usually to a less respectable house, which is somebody else's “local,” and stayed there until 12 o'clock by which time they were in the mood to wheedle more drink from the barman, was a bad situation. If it is only because it gets rid of the weekday bona fide traffic, it is a good Bill. I feel that if a man drinks in his own “local” he will, in fact, not get too much drink. He will be with his home associates, his neighbours and friends and will go home in a respectable manner. The three miles meant that people did not feel the “away from home” atmosphere. As a result, they were more inclined to look for more drink as the fateful hour of 12 o'clock approached. I would just sum up by saying that the hours in the Bill are the soundest compromise the Minister and his officers could reach.

But on Sundays I find evidence that there was too great pandering to the cities and in particular to this city, and too great a disregard of the country and the seaside resorts. I want to point to the small seaside resorts in particular along the east coast that I know—Baltray, Bettys-town, Carlingford, Omeath, Blackrock, Annagasson and Skerries. These places mainly cater, with the possible exception of Skerries, for family trippers on Sundays and people who come to live in houses for a month during the summer. The sort of family tripper who comes there on Sunday is usually the man with a wife and sometimes small children who want to make sand castles on the beach while the husband after a swim, goes to the "local" for a bottle of stout. If he has small children, he must go home at 5 o'clock. He has not got out until after the pubs closed at 2 p.m. If he is a farmer, he must go home to look after his stock and milk his cows, and he does not get out again till after the hour has passed when the public house is open.

It is quite wrong that such should be the case, and even though I said that Skerries was an exception, I remember on many Sundays leaving county Louth to come to a football match in which our county was participating in Croke Park; and at Blake's Cross, which most Senators must know well, you met a continuous stream of traffic all going to Skerries. You went to the match and coming home met the same stream of traffic, bumper to bumper, as you met going out, and the total amount of time they had spent in Skerries was the same as you had spent at Croke Park watching two football matches. Those were my experiences. For that reason, I feel that these Sunday hours of opening tend to pander entirely to this city and to operate against the seaside resorts, and particularly the family seaside resorts.

I should like to make a plea for these seaside resorts and to say that at Blackrock, County Louth, in conjunction with the Department of Local Government, the county council has entered into a huge financial commitment to build a swimming pool because the tides left only a muddy beach, and because they felt that the eight or ten hotels, boarding houses and public houses were dying a natural death. Faced with the greatest opposition from farmers who felt that their by-roads were not being looked after, the Louth County Council, Drogheda Corporation and Dundalk Urban Council all undertook heavy financial commitments to keep that place alive. Closing during these hours on Sunday afternoon will in fact do more to close the hotels, boarding houses and public houses in such places than the loss of the swimming pool would have meant to Blackrock if perchance the county council, the corporation, and the urban council had not entered into the heavy financial commitments. Therefore, I would appeal to the Minister on behalf of these small family seaside resorts I know not to go as far as he says he intends to go when he says that area exemption orders will no longer be permitted.

While the principle of uniformity mentioned by Senator Lenihan is good, that few hours period is one instance in which that principle might be deviated from. I disagree with Senator Lenihan and I think he misses the point when he says that perhaps a few hours at the closing hour could be added at night. I feel that it is quite good enough on Sundays to get as much as the Bill gives us, but it is unwise, improper and incorrect to close public houses in those seaside resorts which are catering for families during the afternoon hours.

I should like to make a strong point in this connection. Was there drunkenness in these seaside resorts? Is there any evidence that there was more drunkenness than there was among people who had a day out at Croke Park, Dalymount Park or any of the other places to which they come in the city? Mind you, the Minister can be regarded with suspicion in this matter, because in addition to being a decent man, he is a Dublinman——

Professor Hayes

That is no harm.

Mr. Donegan

——and while it is no harm to be a Dublinman, he should look at this matter not through the eyes of a Dublinman. It is most important to regard it in a way that will not harm these unfortunate people in these small seaside resorts.

I do not go with Senator Ó Maoláin when he says that there should be no closing hours at all. The tradition of drinking on the Contintent which he so ably discussed is, of course, a different tradition altogether. Wine is consumed normally with meals, and when they baptise a baby in Rome, they bring it home and baptise it again in Frascati wine. You have this moderate drinking of lightly alcholic drinks coming from the days when it was dangerous in the hotter climates to drink a lot of water and it was necessary to assimilate a lot of liquid into the system in the hotter temperature.

Here our tradition is one of pretty strong drink. Our beers are strong and our spirits upto a few weeks ago, when one major whiskey company decided to come down to the strength of Scotch, were stronger than the spirits available on the Continent and in Scotland. It would therefore in fact be unwise in a country where people do habitually take stronger drink than elsewhere to have no closing hours. Also here drink is expensive. It is a heavily taxed commodity, and while I would not go even quarter of the way with Senator Miss Davidson, she did make a point about expensive drinking and the harm it would mean for a young man with a limited income and a small family, and we must take that into account, too. If we have a heavily taxed commodity, the State cannot just cash in on everybody's weakness but must regulate the matter as well.

As a publican and a publican's son, I think that compulsory endorsement on second offences is a good thing. There are far too many after hour pubs, and when you put up-reasonable hours such as—with the exception that I have spoken of—are put up in this Bill, you must enforce the law. I feel that the fear of compulsory endorsement at some stage with the eventual extinction of, the licence is the only way in which you can enforce the law. There is only one flaw in it. There are cases where a publican might become unpopular perhaps with a few members of the Garda Síochána, who might find him pugnacious and almost undesirable and who would make a point of raiding him five minutes after closing time. As I see it, if the district justice finds that man is guilty of an offence in being open even one minute after the prescribed hour, then he must endorse his licence.

I could visualise, though I do not think it would ever happen, a situation where, even though he was trying his very best to keep within the law, if he were consistently raided by the Garda Síochána at that few minutes past the hour, the day would come when physically he would be unable to get his customers outside in time. The man's licence could be extinguished if there was a desire on the part of the Gardaí to put him out, even though he was perhaps making every effort to comply with the law. That is a most unlikely situation. Therefore, we must take the bit between our teeth and do something about it.

If we specify reasonable hours, we must adhere to them. If we do not, we must take the consequences. As a publican and a publican's son, I feel compulsory endorsement was necessary and it was right to include it in the Bill.

The Minister relaxed a little on six-day licences. He was right. There had to be a compromise. Again, there are the rights of seven-day licensees. Imagine a man with a seven-day licence who had a public house in an advantageous position. Imagine him spending some thousands of pounds on the sort of renovation to which Senator Miss Davidson objects and making it a very fine public house on the basis that he was the only pebble on the beach and would remain the only pebble on the beach. There was the danger that has now come up, the almost certain danger that another licence which was not a seven-day licence would become a seven-day licence by the arrangement the Minister has decided to put through.

Those sorts of seven-day licensees, of which there are a few, have a natural and a proper grievance. There are towns, a few in Leinster—one I know in a county not far from my own —where the number of seven-day licensees is very few, where, in fact, they amount to 10 per cent. or less of the number of licences. In such a town, public houses which hold seven-day licences may perhaps double or more than double the normal value of such a public house elsewhere. Now, men who bought these public houses last week, last month or last year are faced with the prospect of their neighbours who had only six-day licensed houses spending £200 and becoming seven-day licensees just like themselves. I am aware that the Minister could not make omelettes without breaking eggs but let us go forward in the knowledge that what he is doing will hurt certain people grievously. For that reason he might look at that again.

He now proposes to dispense with area exemption orders. Where we might, during the summer or on days of football matches, have an area exemption order allowing the six-day licensee to open up as well as the seven-day licensee, there will now be no such thing. The seven-day licensee will at the start do all the business and then every six-day man will pay £200 and the value of the seven-day licensed premises will fall very much.

We must consider also the rights of men who built dance halls. As I understand it, these men who up to now have been enabled to open the bars which they erected in their dance hall premises at midnight will no longer be allowed to do so. Some might say it is a good thing. There is one dance hall in a seaside resort which, in my opinion, is one of the best business propositions in Leinster. The advantage it always seemed to have and the reason crowds flocked to it and paid slightly higher prices than they would anywhere else, was that they got a drink at midnight. I do not remember a serious accident ever happening on the way home.

The capital expenditure on that dance hall—I shall not mention its name because its owner has never discussed this with me—was very considerable indeed. I would almost say it runs into tens of thousands of pounds; but certainly it was many thousands of pounds. If there is no longer a bar there, if there is no longer a holiday spirit, if there is no longer a convivial atmosphere, this man may find that capital expenditure was wasted and that his profits are no longer the extraordinary profits which I am sure he was enjoying.

Then we have the question of the substantial meal and a hotel licence. I was out at the Irish Claybird championships last Saturday. On the way home, I had what I regarded as a substantial meal—a pint of stout and half a chicken cooked in an infra-red oven in a public house. This I regard as a very substantial meal. If we can get past the question of what is a hotel licence, we may find that people with hotel licences will provide infra-red ovens and that such things as a chicken, divided between two people, served with salt and a slice of bread is a substantial meal. I do not think it is such within the meaning of the Act. Therefore I think Senator Ó Siochfhradha's question as to what is a substantial meal was valid.

I did not go to that house to have a meal; I went in to have a pint. When I discovered that the meal was available, I had half a chicken and the bread and butter and I did not go anywhere else for my meal. It is a question of which came first, the chicken or the egg—whether you went for the drink or the meal. I feel the Minister will want to look at his Bill again. He will want to know whether or not he is to tie down this thing. He may find that meals and drinks may be interrelated and, at the same time, quite hard to separate from each other.

Senator Murphy made the point that if he were going to Denmark on his holidays, he would not look up the time the pubs closed in that fair country. That is an over-simplification. Nobody would do so. However, if one were deciding where to go on the Continent on one's holidays, one would naturally talk to other people who had been to various countries. Probably they would not say what time the pubs close in Denmark but they would say whether or not they enjoyed their holidays and in some cases the reason why or why not might be the time the pubs closed. Therefore, while Senator Murphy was over-simplifying the matter, we must take into account, as our tourist trade is so important and growing every year, what will suit the tourists as well as what will suit ourselves.

The whole basis of business to-day is to have no restraint, to loosen it up. If the other fellow puts a pink bow on the wrapper, you put two. Therefore, while nobody inquires what time the pubs close in the country to which he goes on holidays, it has a bearing. I think the Bill is quite good in that respect and the tourist who likes a drink will not find it too irritating or too binding upon him.

There is a question which came to mind when the national flag was being discussed. I almost felt like saying: "Wrap the Green Flag round me, Boys". I do not think that anybody will ever stop a publican from putting up the national flag.

As far as I know, a publican cannot be a Peace Commissioner. Why? I know that this is not quite relevant but maybe the Minister will look into it. In the country the publican is the county councillor and the most respected man in the place after the parish priest. We would love him to be a Peace Commissioner. We would all love to appoint him, so why not?

This has the makings of a good Bill. I would again ask the Minister to look into the question of family seaside resorts. Everything else in the Bill I find to my satisfaction as a publican.

Mr. Ryan

I believe that this Bill goes a long way to remedy the abuses and defects which are a feature of the present licensing laws. Senator Murphy asked whether we were to regard the present laws as unsatisfactory and bad merely because they were not being enforced, but I think that was taking a rather facile view of them and looking at the position from the wrong point of view. Undoubtedly the fact is that the existing laws were not enforced because they were bad laws. It is a principle of law which every student is taught when he is learning law that a law to be a good one must have the support of public opinion. That does not necessarily mean it must be something which will allow a great deal of latitude to everybody, restrict nobody, restrict people in no way. It means that, by and large, taking a reasonable view of the law, people will realise and agree that it is a good one.

It is clear that the licensing laws at present in existence have not the support of public opinion. This is shown by the statistics, for instance, which we recently have had showing the number of offences against the licensing laws during the past year and by our own knowledge of the number of times the licensing laws have been abused, have been ignored and breaches have not been detected by the police. It is quite clear, I think, to all of us that the present laws are ignored very widely and that, I think, is because they are, in fact, bad laws. I think the publi are far more likely to respect and support the new licensing laws.

The Bill is a good one. I believe it has been introduced not because it will do anything in particular for the tourist trade—it may in fact and possibly will help the tourist trade to some extent but I do not believe that that was the primary purpose in introducing it, nor do I believe that that should be the primary purpose— but primarily to provide better laws for the people and I think it has succeeded in that effort.

There are many who believe that the complete abolition of restriction on the hours of trading would be a good thing and I am inclined to think that it would be a worthwhile experiment. I believe if there were no restriction, the influence of the publicans themselves, of the trade unions and of public opinion would ensure that an acceptable pattern of drinking habits would evolve. However, that is something which we are not to have for the present and in the meantime this Bill is a step in that direction.

First and foremost, I should like to give my unqualified support to the abolition of the bona fide provisions. There is no doubt in anybody's mind that they are at present a complete farce, with nothing whatever to recommend them at this stage of history. Instead of ensuring, as was originally intended, that people could obtain refreshment after an arduous and necessary journey, we had the position that the public were forced to make journeys which were neither necessary nor arduous and it is a very good thing that it should no longer be necessary to make journeys of this kind. The unfortunate part about many of these journeys was that they were made in vehicles by people who, if not under the influence of drink, certainly had drink taken and to that extent were not quite as good drivers as they would be if they had not drink taken. It is a considerable achievement to have abolished the bona fide system and it is particularly satisfactory that a clean sweep has been made of it, that it has been completely abolished and not merely modified or qualified in some complicated way which would leave the new position worse than the former one.

The second major improvement in the Bill is the introduction of reasonable drinking hours for rural Ireland on Sundays. This provision faces up in a realistic way to the situation which exists at the moment. There can be no doubt that people do want drink on Sundays in the country as well as in the city and there can be no doubt that people do drink in spite of the existing laws; but at present they have either to travel three miles to get a drink or slip in the back door of the local. It is unrealistic to force people to do either of these things. It is not only unrealistic but it is quite inequitable that people in the country had to do that while people in the city could drink in peace, without the possibility of a visit from the police. I agree, as many Senators have already said, that the possibility was rather remote in the country because it was very seldom that they were disturbed, but still it was a possibility and something which made life a little more difficult for people in the country.

The necessity—and it can be regarded as a necessity—to ignore and break the law as has been done in existing circumstances, quite naturally led to very widespread disrespect for the law. This was extended into other spheres, to other laws which had nothing whatever to do with the licensing trade and I welcome this aspect of the Bill, as well as the bona fide aspect.

There have been several references by speakers to the fact that the new hours are permissive hours. Some of the speakers said that that was something that had no practical importance. I am strongly of the opinion that the fact that they are merely permissive hours should be availed of in order to lessen the burdens on publicans and on their staffs of the rather long hours which are envisaged under the Bill.

I do not think it would be possible to devise any hours which would be suitable for the different conditions which exist all over the country. The hours when people want to drink must vary very considerably from place to place. For instance, if you take the city of Dublin, I would say that nine out of ten suburban public houses probably do not sell £1 worth of drink until 6 o'clock in the evening. They remain open from 10 o'clock in the morning and probably sell virtually nothing until 5 or 6 o'clock in the evening and they do all their business from then on. There are public houses in the very centre of the city, near the business areas where there is very little living accommodation, where most of the business is done during the day and practically no business done after about 7 o'clock in the evening.

It seems to me quite illogical that the public houses in these two areas should not vary their hours to suit the time when they do business, while the suburban publican should not open until late in the day or possibly for an hour or two at lunchtime, but certainly should not remain open all day long. There might be other publicans in the centre of the city who might well close at 8 o'clock at night. There are only relatively few fortunate public houses which do steady business and good business from 10 o'clock in the morning until 10 and 10.30 at night. A public house which does that kind of business must have a very big turnover and could well afford to pay staff, to pay two shifts, if necessary, but the proprietors of the other public houses, the ones which do not have that business, should certainly realise and take advantage of the fact that these are permissive hours and that they should remain open only during the hours when they do good business.

The provisions in the Bill facilitating the serving of food and allowing drink to be served with that food are very good provisions. There is a strong tendency in public houses in latter years to serve food, snacks and sometimes more than snacks, chickens and half chickens and so on. That is a trend in the right direction. Any trend that modifies the position where liquor is the only attraction in a public house is a good one, to my mind. The improvements which have taken place in public houses, again in latter years, in regard to comfort and the decoration of these houses, is also a step in the right direction because it makes public houses pleasant social meeting places and not merely places to which one would not dream of going, unless one were desperate for a drink. Once the public house is a pleasant place, and once one can get food as well as drink there, then it means that people who go there are not inclined to drink so much. It is, therefore, as I say, a trend which is being encouraged by this Bill and a trend which is to be welcomed.

Finally, I should like to say that the late hours are to be applicable during the months June to September. The present late hours operated during summertime, and it seems to me that this is a much more logical arrangement and certainly an arrangement which is less complicated than having them for specific months. It may be that the Minister has some very good reason which I am not aware of for changing the system from summertime to specific months, but if he has not a particular reason, I wonder would he consider, before the Committee Stage, making the late hours coincide with summertime instead of coinciding with specific months.

Mr. Traynor

I want to say, at the opening, that this Bill had not, as its primary purpose, the attracting of tourists to this country. Its primary purpose was to cure a situation which had developed in recent years, a situation which was bordering on chaos. I think this Bill goes a long way towards bringing about, if not a cure, at least some relief of that situation. It is doubtful if any Bill that ever came before the Oireachtas had such a diversity of views expressed on it as has been expressed on this Bill during the course of its passage. The discussion which took place here this evening resembled, to a remarkable degree, the debate which took place in the other House. I suppose that is natural because we all have our points of view and we all express them. Taken by and large there is very little difference in the expression of these viewpoints by groups of Deputies and groups of Senators. The discussion we have had here this evening has been a considerable help to me and I have been very glad to have an indication of the views of the Senators as expressed in this Second Reading debate.

We got off to a good start by the speech made by Senator Hayes whom I have always found very helpful to me in taking Bills through this House. There was only one slight shadow which he threw across the discussion, one which was raised several times in the other House, and that was the fear that we would not be able to enforce this Bill. I do not think it is helpful to law enforcement generally to create an impression abroad that it will not be possible to enforce the proposals contained in this Bill. The Government are determined to see that the law will be strictly enforced. I recently addressed a conference of the Divisional Chief Superintendents of the Garda Síochána together with their Headquarters officers, and I conveyed in the clearest possible language to those executive officers, what the views of the Government are with regard to the enforcement of the provisions of this Bill.

I propose, also, some short time before the Bill becomes law, to make a broadcast in which I shall endeavour to point out to all concerned—the publicans and the public—what the situation will be when the Bill has been enacted. I have asked the Garda Síochána to take steps to ensure, in so far as they possibly can, that a warning will be conveyed to all concerned in the licensed trade. Every effort will be made to ensure that the law will be enforced.

I have felt that the non-recognition, so to speak, of the licensing laws was responsible for the non-recognition of many of our laws, and that if we had strictly enforced the licensing laws all along, it might not have been so difficult to enforce other laws within this State.

Senator Hayes suggested that it would be desirable if we could introduce into the Bill—perhaps at the end of it—the tables contained in the explanatory memorandum. I think that suggestion is a good one. It is desirable that they should be in the Bill so that all those persons who will have to look at the Bill will have an easy reference to the actual hours of opening contained in the Bill. My difficulty is that I am not sure if that can be done. I propose to have it very carefully examined with a view to seeing if it is possible to do it.

I do not know whether I should be congratulating Senator Ó Maoláin on the encyclopaedic knowledge which he conveyed to the House to-day in the course of his reference to the various licensing laws of practically all the States in Europe.

Mr. O'Quigley

A Continental pubcrawl.

Mr. Traynor

I was wondering, while he was telling us that history, whether he had actual personal experience of those various countries and did it cost him very much.

Mr. L'Estrange

East Berlin and Warsaw.

Mr. Traynor

It was enlightening to me, and I am sure to many Senators who were listening to him, to learn the manner in which the licensing laws of other countries are enforced.

Suggestions were made as to the desirability of having an open door. Deputy Dillon, I think, in the Dáil suggested that the doors of all licensed premises should be always open and that if they were always open, there would be less abuse of the licensing laws than there is at present. That is a view on which there would be divided opinions.

This Bill is an effort to bring about a situation in which conditions will be made uniform over the whole country. I believe it was wrong, in the first instance, that there should have been a differentiation between rural Ireland and the cities. It was responsible, to a great degree, for the widespread abuses of the licensing laws, because we all know that the bona fide regulations were not being observed. We know that in recent years one did not even have to walk the three miles Senator Hayes suggested people were walking—and passing each other on the way. We had got to the stage where the local could get his drink as easily as the other fellow, and no one seemed to be able to do anything about it. That will not obtain in the future. Anyone who wants a drink will get it legally, and I think he will feel all the better for the fact that he is getting it legally, and that he is not in any sense committing an offence against the law.

Senator Barry suggested that it might be very useful if instead of a fine or an endorsement on the licence a public house were closed for a few days. I doubt if we could do that and anyhow I believe it would be a much more severe penalty on the licensee than anything contained in the Bill. I hope, in the course of time, when these laws become recognised by both the public and the publicans, the necessity for any of these severe penalties will not arise.

Senator Murphy made a very enlightened speech. He knew his facts, and had them perfectly correct, probably because he was a member of the Licensing Commission himself and, so to speak, grew up with it. While his facts in that regard were perfectly correct, his conclusion about the hours which the workers would have to work were not correct. He must know that there is a Shops (Conditions of Employment) Act which covers that point. I actually had to refer to that in the Dáil—and I think I have the reference here—where the same mistake was made by another Labour representative. It rather surprised me that in neither case did they appear to be aware of the actual facts. I think Senator Miss Davidson made the same mistake.

I said in the Dáil as reported in Volume 177, No. 7, Column 945, in answer to a statement by a Labour Deputy:

The trade unions have been stressing the hardship on the barmen and porters which later working hours would entail. But the conditions of employment for barmen are already safeguarded by the Shops (Conditions of Employment) Act, 1938, and these safeguards would apply just as much when licensed premises keep open for a 70-hour week as in the case of an 80-hour week. Under the 1938 Act, barmen may not be required to work for longer than 11 hours in any day, or for longer than 48 hours in any week—56 hours, including overtime. The employment of persons under eighteen years of age between 10 p.m. and 6 a.m. is prohibited. Barmen may not be required to work for more than six hours without a meal interval.

The workers are thoroughly safeguarded and there can be no question of anything in the nature of having to work in excess of the hours contained in that Act.

Mr. Murphy

Where was I wrong?

Mr. Traynor

You were wrong in suggesting—at least I hope I am not wrong in thinking the Senator suggested it—that the hours which these men would be compelled to work as a result of the extension of the hours in the Bill would be a hardship on the workers. If that is not what he intended, I apologise.

Mr. Murphy

I spoke in relation to the lateness of the hours. The point is that this Bill, although it may not make people work for longer hours, will compel them to work later.

Éamon Ó Ciosáin

They need not come in so early in the morning.

Mr. Traynor

As Senator Lenihan said, this is a catering trade and the catering trade has to work hours outside the normal working hours of the ordinary working man. I had an experience which it is no harm for me to tell. I attended a trade union function in the late months of last year in Clery's Restaurant and I did not leave the premises until 12 midnight. There must have been 60 to 100 girls employed there serving meals, drinks and so on to the guests of the trade union concerned. I was wondering at the meal how those girls were to get home. There is that type of trade that must be carried on, and the difficulties will no doubt be got over. I presume that the girls club together and go home together by taxi or something of that kind, but the fact remains nevertheless that there is that type of trade.

Then there is the ordinary hotel trade where workers may work to three o'clock in the morning and people can be served with meals and drink, and they, too, have to get home. That is merely because it is a catering trade. They, again, do not work any more hours than the regulations prescribe. In other words, they are safeguarded. They are not working slave hours, but the ordinary trade union hours under trade union conditions, and are thoroughly safeguarded despite what was said by Senator Murphy and Senator Miss Davidson.

Miss Davidson

That is a special custom in that trade. I think they call it permanent casuals or some peculiar name.

Mr. Traynor

Senator Murphy also suggested, and I was rather surprised at it, that because of the hours in this Bill workers will emigrate. What will they emigrate to? They will emigrate to the hours that Senator Ó Maoláin suggested operate in other countries, the excessive hours that operate in England.

Mr. Murphy

In Britain.

Mr. Traynor

I am accepting the statement that Senator Ó Maoláin made that the trading hours in Britain, in London especially, run into the early hours of the morning, so that it is not a question of jumping out of the frying pan into the fire but of jumping into something worse than the fire.

Mr. Murphy

He was talking about nightclubs.

Tomás Ó Maoláin

I was talking about pubs and extended hours coming into British law.

Mr. Traynor

The question of the area exemption order was raised by a number of Senators. I should point out what the Senators know, that the hours contained in this Bill are a quid pro quo for the abolition of the bona fide trade and the area exemption orders and to attempt to re-establish the area exemption orders even by a couple of hours would be an attempt to re-establish the bona fide trade in another way. If we are to have uniformity, we must have it throughout the whole State. That is the way we hope to ensure that the law will be respected, that you will not be able to move away from this place and go to the other place because you can get a drink there which you cannot get here. I believe uniformity will do more to ensure that the licensing laws will be respected than anything else.

The area exemption order was another of the licensing provisions that eventually was abused. The exemption order was intended to provide four hours in towns where there was some large public function such as a football match or an oireachtas or some thing of that kind, and the intention was that instead of having to get your drink as a bona fide traveller, you got it through the medium of the area exemption order; but those four hours were supposed to operate during the bona fide hours, and for those four hours, it was intended that all the local people could get drinks as well as the visitors who came in to see the match. It gradually was abused by being extended. The publicans applied to have it extended for an hour over the bona fide time or an hour under the time or something of that kind and eventually it became what it is at the present moment.

Senator O'Quigley referred to the fact that this would probably not be the last licensing law. There is nothing, as the Senator must know, final in this life except death, and, I have no doubt, there will be many more amendments of the licensing laws. I have no doubt that this will not be the last licensing law. It may be that in the course of time the hours will be extended even more. I do not know. I cannot foresee what is to happen and I shall not attempt to do so. It is possible that in course of time this Bill will need amendment just as in the case of the legislation we are seeking to amend at present.

In respect of the six-day licensees, I think we have gone very far to meet them. I do not think they have any complaint, good, bad or indifferent. We have amended the Bill, I think, at least three times in the course of its passage through the other House. The latest amendment was the one which I mentioned in my opening remarks where a six-day licensee can now convert his six-day licence into a seven-day licence on payment of £200.

In the course of the debate in the Dáil, we were told that lapsed licences and redundant licences could not be purchased for less than £800; £150 was the lowest figure that was mentioned and then it went up gradually. We were told then that licences were being withheld from sale because some thing in the nature of a corner was being made.

In respect of these redundant and lapsed licences, the Government decided to put a figure not of £800, £500 or any of the other high figures mentioned but the reasonable figure of £200. That has the effect of creating a ceiling. Any of those people trying to hold their redundant licences to get a higher price may now rest assured they will not get a price in excess of £200. They probably will have to sell at a much lower price than that figure so that those people who said they could not buy a licence at any reasonable figure can now automatically ensure they will get one on payment of £200. In that regard, I should say that the intention of the Government is that if the sum secured as a result of the purchase of these licences is large enough, they would utilise that money to purchase other licences and extinguish them and, thus, reduce the number of licences in existence in the country at present.

Senator Lenihan expressed the view that endorsement of publicans' licences was too harsh. That is exactly what it is intended to be. It is intended to make it clear to the publican that if he offends, he will be punished. I think we are very reasonable in our approach to that matter. When this Bill becomes an Act, it is intended to give every publican an opportunity of having one chance. In other words, if he offends on one occasion that occasion will not be the occasion on which an endorsement will be enforced. He will, so to speak, get off with a caution on that occasion. But, on conviction of the next offence, he is certain to have an endorsement placed on his licence and that endorsement will be alive for a period of two years.

If he continues to offend and is caught again, then another endorsement goes on and three live endorsements will extinguish his licence. I rather imagine that publicans will be sensible enough to ensure that they will not be caught.

We are going to help the publicans also by increasing the fine that will be imposed on the persons found illegally in a public house after hours. I think that, with strict enforcement by the police, there will be no difficulties or should be no difficulties about observance of the law.

Senator Donegan made a similar statement to one made in the Dáil. I have been told many things since I brought in this Bill. That because the Minister is a Dubliner, he is the least competent man to bring in this kind of Bill—I have been told that on a number of occasions. I have been told I was an innocent abroad with this Bill—and there you are. I do not object to that. I do not claim to have any personal contact with the pubs of Dublin, although, like an ordinary citizen, I observe what is going on. I can see what is going on and take notice of what is going on.

However, when Senator Donegan was referring to the fact that this Bill was leaning all the time in favour of Dublin or towards the cities, he suggested that it might be because the Minister was a Dublinman. I do not have to tell Senators that one individual cannot determine a Bill of this character. In reply to a similar suggestion in the other House, I went out of my way to jot down the counties represented by the Government and I found that we have representatives in the Government from Mayo, Wexford, Clare, Cork, Cavan, Meath, Donegal, Galway and Louth, Senator Donegan's county, in addition to Dublin. Therefore you see that there is a very fair cross-section of the community with all these counties represented and their viewpoints represented. It is the majority view that counts in a question of that kind. Whatever personal views a person may express in respect of a particular point of view, he must fall in with the majority view. And that is the position in respect of this Bill.

The Commission held 40 sittings and interviewed no fewer than 70 witnesses. The witnesses were from every walk of life and included representatives of the temperance organisations whose views were heard and respected. What is in the Bill as regards hours largely represents the views of the majority of the people on that Commission. In fairness to the temperance representatives, I must say that they preferred to accept what is contained in the Bill rather than to accept a continuance of the bona fide provisions and the area exemption order provisions. I am satisfied that the Bill fairly represents every possible point of view.

I do not say the Bill is a perfect Bill. I do want to say that something like 26 amendments were tabled in the other House and the Bill, I think, is as near to perfection as it could be brought by me. Nevertheless, I have heard the Senators this evening suggesting that it could be made better. If it could in certain respects, I should welcome it, but it cannot be made better in respect to hours. Section 4 embodying the provisions for hours probably gave rise to the longest debate on any section which ever took place on any Bill ever presented to the Dáil. We were weeks on Section 4 alone and the outcome of all that discussion will be found in the section as it stands at the present time. I am satisfied that we cannot do anything to improve these hours.

An extraordinary thing: I have had hundreds of letters from publicans throughout the country and in practically no case did any one agree with the others. It is an astonishing thing but they either wanted later hours in the evening, earlier hours in the morning or, in some cases, both. It is extraordinary how different the views were. They were just like the views expressed in this House. They contained all sorts of suggestions.

I should say that when the Report was presented to me in July, 1957, I immediately presented it to the Government and the Government discussed this Bill again and again for well over a year before we decided on the provisions of the Bill to be submitted to the Dáil. So you can see that from every possible point of view consideration was given and alterations were made from time to time as required. Eventually when it did come to the Dáil we tabled 26 amendments for the Bill's improvement.

I am very grateful to the House for extending the time to allow me to speak and I trust we shall be as expeditious during the Committee Stage as during the Second Stage.

Question put and agreed to.

Committee Stage ordered for Wednesday, June 15th, 1960.

The Seanad adjourned at 10.35 p.m. until 3 p.m. on Wednesday, 15th June, 1960.