Seanad Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 15 Jun 1960

Vol. 52 No. 15

Intoxicating Liquor Bill, 1959—Committee Stage.

SECTION 1.

Professor Hayes

I move amendment No. 1:

To add at the end of the section the following subsection:

( ) This Act shall come into operation on such day as the Minister shall by order appoint.

I put down this amendment because the Bill is a very compendious one. It fixes the hours of opening and closing for weekdays and Sundays for town and country and there has been considerable discussion about it. Both employers and employees, particularly in Dublin, have indicated difficulties in working the provisions of the Bill. As at present drafted, once we pass it here, it will be signed within seven days by the President and will then become law, but what I am suggesting in this amendment is that the Minister should take power—it is a usual thing; it occurs in a great many Acts—to add at the end of the section that: "This Act shall come into operation on such day as the Minister shall by order appoint."

That gives power to the Minister to delay the Act by, say, a week, a fortnight or a month, as he may think fit or as he may be advised, and at the same time, it allows him to make an order bringing the Act into operation the day after it is signed. It does not in any way hamper the Minister but it does give him power, when the Bill has been passed, to give a fortnight for consultations between the licensed vintners and the trade unions of their assistants and employees with regard to its working, if these are needed in, for example, Dublin city. He may say: "I shall postpone the operation of the Bill for a fortnight and in that time. will you have your problems settled?" It seems to me that would be very much to the advantage of the Bill and the Minister, and at the same time, it would not impose any obligation on him. It is quite a common power and I think the Bill would be better if this subsection were inserted.

Dr. O'Donovan

I should like to support the amendment but I should go a little further than Senator Hayes. The reason the Licensed Grocers' and Vintners' Association is concerned about this matter is that its members are aware of considerable difficulties with regard to arranging the new hours of work that will be necessary, and with regard to the payments that will have to be made to staffs for them. There was considerable delay in having the Bill passed through the other House and I understand these people may have put the matter of discussions on the long finger. At any rate, I understand negotiations have not yet started and I think the Bill may become law by the end of this month, and certainly by the middle of next month.

It may be that the Minister would like to see some part of this year's tourist trade covered by the Bill. I am aware that the Licensed Grocers' and Vintners' Association are anxious that the Bill should not become operative until the end of the present tourist season, that is, until October next. This amendment would enable the Minister to fix 1st October as the date when it will become operative.

I do not think they are exaggerating the problem. Unlike the Minister, who said he had no experience of the matter at all, I have heard it discussed at length and I find both the workers and the owners of the public houses are well aware of the difficulties of the problem. As Senator Hayes said, there is no reason why the Minister should not do it in this way. The only reason might be that the Minister might feel there has already been too much delay about bringing in the Bill. Originally, the suggestion was that it would be law by St. Patrick's Day, 1960, but it has gone on for so long now that I do not think the fixing of some date such as 1st October would make much difference.

Minister for Justice (Mr. Traynor)

It might be desirable that I should intervene at this stage, first of all, to point out that the Licensed Grocers' and Vintners' Association about which Senator O'Donovan has spoken represents, I think, less than 700 publicans, whereas there are something like 12,000 publicans throughout the State. Therefore, as far as endeavouring to meet the wishes of the publicans in general are concerned, it is really a question of the greater good for the greater number.

On the concluding Stages of the Bill in the Dáil, Deputy Mulcahy asked me when the Bill was likely to become law. I could not give him a date but I pessimistically stated that I thought it would be the end of the autumn. As a result of that statement, both the Department and I have received a plethora of letters from all over the country asking us to have the Bill expedited and to give it the full effect of law with the least possible delay.

That is the point of view of the type of publican who has been in the past respecting the law and acting legally. The people who have not been doing so are the people anxious to see the present state of chaos continue for as long as possible. Therefore, from that point of view alone, I feel very strongly that the House should agree to allow the Bill to become law when it is signed by the President. It will take anything from five to seven days after its having been passed in both Houses. That is the period it must be with the President. There would, therefore, be something in the nature of a week or so after the passing of the Act by both Houses before it could be brought into operation.

If I were to accede to the suggestion made by Senator Hayes that I should accept this amendment and bring it in in my own good time, we would not be getting any further. If it were left to me to bring the Act into operation after it had been signed by the President, knowing the situation intimately as I know it now, I would bring it into operation within the shortest possible time, and I think that would be in the interest of the general public. There is one thing that the new law will do, that is, it will bring to an end the so-called bona fide trade, which is, in my opinion, the cause of the situation existing at present—the nonrecognition of the law and the failure of the police to take the necessary action in respect of that non-recognition.

As I said here on the Second Stage, I propose to broadcast to the people interested, the licensees and the drinking public, the necessity and the desirability of obeying the law. I propose to do that, not in the form of a threat but rather in the form of a warning and an appeal to these people to respect the law and not to endanger licensees by putting them in a position in which they might find themselves with an endorsement on their licences. From that point of view, I feel I could not accept this amendment. I think it would not be in the general interest of the public, nor would it be in the interest of the vast majority of publicans, especially those who have been trading in a legal manner.

Professor Hayes

This amendment has nothing to do with the merits of the Bill. By and large, as I indicated on the Second Stage, I am with the Minister with regard to what is in the Bill. But the Bill, as the Minister himself has indicated, will come into operation rather earlier than he expected. There are a very big number of amendments on the Order Paper to-day, but they concern hours and many of them will be taken together. The amendment does not prevent the Bill from becoming law when the Minister orders it to become law, but it does give the Minister power to deal with the situation which exists, particularly in Dublin. The Minister's mathematics, I take it, are correct— that there are 700 people in the Licensed Grocers' and Vintners' Association but that there are 12,000 publicans in the country. On the other hand, I think the 700 are mainly in Dublin and it is mainly a Dublin problem.

Everybody knows that in this country, and I suppose in other countries as well, people do not face something until they have to; and the people will not really believe in this Bill until it becomes an Act. When it becomes an Act it will become something quite different from what it is now and they will have to stir themselves and see what they will do about it. It seems to me that if the Minister had power to say, particularly in Dublin: "Look, I will give you a fortnight or a month to work this thing out," that would be desirable.

The Minister does not lose anything by accepting this amendment. He does not relinquish any power. On the contrary, he gains power, and if he wants the Bill at once, as I say, he can get it at once; but it is very undesirable, it seems to me, that the Bill should become law on a particular date. It is not only permissive; certain things would be obligatory, such as the change in the hours on Sundays. It is very undesirable, for example, in Dublin, that, owing to trade union difficulties or financial difficulties, some publicans should be open under the new hours and that some should retain the old hours, which I think they could do in many instances, particularly with regard to closing on weekdays.

I do not see what harm it could possibly do the Minister to have this power. He may not actually use it at all. He may use it only to postpone the Bill for two or three days or he may use it to postpone the Bill for a fortnight.

The situation in Dublin is really very difficult because there is considerable expense involved and there is the question of trade union activities and working hours. It would be very desirable to have a breathing space in which those matters could be settled. For that reason, I think the Minister should accept this amendment and take this power. He could put the Bill into operation a week or a fortnight after it has been signed. There is nothing in this amendment which in any way limits or hampers the Minister in his judgment of the situation as he finds it. It would give him power which, at the moment, he has not got and which I think he should take.

Mr. O'Quigley

I support this amendment. I must say it surprised me that there was not a section like this in the Bill when it came to this House, in view of the statement made by the Minister in the Dáil. I must confess that anyone who reads this Bill, which is an amendment of the 1943, the 1927 and the 1902 Acts, would find it extremely difficult to understand what the law will be, or what the law is, with regard to hours of opening.

It may well happen, as we often-times find, that this extremely valuable explanatory memorandum will not be available in the Government Publications Sales Office. It is quite a practice with the Stationery Office not to publish sufficient copies of documents of this kind, for which there is great demand by the public. I would not be a bit surprised if, when the Bill is finally passed, people who go to look for the memorandum will not be able to find it. For that reason, it would appear to me that some time should be allowed to elapse during which the Minister and the Department could publish frequently, in various places and in various ways, what the new hours will be.

The Minister spoke about respect for the law, but I do not know how the ordinary members of the public will know what the hours are, once this Bill becomes an Act, unless they have had an opportunity, for a matter of some days or weeks, to become informed by advertisements or otherwise, as to what the new situation will be. I know the Minister intends to speak on Radio Éireann about the Bill, and probably about the hours, but not all the members of the public will hear that broadcast, and it will not be available to them in any other form. It will be very quickly forgotten and the public probably will be very confused. The Minister would do well to get this Bill off to a good start, and to take some few weeks within which to enable himself, the Department and the Garda authorities, to publish the new licensing laws and to give the public an opportunity of becoming familiar with the new and complicated situation which will arise, as a result of the passing of this legislation.

The Minister has said there are only 700 publicans represented by the Licensed Vintners' Association. I have always thought that organisation represented a good many more, but so far from that adding any point to the Minister's argument as to why the Bill should come into operation immediately, I think it strengthens the case in favour of the amendment, because where people are organised, they have their own trade journals, and circulars are sent out to members from the headquarters secretariat which keeps them up-to-date on new developments. I should have thought that, at any rate, that information would be available to all publicans through their trade organisations, but now it appears that it will be available to only 700 at most out of 12,000. In the interests of getting this legislation off to a good start, and in the interests of the publicans and their staff who will have to make new arrangements, the Minister should take the time which it has been suggested in this amendment will be necessary.

Dr. O'Donovan

I have not the same high opinion of this Bill as have many other people in this House. I notice the amount of unction or vaseline that was rubbed on it on Second Reading in this House. I do not think the Minister meant what he said when he put a statement like "in the interests of the general public" in conjunction with statements like "I have had letters from a great many people in the country who were keeping the law" and "people who have been breaking the law are anxious to see chaos continue". I do not think the Minister meant that for a moment but the inference was there.

I say to the Minister without fear of contradiction, because it cannot be contradicted truthfully, that the only part of Ireland generally—I, cannot speak for the other cities—where the law is observed is Dublin city. Senator Murphy said here last week that the trade union houses kept the law better than the other houses. I agree with that view.

Mr. Traynor

The Senator is like myself. He does not understand the publicans.

Dr. O'Donovan

I am not as innocent as that. I say that if there are 1,000 public houses in Dublin, the law is kept absolutely in 95 per cent. of them. Do not forget there is a slight concession at the end of the day. People have time to finish their drinks, and the public house may not close until 10.40 p.m. without breaking the law. There is a little leeway of a few minutes. That is well known.

For the Minister to come into the House, as he undoubtedly did on Second Reading, and say that the law was not being observed at present, and that the new law will be observed, is innocence, in my opinion. As I say, on the whole, the law is best observed in Dublin. Therefore, when serious representations are made by the Licensed Vintners' Association to the effect that they have a serious problem on their hands, we should listen to them.

Again, I think the Minister is in a cleft stick because he did mention the autumn in the other House. No one wants to trap the Minister if, in fact, he answered a question he did not expect, or he might have expected the Bill to take longer to go through this House. We usually sit to the end of July and I forecast that the Bill will be through the House by the end of the month. Certainly there will not be undue delay unless we deliberately adopt the tactic of postponing each Stage. I do not think we shall do that.

I cannot see why the Minister should be so reluctant to put this amendment in the Bill. He could do what he likes about it when he reconsiders the matter and he could put the Bill into operation immediately it was signed, or he could fix a day. Let me say again that I believe, so far as Dublin is concerned, that it is the place where the law is observed. So far as this amendment is concerned, there is no connection between non-observance of the law and the bona fide traffic. I know that to be true from personal observation.

I feel we are creating more difficulty for the trade unions and for the owners, and we must remember that in the past decade we had two strikes by the workers in public houses. One of them lasted a very long time. I can understand the enticement the Minister has not mentioned but which I think is at the back of this: "Let us get part of the tourist season into this. Let us get in the months of July and August —the most important parts of the tourist season." I could imagine pressure from people in tourist resorts who observe the law there. They see a chance to be open until 11.30 p.m. I could well imagine that they would want to be open until that time and to be in a competitive position. If the Minister accepted this amendment, he could operate it whatever way he liked. I feel there is a certain commitment by the Minister who said, perhaps accidentally, he thought the Bill would be in operation in the autumn. July is not the autumn by any stretch of the imagination.

Tomás Ó Maoláin

Senator O'Donovan said he has not the same high opinion of the Bill as some other Senators.

Dr. O'Donovan

I have not.

Tomás Ó Maoláin

I have a very high opinion of the Bill. I also have some acquaintance with politics and the working of politics in this country. I am against any postponement or any power to postpone the operation of the Bill. The Minister has stated that even if he had that power by Order, his inclination would be to bring the Bill into operation as soon as possible after its signature by the President. That being so, I can see no sense in attempting to camouflage the position. That is what acceptance of this amendment would amount to.

From experience, we know what happens in this country when well-organised groups get together and decide to use the influence they can command to bring pressure to bear on Deputies, Senators and Governments. Should such a power by Order be available to the Minister, a campaign would undoubtedly start to give effect to what Senator O'Donovan has said, namely, that the Bill according to the Licensed Grocers' and Vintners' Association should not become operative until October.

I do not see sense or reason in the suggestion that it is taking anyone at an unfair advantage or that it will create insuperable difficulties for publicans or trade unions if the Bill comes into operation next week or the week after. This Bill is based on the Report of the Commission of Inquiry into the position of the intoxicating liquor laws of 1957. It has been under discussion, one way or another, for the past three years. It has been under discussion in the Dáil since last October. The discussions have received a very good press. They have been widely reported.

Publicans and trade unions were aware that the Bill was on the stocks, that it had been introduced, that it had passed the Dáil, that it was coming to the Seanad, that it would undoubtedly pass the Seanad because of the high level of intelligence of the members of this House and that, therefore, something would happen involving changes in their modus operandi. I have no patience with the suggestion that the enactment of this legislation and the bringing into operation of the Bill as quickly as possible will take anybody at a disadvantage. There has been plenty of time.

Any suggestion to the contrary by the Licensed Grocers' and Vintners' Association is merely an effort to stall the operation of this very long-delayed and long-awaited reform of the licensing laws. I am very strongly against any proposal which would delay the coming into operation of this Bill for even an hour after the time when it could come into operation after signature by the President.

I believe in the principle, referred to by the Minister, that the greatest good of the greatest number should be the guiding factor in this Bill.

Dr. O'Donovan

Jean Jacques Rousseau.

Tomás Ó Maoláin

I am absolutely satisfied that the greatest good of the greatest number will be achieved by the early enactment and immediate operation of this Bill. During the debate on the Second Reading, I referred to the absurdity of our existing licensing code and the urgent need for a Bill such as the Bill before us. I said that, while it falls short of the distance I would be prepared to go in regard to change, it brought about some very necessary and beneficial changes.

Senators who seem to have a sympathy with the suggestion that operation of that Bill should be deferred until October have apparently forgotten what is in the Bill. They may have forgotten, what the Bill will achieve. In view of Senator O'Quigley's statement that people may not know the official hours—that, possibly, they may find it difficult to get them— perhaps it would be well to recapitulate the principal aims of this Bill. If people are interested enough to get copies of the Seanad debates and if the newspapers can find space enough, there will be no reason why every newspaper reader will not be acquainted with its provisions and what it seeks to achieve. This Bill which it is sought by the licensed trade to defer until October, according to one of the speakers here——

Professor Hayes

The amendment does not seek to defer the Bill until October.

Tomás Ó Maoláin

Senator O'Donovan suggested that the licensed trade were anxious to have the Bill operative about October. The Bill which it is sought to defer by that suggestion, at least, will end the flagrant disregard of the licensing laws, of which we have heard so much——

Dr. O'Donovan

In Dublin.

Tomás Ó Maoláin

——by thousands of people not only in rural Ireland but in Dublin, too, as Senator O'Donovan would know if he kept his fingers on the pulse of the various constituencies.

Dr. O'Donovan

I live here and I do not go to bed before 10.30 p.m.

Tomás Ó Maoláin

Our present licensing laws are flagrantly disregarded by thousands of people— people whom Garda Commissioner D. J. Costigan described as "decent upright citizens who would not do a wrong knowingly to a fellow-man." This Bill will end the bona fide traffic on weekdays and Sundays. The Gardai told the Liquor Commission that the bona fide traffic caused the greatest difficulty in the enforcement of the law and was probably the chief cause of most of the public abuses arising out of drink.

Mr. Burke

This is a Second Reading speech. What has this to do with the amendment?

Tomás Ó Maoláin

I am giving the reasons why this Bill should come into operation immediately. Although Senator Hayes's amendment seeks only to give the Minister power to bring the Bill into operation by Order, I can visualise the type of campaign which would begin immediately the Minister had that power to defer the operation of the Bill not alone until October but to a much later date.

Mr. O'Quigley

Not later, I would say, than 31st August.

Tomás Ó Maoláin

Those are reasons why the Bill should be brought into operation and those are reasons why the amendment suggested by Senator Hayes should not be accepted. This Bill, as I said, will establish uniform hours of trading.

An Cathaoirleach

I think we are going outside the scope of the amendment.

Tomás Ó Maoláin

I do not think so, Sir.

An Cathaoirleach

The Senator is going into a discussion of the Bill in general. He must confine himself to this amendment.

Mr. Donegan

We heard it before, Joe.

Tomás Ó Maoláin

The Senator will hear it again because Senator O'Quigley is afraid that the people will not know what the provisions of the Bill are and, when the Bill is enacted, they will not be able to get copies.

An Cathaoirleach

We cannot go into all the provisions of this Bill on this amendment.

Tomás Ó Maoláin

We shall continue on the next one, so.

An Cathaoirleach

The Senator understands that on the various sections, he will have scope for explanations of the kind he wants to make now.

Tomás Ó Maoláin

I should like to say that, unlike some of the Senators, I have found a very widespread desire that the Bill should come into operation immediately and I hope the Seanad will not accept the amendment.

Mr. Burke

I was surprised at what Senator Ó Maoláin said about everybody knowing all about what is in this Bill the very day it passes the Seanad. I remember well some regulation being made in regard to the closing of confectionery shops at a certain hour of the evening. I do not think five per cent of the people running these businesses knew about it To suggest for a moment that every publican in the country is buying a copy of the Seanad Debates, is reading them and studying everything said on Second Reading and on Committee Stage is fantastic.

Mr. O'Quigley

Publichouse talk.

Mr. Burke

Perhaps, that is happening in Dublin but it is not happening in the country. The reason I should like to support the amendment is that there has been widespread disrespect for the law. If anything has made people cynical with regard to respect for the law, it is the way in which the archaic licensing laws have been administered. I am not blaming anyone because I think they were an impossible travesty on common sense. I should like to see a Bill, when it has been enacted brought in to operation with full vigour and in as formal a manner as possible.

I think we are too secularised with regard to this thing. Every publican in the country will have to comb the papers, if there is not something more important happening that day, to see when the Bill passes the Seanad. Then he will have to search his mind to find out what the period is and then he will probably have to look at the papers again.

I should like the Minister to broad cast an explanation over Radio Éireann to everyone that this is a law freely passed by the elected representatives of this country and that it is a law which will be enforced as it should be. I should like to see the Minister doing as I suggest and if he likes, he need not tie himself to a month as a maximum. I should hate that it should just happen automatically and that people should know nothing about it beyond hearing it said that "the new law come into force to-day." Those charged with the responsibility of government have an obligation on them to bring back into this country true respect for law and justice. In Ireland, we had not the benefit of the Romans coming here to give us a respect for law and our own Government should endeavour to inculcate in our people that true respect for the law.

Tomás Ó Maoláin

The sooner we get the Bill, the better.

Mr. Burke

The Senator can have it at any time he likes.

Éamon Ó Ciosáin

I must say that when I saw this amendment on the Order Paper, I wondered what arguments would be adduced in favour of it. I did not expect to be treated to the arguments put up here by some members opposite. One would think, from the way they spoke, that the people of the country are a very dull people and that it takes a long time for them to understand things that appear in print.

Mr. Burke

The fight for existence is hard in the country.

Éamon Ó Ciosáin

I should like to know what ambiguity there is about the provisions of this Bill. If there are any ambiguities, then there would be something to be said for the amendment, but the hours at which the public houses will open and close under the Bill are set forth very clearly and unambiguously. If that is so, what useful purpose could be served by any postponement of the measure?

Could anybody opposite tell me that? Even if it were conceded that the people of the country were not in a position to understand what appears in the Bill, what special way would there be afterwards of getting them to understand it, beyond what they have at their disposal now? The members opposite—even Senator Hayes who moved the amendment—seemed to be very concerned about the publicans in Dublin but I have read all the speeches on this measure and all the comments, and I do not see any great volume of opinion against the enforcement of the provisions of the Bill either in Dublin or elsewhere.

As I say, I was wondering what argument would be put forward in favour of this amendment. No argument was put forward here to convince me——

Mr. O'Quigley

That would be hard.

Éamon Ó Ciosáin

——that it would be wise for the Minister to postpone it. I must say that the attitude of the members opposite here to-day is very much in contrast with their usual attitude when they tell us from time to time that there is too much Ministerial control in this country. They tell us that the Minister rises above the law sometimes and does things the Oireachtas never intended him to do. We have to-day a position in which several members opposite would like to give the Minister more power than he wants to have. Accordingly, I think the Minister is wise in deciding to reject this amendment.

Mr. Murphy

The amendment which Senator Hayes asks us to insert is no more or less than a provision which has been contained in other Bills which have come before us. In fact I was surprised there was not such a provision in the Bill when it was introduced, and even more so that the Minister allowed the Bill to go so far, so quickly, without inserting such a provision. It also surprises me very much that the Minister sees fit not to accept the amendment.

After all, he has not been asked to postpone the coming into operation of the Act. He has been asked only to take power to fix the date from which the new Act will operate. The date on which the Bill, and eventually the Act, becomes law is decided by the date on which the President signs it. Are we to have newspapers surmising as to when the President will sign the Act? Are we to have a news flash from Arus an Uachtaráin that at 3 p.m. that day the President signed the Act and that from that day the public houses can stay open until 11.30 p.m.?

Surely it would be more dignified if the Minister took power to order the date on which the Act comes into operation. I should like the Minister to look at the amendment from that aspect. I should imagine that for the current holiday season, various area exemption orders have been granted by the courts. What will happen in respect of these on the day the Act is signed by the President? Do they automatically lapse, or are we to have an overlapping of those exemption orders hours with the new hours provided in this Bill? Perhaps I have not read the Bill sufficiently to clarify those matters.

I think, however, this is another aspect which should persuade the Minister to accept the amendment. If he does not want to postpone implementing the legislation, he is not obliged to do so. He can, in accepting the amendment, make it clear that it is not with the intention of postponing the legislation that this provision has been inserted but of making for an even operation of the new law.

Mr. Crowe

As a country man, I welcome the facilities afforded under this Bill for Sunday drinking in rural areas. I may say that the people in rural Ireland are not any less sober than those in the cities and I have no doubt there will be no abuse of the new facilities for reasonable imbibing on Sundays.

An Cathaoirleach

I am afraid the Senator's remarks are not relevant.

Professor Hayes

I think the Senator is coming to his point.

Mr. Crowe

I regret to see that the hours for Sunday drinking in certain cases will not operate to suit the farmers or their labourers.

An Cathaoirleach

The Senator's remarks may well arise on a later section. If the Senator continues in that strain, he will be out of order.

Mr. Crowe

I was only about to suggest that the hours from 5 p.m. to 9 p.m. are completely wrong because they cut across the time when farmers and their men are foddering their cows or coming from devotions and so on.

Mr. Traynor

The first thing I want to do is to try to allay several of the fears expressed here. I do not know whether I shall be able to do that or whether some Senators want to have their fears allayed. The main point I want to make at the outset is that advertisements will be published in all the newspapers when this Bill is passed to notify all and sundry that the hours are as printed in the notice, and I do not know whether the public will be made any more aware, by reason of those advertisements, than they would have been if they had been taking an intelligent interest in the matter throughout the long discussions here and in the Dáil.

This Bill has now been nearly seven months under discussion and surely our people are intelligent enough to take an interest in affairs that affect themselves. In addition to these advertisements, there will be police notices and, in addition to that again, the police will inform, and have been informing, the licensed trade throughout the country of the fact that when this Bill does become the law of the land, it will be strictly enforced.

There can be no truth in the suggestion that anybody will be taken unawares. Such a suggestion is too ridiculous to be worthy of consideration. As far as Dublin is concerned, a deputation of the licensed grocers and vintners were received in the Department of Justice and it was made very clear to them that, when the Bill became law, the hours set out in it would be strictly enforced.

Another point is that public houses do not have to remain open, if the owners do not want to. Any publican who does not want to remain open until 11.30 p.m. need not do so. Furthermore, I should like to explain to Senator Murphy, who is making gestures at me, that there will be dozens of workers working much later than those in public houses after the Bill becomes law. We must not forget the fact that bus drivers, bus conductors and the various others who work in conjunction with those services, will have to work much later. They will probably have to cater for all the people likely to come out of the public houses at 11.30 p.m.

My opinion is that the premises in the city centre will deal mainly with people living in their own vicinity and that public houses in the suburbs, at that hour of the night, will facilitate only the people who live in their localities. I cannot see that there is any danger of overlapping, as far as this legislation is concerned.

It is quite possible that the public will deal with this Bill in the same way as they dealt with any other Bills of a similar kind. There is something unreal about the amendment which says that the Act shall come into operation on such day as the Minister shall order. I am telling the House that the Bill will come into operation after the President signs it. I do not think there is any necessity to go any further than that. Certainly I cannot see that there is any realism in the suggestion at all.

Mr. Murphy

What happens area exemptions orders?

Mr. O'Quigley

One would imagine from all that has been said on the Government side that this amendment was something that had appeared on the papers of the Oireachtas for the first time in 38 years. This is a regular thing. It is a regular subsection in various kind of enactments, and it is always inserted where there are particular difficulties associated with a transition from one state of affairs to another. That is all that is behind the amendment. I listened attentively to Senator Ó Maoláin, who seemed to suggest that the amendment was in some way designed to defeat or delay the Bill. As far as I am concerned, and, I am sure, as far as Senator Hayes and the other speakers who spoke in favour of it, are concerned, the purpose simply is, the Bill being so complicated, the hours having been changed and there having been so much discussion about them in the Dáil, to give the public some time in which to become familiar with them, after the legislation has become law.

The Minister has said that this has been going on for seven months in the Dáil. So it has. Consequently, when the Bill passed through the Committee Stage in the Dáil, everybody considered that it was kind of the Minister to provide members of the Oireachtas with a memorandum saying what way the legislation stood at that stage because the legislation was so complicated and there had been such a long debate that it was by no means clear after the Committee Stage what the position was, and similarly on the Report Stage.

I am quite satisfied that as far as the vast majority of the people are concerned, despite what we may think of ourselves here, they do not read the papers nearly as attentively as we would probably wish them to. Be that as it may, I am certain that if you were to meet members of the public and ask them the hours for Sunday afternoons after the Bill becomes law, nine out of ten would not be able to tell you. I regret that the Minister is not sufficiently trusted by his own members on the other side of the House to take this power which we suggest he should be given for one purpose only, in the interests of the licensing laws.

Tomás Ó Maoláin

Beware the Greeks when they come bearing gifts.

Dr. O'Donovan

In this kind of legislation, certainty is of the essence of the game. The Minister intends to put advertisements in the newspapers and to make a broadcast, but in neither case can he specify a date, because under the Constitution the President has three days in which to sign a Bill, the 5th, the 6th, or the 7th day after the Bill has been passed. Is the Minister going to make a special arrangement with the President to sign this Bill on the 5th day, on the 6th or on the 7th? He will not, because the President would not make any such arrangement with him. We are told that there are 10,000 establishments operating. Are they to be in the position that they do not know, or that some evening it will be announced by Radio Éireann: "The President signed the Bill to-day and you may remain open to-night till 11.30"?

Tomás Ó Maoláin

That is cod.

Dr. O'Donovan

It is not cod. Supposing a person has no radio, or that the necessary arrangements have not been made with the trade unions and negotiations are still going on. It is all right to talk, as the Minister talked, about the interests of the general public—something coming from Jean Jacques Rousseau—or to talk about the greatest good of the greatest number—that statement from the utilitarian school in Britain. That is very interesting higher political theory, but this is a very simple practical difficulty. As I see it, you must have this Bill becoming law on a specific date; otherwise you will have differences between different parts of the country. They will not give rise to any great trouble—the Guards are reasonable men—but it is a bad start for a law that is to bring about all the reform the Minister hopes it will bring about.

Professor Hayes

This amendment, unlike the bona fide traffic, is offered in complete good faith. It is not offered for the purpose of keeping the Bill from being enforced or with a view to doing any harm to the tourist trade. It is not offered, as somebody said, because of any ambiguity in the Bill. I do not see any ambiguity in the Bill. It is offered simply to enable the Minister to do what he says he wants to do, namely, to make a broadcast and publicise in the Press the hours in this Bill when it becomes an Act.

Surely it is desirable that when making the broadcast, he should be able to say: "This Bill, which got great discussion in the two Houses of the Oireachtas and about which I received a great number of deputations, is now law. It has been signed by the President, and I propose under the provisions of subsection (2) of Section 1 of the Act to fix Sunday, 10th July for the coming into operation of the Act, and I want to warn all and sundry that these are the opening hours...." Would that not be reasonable? The Minister does not accept that.

Senator Ó Ciosáin says, of course, that the Minister is wise. When you are on that side of the House, the Minister is always wise. That is a feature of Ministers: they are always wise to their own people. Another feature of Ministers is that they never give way even on simple things. I was hoping that the Minister with his experience might perhaps yield a particular thing even for his own advantage, but he does not.

All this Parliamentary business means that after years and years of turning a thing over in the Department, they devise a Bill, and when anybody points out a flaw, they give a thousand and one arguments, like the Thousand and One Nights long ago, to prove that they do not need to amend it. The Minister does need to have in this Bill a provision which will enable him to fix a day for putting it into operation. The idea that the amendment has been moved so that the Bill will be postponed either until October or until 1st September or until August is nonsense. The Minister could have the power and exercise it at his own discretion.

It seems to me as a matter of common sense that to give the Bill a good start and to accomplish what the Minister says he wants to accomplish and what we all agree we want to accomplish, namely, uniform hours throughout the country for the public houses to open and shut and a uniform enforcement of the law, with the goodwill of the owners and employees, surely there should be plenty of publicity and the Minister should be able, by broadcast and police notice, to draw attention to it. To do that, he will want to be able to fix the date.

However, if the Minister does not want that, I do not know what he proposes to do except to say that when the Bill becomes law, it will be enforced without being able to give a precise date. I see no reason why he would not have this power. It is offered in good faith and for the better working of this measure. If he does not want it, nobody can force it on him.

Amendment put and declared negatived.

Section 1 agreed to.

Section 2 agreed to.

SECTION 3.

Question proposed: "That Section 3 stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Traynor

I should like to make a suggestion to the House as to how we might best deal with the question of the repeals. In the ordinary course the House would, no doubt, take the repeals at the end, when we come to the Schedule. In general, I see no difficulty in adhering to this procedure in this case, but there are two items in the repeals which are so closely bound up with the positive provisions of the Bill that I submit to the House that it would be almost impossible to have a proper discussion, if we deferred those two repeal items to the end. I refer, of course, to the bona fide provision—Section 15 of the Act of 1927—and area exemption orders—Section 16 of the 1927 Act.

I intend, with the permission of the Cathaoirleach, to propose to the House at a later stage that we should discuss area exemption orders at the same time as we discuss general opening on Sunday evening, and I do not propose to refer to them further now.

I submit to the House, however, that the time for any debate on the proposed abolition of the bona fide trade is now. If we do not decide now on the question of the bona fide trade, it will be extremely difficult to discuss the proposed general opening hours in the next section, since it is obvious that one is linked with the other. I made a similar suggestion in the Dáil and it was accepted, and in repeating it here, I have taken note of the fact that in this House, as in the Dáil, there seems to be unanimity or near-unanimity that, whatever differences of opinion there may be about the general opening hours, the bona fide trade, as such, must go.

May I make it quite clear—this question was asked in the Dáil—that in asking the House to decide now on the abolition of the bona fide provision, I am in no way seeking to limit the debate that may take place on the general opening hours? In particular, a decision to abolish the trade does not, of course, preclude any Senator from advocating on Section 4 that there should be a differential between closing hours in city and country.

Could we, therefore, have agreement that, in accepting Section 3, the House will be accepting the proposal to abolish bona fide trading so that the debate on Section 4 can proceed in the context of such a decision?

Dr. O'Donovan

I do not see any objection to this, provided it will not be argued, in any circumstances, if we propose 10.30 p.m. for Dublin and 11.30 p.m. for the rest of the country, that we are endeavouring to restore the bona fide houses. I accept the Minister's assurance, though I am quite certain that some Senators on the other side of the House will immediately say that we are seeking to do that if we propose those hours. However, the Minister has given an assurance that it will not limit us in that matter in any way.

Mr. Ryan

Restoring it under a new Act.

Mr. Donegan

I wish to support what Senator O'Donovan has said. I have no objection to the Minister doing what he wishes and I agree with Senator O'Donovan's very well intentioned and well-thought out contention that it should not cut across the validity of our amendments and should not in any way give an argument, a conceded argument, to the Minister on the question of deviation from uniformity.

Mr. Traynor

The acceptance of the abolition does not interfere with the general debate at all.

Mr. Donegan

And, as such, no argument will be made on that score?

Mr. Traynor

No.

Question put and agreed to.

SECTION 4:

An Cathaoirleach

Various amendments have been tabled to this Section. Would the House be agreeable to take amendments Nos. 2, 3 and 4 together?

Professor Hayes

I think so.

An Cathaoirleach

These three amendments have to do with the closing hour on weekdays. Perhaps if Senators would keep that in mind, it would help them very much in the course of the debate.

Mr. Murphy

I move amendment No. 2:

In page 4, to delete lines 15 to 19, inclusive, and substitute "after the hour of half-past ten o'clock in the evening".

I do not want to be long-winded on this amendment, though I must make the point that the question of the closing hours on weekdays is probably the most important aspect of the Bill. What is proposed in the Bill is that for June, July, August and September, public houses should stay open until 11.30 at night, and until 11 o'clock for the remainder of the year. In this amendment, I am suggesting that a better arrangement would be a closing all the year around at 10.30 p.m. The reasons I tabled it are: first, that I think the hours of 11.30 p.m. and 11 p.m. are too late; secondly, that there is no real demand for such late hours; and, thirdly, that the best interests of both the people frequenting public houses and the owners and workers in them will be better served by a closing hour of 10.30 p.m.

It has been said from the opposite side of the House that there is a public demand for these later closing hours, but, listening to the debate on the first amendment, it struck me that we were being given an example of the publicans in the major centre of population, Dublin, not being in any way anxious for these longer hours and indeed, according to Senator O'Donovan, asking for a stay of execution. Apparently this great public demand for longer hours is not coming from the publicans in Dublin and it is certainly not coming from the people who work in the public houses.

It is quite true that the law is better observed—I shall put it as far as that—by the publicans and the workers in Dublin city than in other parts of the country.

Dr. O'Donovan

Hear, hear!

Mr. Murphy

They are the people who are observing the law as it stands at the moment. However, one of the arguments in favour of longer hours is that the law as it stands is not being generally observed in other areas, so the publicans and the workers in Dublin are to have these longer hours stuffed down their throats because people down the country are not observing the law. That is a very unwelcome liberty for them to receive from the Government.

They do not want longer hours. They do not think they will sell any more liquor, or that there will be any better custom for them than what they have at the moment, but I am prepared, as I said on Second Reading, to concede that 10 p.m. closing during winter is possibly too early and I suggest that 10.30 p.m. all the year round would amply meet the needs of the people who want to take drink, and would be to the convenience of the people who run public houses and the workers who have to earn their livelihood in them.

The suggestion has been thrown out that other workers work longer hours. Bus drivers and bus conductors work longer hours than those proposed for assistants in public houses under this Bill, but they do so on a particular shift. Transport workers, post office workers and people in the hotel industry have to work longer hours because it is necessary. I want to submit to the House that there is no real necessity to ask the assistants in public houses. to work beyond 10.30 p.m. all the year round. The public's requirements in regard to intoxicating liquor can adequately be met up to 10.30 p.m. without asking the assistants to work until 11.30 p.m. for four months of the year and until 11 p.m. for the remaining months.

On Second Reading, I suggested to the House that we should dismiss completely this argument that the 11.30 p.m. opening would be to the benefit of the tourist industry. I do not think there is any evidence to that effect, or that it can be shown that we shall get more tourists if the public houses remain open for an hour longer. Indeed, it is the experience of everybody who has knowledge of public houses and of tourists that the tourists are the people who best observe the law as it stands at present, that they are quite prepared to leave the public houses at the prescribed hour. We must remember that tourists invariably stay in hotels which are licensed and if they want to drink later than the prescribed hour, until one or two in the morning, being residents of these hotels, they are entitled to do so. Therefore, there is no need for later opening hours to meet the suggested demands of the tourist industry.

In Dublin, most public houses are operated by trade union labour. The majority of the people working in these public houses have to get back to their homes and lodgings when they finish work at night. I have some experience of this. I know some of the people concerned and I know that they already have some little difficulty in getting "digs" because of the awkward hours they have to work. They are under a disadvantage m that respect. Landladies tend to welcome them a little less than they do the people who finish work at 5 or 6 o'clock in the evening and who have regular hours of coming and going.

Now it is suggested that these people for four months of the year shall work in the public houses until after 11.30 at night. None of us can imagine that at 11.30 p.m. they automatically will take off their aprons, put on their coats and go out. Do any of us imagine that because the closing hour will now be 11.30 p.m., the doors can be closed, the house cleared immediately at that hour and the assistants can walk away? Any of us who know the circumstances will understand that the people concerned will be still at work up to 12 midnight when transport has ceased and they will then have to make their way home to their "digs" or houses. That will be most awkward for those in "digs" and what about the people who are married: what sort of family circumstances will they have if they finish work at 12 midnight for four months of the year and possibly up to that hour for the remaining 12 months?

I am hoping——perhaps it is a vain hope—that the Minister will again look into this question and recognise that there is no real demand for these later closing hours, that they are certainly not welcome to the trade in Dublin, to the employers and to the workers. Further, there is no demand, I think, from the people who frequent these public houses for an opening hour as late as 11.30 p.m. These are the views of the people concerned. They are certainly the views of the workers concerned and I think an injustice is being done to them by imposing these longer hours on them.

The Minister said on the last day— and he said it again today—that there is no obligation on the public houses concerned to stay open until 11.30 p.m. or 11 p.m. That would be all right if Dublin could be tied up so tightly that the employers' organisation and the trade union concerned could agree that every public house would close at exactly 10.30 p.m. or 11 p.m.—some agreed time earlier than 11.30 p.m.— and that they could, irrespective of the law, impose their own closing hour, but of course, that is not practicable. All the houses are not trade union houses. In some of them, the proprietor and his family are able to run the business. If one public house is to remain open until 11.30 p.m., can anyone envisage that another public house could possibly close down at 10.30 p.m.? They would very quickly find themselves out of business and there would be a bonus for the people prepared to stay open a little longer. In any case, there will then be that drift to premises outside the city, if there is a big margin between the closing hour in the city and that operating in the rural areas.

I want to suggest to the Minister again that he is going too far in the Bill in providing for a closing hour on weekdays of 11.30 p.m. for four months of the year and of 11 p.m. for the remaining months. What I am suggesting is a 10.30 p.m. closing all round. If that does not meet with the wishes of the Seanad, I should be quite prepared to go back a little further if we could reach a compromise—go back to what is suggested by Senator O'Quigley, half-an-hour later—if that will meet with the wishes of the Seanad, so that we could have some improvement on what is suggested in the Bill, 11.30 p.m. for four months of the year and 11 p.m. for the remaining eight months.

Dr. O'Donovan

I am concerned about various aspects of this matter. I have no great interest myself in the hours which the public houses open. I found an extraordinary interest in the topic here in Dublin, and I can say I found unanimity of opinion on the part of the owners, the workers and the people who frequent the public houses, that the present hours are about right. Senator Murphy spoke only for the owners and the workers, and I can add from discussions I have heard that there was unanimity——

Éamon Ó Ciosáin

In Dublin?

Dr. O'Donovan

Unanimity in Dublin. There is no question about that, in so far as you will ever get unanimity in an assembly of Irishmen. I understand from the grapevine that there were serious discussions in the Fianna Fáil Party, and I heard that the Minister was going to give way on the question of the hours, and that the hour would be 11 p.m. all the year round. There were many rumours to that effect in the trade in Dublin, and particularly among the workers. I do not know where they got that idea. I understand there was the mother and father of a row in the Fianna Fáil Party about the whole matter and this Bill was carried by only a small majority. If such is the case, the obvious thing to do is to give way on the issue, but again, apparently, the managers have had their way, as Senator Hayes said earlier on his amendment—the managers make up their minds and the Minister obeys.

Tomás Ó Maoláin

Did the Senator not mention a majority?

Dr. O'Donovan

I said the managers make up their minds and the Ministers obey.

Mr. Traynor

That is the first I have heard of it.

Dr. O'Donovan

That is a bigger question and it is an issue which I do not think we should discuss here. It is fairly well known all over the world—it is nearly as well known to-day as the opinion of Jean Jacques Rousseau or the utilitarian theory mentioned by Senator Ó Maoláin— that there are managerial revolutions. One can get Penguin books by the half-dozen dealing with the subject. For the past 20 years, the power of the managers has been well known and the Minister, I think, knows that as well as I do.

(Interruptions.)

An Cathaoirleach

Perhaps the Senator would come back to the amendment.

Dr. O'Donovan

There were two things the Minister said which perturbed me. One was on Second Reading when he said:

The hours ... 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.

Who are this section of the public who want to drink after 11.30 p.m.?

Tomás Ó Maoláin

The thousands the Senator did not meet.

Dr. O'Donovan

We all know what happens in cold blood. We know that when they have half a dozen drinks or one over the eight——

Mr. Burke

The greater good of the greater number.

Dr. O'Donovan

The bigger the number, the more they want. Senator Ó Maoláin knows that problem as well as I do.

Tomás Ó Maoláin

I do.

Dr. O'Donovan

The only solution I can suggest is to have the hour of 11.30 p.m. in the country. Could we prescribe some area like the city and county of Dublin and Bray and say the hour there is 10.30 p.m.? If I suggest that, I shall immediately be accused of restoring the bona fide trade, but that problem is not insurmountable.

The second point which perturbed me was made by the Minister today and was not, so far as I can recollect, made previously by him. It is that the hours of work of certain people are later than those now proposed in the Bill. It was inherent in the Minister's statement that the transport workers will have to work longer hours to take home the people who will drink until 11.30, and the workers in the public houses.

Tomás Ó Maoláin

No; he did not say that.

Dr. O'Donovan

I said it was inherent—I did not say the Minister said it.

Éamon Ó Ciosáin

The Senator read it into it.

Tomás Ó Maoláin

The last buses leave at 11.30p.m.

Dr. O'Donovan

Do not forget that there are, at present, arrangements to take the transport workers home. Might I say it is a regular thing if you are passing Donnybrook bridge to pick up many of these people who live in the Terenure area and take them home. They say it takes too long on the bus which has to go around the city. They prefer to be picked up by a motorist who lives near Terenure or Crumlin, and I am sure it is the same in other parts of the city. In fact, there are arrangements to take them home. I ask the Minister in all seriousness: is this a stunt to create extra employment by going back to having buses running up to the hours of 12.30 or 1 a.m.? Of course that will create employment since more people will be working on the transport system, if the existing trade union rules are to continue. As I say, it would create employment but it is a most extraordinary way to do it.

I did not misread what the Minister said. It was implicit and inherent in what he said that the city transport workers will have to work longer hours. That will be the next step after this Bill becomes law. A case will be made: "How are we to get home? We went to a picture house until 10.30 p.m., and then went for a few drinks and lo and behold, with the pleasant company, we forgot our bus left at 11.30. We cannot afford to take a taxi to take us home."

Tomás Ó Maoláin

How do waitresses and newspaper men and women get home?

Dr. O'Donovan

I do not know.

Tomás Ó Maoláin

But they get home.

Dr. O'Donovan

Do not forget these people are not very big people. Some of those big institutions provide transport to take their staffs home and Senator Ó Maoláin probably knows that.

Tomás Ó Maoláin

Public house assistants are not very big people.

Dr. O'Donovan

Public houses are not big organisations. Newspapers are.

Tomás Ó Maoláin

They do not provide transport.

Dr. O'Donovan

Public houses are run by comparatively small people.

Mr. O'Quigley

Surely the Irish Press takes its workers home at night?

Dr. O'Donovan

I was wondering whether or not they did. There is the problem inherent in this Bill that the law was not being observed and that, therefore, a solution must be found. It was stated by—perhaps I might mention his name; he is now attached to the Government—Deputy J. Brennan that the law would be observed in future. I am not that much of a cynic, but I do not believe it will be better observed in rural Ireland in the future than it is at present.

I am sure the Minister will do his best, but I am afraid I must say that the Bill, far from containing the seeds of improvement, contains the seeds of decay, I regret to say. That is why I was perturbed by the nature of the discussions here last week, when so many people said how good the Bill was. We are living in a democracy, and if the people want 11.30 p.m. in the Bill, they are entitled to it, but I see no reason why 11.30 p.m. should be forced on the owners of public houses in Dublin, on the workers in the public houses in Dublin and on the people who take their refreshment in the public houses in Dublin. Why should they be compelled to have these hours?

Tomás Ó Maoláin

They are not compelled.

Éamon Ó Ciosáin

They are not compelled to stay open until 11.30 p.m.

Dr. O'Donovan

They are, in practice.

Tomás Ó Maoláin

They are not, in effect, and the Senator knows that.

Dr. O'Donovan

They are, in practice, and Senator Ó Maoláin knows it.

(Interruptions.)

Dr. O'Donovan

I do not know if the problem is or is not capable of solution but I say there is no effort in this Bill to solve it. I leave it to the Minister to have regard to the views which will be expressed by others on it.

Mr. O'Quigley

I have tabled amendments to the section which are now being discussed with this amendment. I must say it was with no great confidence that I put them down, in view of the concluding remarks of the Minister on Second Stage. While he would welcome improvements to the Bill, he said the Bill cannot be made better in respect of the hours. That does not encourage anybody to put down amendments. Apparently the Minister has closed his mind in advance to all these amendments.

Mr. Traynor

No, that is not true. What I have in mind is something that is an improvement, which is a different thing. But the hours cannot be improved.

Mr. O'Quigley

Yes—that the hours cannot be improved. Therefore, when we get up here to talk in support of these amendments, we do so in the certain knowledge that we shall not move the Minister one whit. None-the-less, since we have the right to put down amendments to the Bill, we have a duty to put them down as we conceive them to be necessary. For that reason, I put down the amendments I conceived to be necessary.

I must confess I have never been able to understand where the demand has come from for some of the hours included in the Bill in its earlier stages and included in it now. I do not want to deal with the early opening hours on Sunday. The Government, it appears, were fully convinced that the hours originally in the Bill for the early opening on Sunday were absolutely the best. To the Government's credit, be it said, they changed these hours. Likewise, I have no doubt that the hours for ordinary weekday opening at night are not the best.

I do not understand what influences have been at work to persuade the Government that 11.30 p.m. in summer and 11 p.m. in winter are hours for which there is a public demand. I have discussed this right from the time the Commission's Report came out. I have never heard people in and around the city of Dublin say they want longer opening hours than 11 p.m. in. summer and 10.30 p.m. in winter. There seems to be fair agreement that these are the suitable hours for summer and winter.

A line of argument some people take is that there should be no restrictions whatever. The function of the State is to remove obstacles to the good life. Acting through the Legislature, the State is entitled to recognise that drinking represents an overwhelming temptation for a substantial number of people. Therefore, it is right and proper to remove the strong, overwhelming temptation that late drinking represents for a number of people in the same way as it is right and proper to legislate in regard to the poisons a chemist may sell, and things of that kind. These are necessary steps in the interests of the community.

Once one accepts that the State has this right to legislate, it then becomes a matter of establishing that there is a demand for these late drinking hours. I do not know where that demand comes from. Senator Murphy says the workers do not want them. Senator O'Donovan says the publicans do not want them. Temperance Associations say they do not want them. The drinking classes say they do not want them because they will upset the whole routine of their family and personal life which they have been observing for years. It is a routine which suits them. In either winter or summer, the regular drinkers, who constitute the steady trade of the public houses, leave home approximately an hour or an hour and a half before closing time, or perhaps a shorter period, depending on whether they drink pints or "small ones". They leave home at a certain fixed period before the public houses close and go down to the local and have these few drinks. In summer, they want to be back around 11 p.m., and in winter they want to be home around 10.30 p.m.

Bearing in mind the need for uniformity, the conditions which prevail in rural areas, the particular position of farm workers, one must recognise that these hours should be extended somewhat. That is the justification for extending the 10 p.m. hour to 10.30 p.m. in winter and the 11 p.m. hour to 11.30 p.m. in summer. It is clear that there is not a demand for the longer drinking hours proposed in the Bill.

I would refer the House to an illustration of the lack of public demand for late drinking hours in summer. I have been told by a number of people in different towns that, during the Tostal period when area exemption orders were procured for the purposes of the Tostal, there was no demand after the usual hours. When permission was obtained to enable people to drink until midnight, or perhaps it was 11.30 p.m.—when the hours were extended in the summer months from 10.30 p.m. to either 11.30 p.m. or to midnight—I have been told by pub licans that after the ordinary hou there was no demand whatever in towns where the extension was granted. I believe the same position applied in Dublin. In fact, in some towns, after their experience in the first couple of years of that extension, the publicans did not think it worth their while to pay fees to solicitors to go into court to get the extension.

Tomás Ó Maoláin

How does the Senator make out that these extended hours will encourage too much drinking?

Mr. O'Quigley

I am not talking about that. I am talking about a particular pattern that has existed up to the present. Once this Bill becomes law and receives the sanction and approval of the Legislature, drinking habits will gradually change. People will find themselves drinking until 11 p.m. in winter and until 11.30 p.m. in summer, although at present their disposition is that they do not want to be put in that position. They recognise that that will happen and they do not want it to happen.

It would be very interesting if the Minister could give the House some information as to the number of towns or areas which availed of the extension providing longer opening hours during the Tostal period. That might indicate the demand. I do not know that any questions were asked on that subject in the Dáil. Perhaps the Minister has not that information but it would be most illuminating. It would be a fairly clear indication of die lack of public demand for the drinking hours proposed in the Bill.

Another point that strikes me about the extension until 11.30 p.m. during the summer is that I had always supposed that one of the evils of the bona fide trade was that people were drinking to a late hour and that it was considered that midnight was altogether too late. All that was in addition to the fact that people were travelling distances to bona fide houses, perhaps drinking too much and then getting involved in road accidents. I always thought midnight was regarded as too late for the vast majority for whom we must cater. The vast majority of the people in this country do not want to be out of their homes after 11.30 p.m.

Tomás Ó Maoláin

Who told you?

Mr. O'Quigley

That is my experience and I have been so reminded by respectable, decent, ordinary Irish people. Senator Ó Maoláin may know a different kind.

Tomás Ó Maoláin

I know all classes.

Mr. O'Quigley

The vast majority of the people I know and of other people they know are at home most nights of the week around 11 p.m. or 11.30 p.m. Here we are starting a new social custom, a new type of arrangement among families, whereby people will be out until all hours of the night, as it is said, in summer time and until 11 o'clock and after it in winter time. I do not know whether Senator Ó Maoláin would adopt this legalistic approach thrown out by Senator Ó Ciosáin last day, that there is no compulsion on public houses to open and no obligation on anyone——

Éamon Ó Ciosáin

And neither is there.

Mr. O'Quigley

——to stay there. The Bible says that the spirit is, indeed, willing but the flesh is weak. As far as the public houses are concerned, the spirit is willing arid is also too strong.

Tomás Ó Maoláin

It has gone down 30 per cent.

Mr. Donegan

That is only Power's.

Mr. O'Quigley

That is the situation that practical people must face up to. I do not think it is any kind of an argument to say that printers, transport people and others have to work late. It is too bad for that group of people who have to do it.

Tomás Ó Maoláin

It is too bad for the publicans.

Mr. O'Quigley

I do not see why we should add to the number of people in the hardship class. "The proper direction for people socially minded;" and "people interested in the betterment of the conditions of the workers" are phrases which I think I heard coming from that side of the House on occasions. So far from adding to the number of the hardship classes, we should do everything possible to reduce the number or keep it stable. It is no argument to say that there are other people who suffer and who might as well suffer, too.

The Minister touched upon the possibility of extending the transport services. The way he put it and as I picked him up—Senator O'Donovan is not always right in his interpretation of things—is that, perhaps, it might be necessary to have increased transport services because of these extensions of the hours of drinking and that he would not favour an extension of the transport facilities, I take it, for the reason that that would only be encouraging people to drink for a longer period. That is the reason the Minister would not favour an extension of the transport services. This House can be assured that so far as C.I.E. are concerned, the least C.I.E. would want to do is to facilitate people who want to use transport services. We have had an example of that in the Bray railway line—incidentally, I raised the matter last Wednesday—which is now being kept open for the next two months. Presumably, what they did was not legal.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

The Senator may not discuss that matter on this Bill.

Mr. O'Quigley

If the Minister has any hope that the unfortunate barmen who will have to work longer hours will be facilitated by C.I.E., that is, indeed, a very remote hope and one which will not be realised. Consequently, I would urge on the House, notwithstanding what the Minister said that these hours cannot be improved, to support the amendments which have been tabled.

Mr. Traynor

I want to confirm Senator O'Quigley's worst fears by saying that I do not propose to accept the amendment. When Senator Murphy was speaking, he said there were no demands from the publicans and no demands from the assistants. Demands do not come from these individuals. Demands for services usually come from the general public. In every possible respect it is public feeling that creates the demand and the people on whom the demand is made are the people who have to supply the amenities the public seek, so that from the point of view of the publicans or the assistants not making any demands, that does not, in fact, arise.

The hours which Senator Murphy is now seeking are the very hours which brought about the situation which the Commission recommended should be ended by the adoption of the hours set out in the Bill. That seems to me to be a rather extraordinary attitude. Senator Murphy was a member of the Commission and must have been well aware of the evidence given to the Commission by the vast number of witnesses who appeared before them and he must have been aware of the fact that there were demands for this type of service.

Senator O'Donovan asked where did this demand come from and who made it. Senator O'Quigley asked the same question. It only goes to show that neither Senator O'Donovan nor Senator O'Quigley had recourse to the Report of the Commission which was issued by the State following its presentation. In the course of their discussions on week-day general drinking, they had this to say:

We had convincing evidence from all over the country that the present hours fail to meet actual needs in rural areas.

Demand comes from the fact that the drinking public were drinking up to the latest possible hour in the city of Dublin public houses. After that, they appear to have gone out to the bona fide houses and carried on there. I am not convinced that the Dublin publicans were closing their houses at the required hours any more than I am convinced that the publicans in rural Ireland were doing so.

I have myself seen up to, say, 10.45 or 10.50 p.m. premises lighted up, with numerous cars outside the doors. I am pretty certain that if I were to investigate, I would find that there were quite a number of drinkers inside being served with drinks and served illegally. Surely that is a demand. What is Senator O'Quigley shaking his head about? They are drinking illegally if they are on the premises.

Mr. Murphy

They may be on the premises——

Mr. O'Quigley

They are not being served after 10.30 p.m.

Mr. Traynor

If they are on the premises after the hours specified in the licensing Acts, they are on the premises illegally. There can be no doubt about that.

When Senator Murphy talked about people having to work what he seemed to regard as abnormal hours, I should like to remind him of the fact that they do not have to work outside the hours their trade union accepts as being fair, and it will be up to the publican to make his own arrangements as to whether his men work as the transport men work—on the basis of a split day, some of them coming in the morning and working till the afternoon and others coming in the afternoon and working throughout the evening. As I have said, it is a matter for arrangement between the workers and their employers and I cannot honestly see how these things could not be overcome They are simple matters and I do not think any worker would be expected to work any longer than the hours set out in the Shops Acts.

Again, I want to point out that when we talk about workers having to work abnormal hours, we are forgetting that on the fringe of the city, we have these bona fide houses where the men do not stop working until 12 midnight or after. Nobody seems to take notice of that fact. Nobody says that these are abnormal hours; it has not been suggested that these men are doing any more than carrying out the terms of their employment or doing anything which is not to their own satisfaction.

The hours are not my hours. They are the hours the Commission recommended. Someone referred also to the fact that we changed the hour on Sunday afternoon from one o'clock to 12.30. The original hour recommended by the Commission was 12.30 but the Government, because of the views expressed to them in regard to the question of late Mass and so on, decided it would be much better not to allow the hours to interfere with religious services. Accordingly, in their wisdom or otherwise, the Government decided that 12.30 p.m. would be too near to the last Mass and that 1 p.m. would be more suitable. Having heard the almost unanimous expression of opinion in the other House, I recommended to the Government that we should revert to the hours recommended by the Commission. That was the reason the time was changed back from 1 p.m. to 12.30 p.m.—to meet what could be regarded as public demand.

I want to repeat that whatever action the Commission took in regard to their recommendations, I must assume, and we all must assume, because they were all men of education, of wisdom, of intelligence, that the hours are in fact based on the evidence produced to them in the course of their hearings. Practically everything in the Commission's Report, with very few exceptions of a minor character, were accepted by the Government. These are the things that now comprise the Bill.

Some Senators, Senator O'Donovan particularly and, I think, Senator O'Quigley, quoted me as using some words in respect of public transport. What I tried to convey to the House was that public transport would leave the city at 11.30 p.m., but I added to that by saying that I believe the general public will drink in their own local areas. I do not see how a suggestion that public transport should work later than the present hours can be imputed to me. I believe that what will happen is that the various licensed premises in the city and in the suburbs will cater for their own local customers.

I should like to finish by reminding the House that the Commission said they had convincing evidence that the hours operating in the licensed trade at the moment were not sufficient and that on that evidence they decided to recommend extended hours. These are the hours in the Bill; these are the hours I recommend to the House; and I cannot accept any amendment aimed at altering these hours.

Mr. Burke

It seems there is not the same demand for a lengthening of the hours in the cities as there is in the country. One of the practical difficulties is that there is an hour's difference between the city and the country and that people are inclined to go out to the country after the city houses close. Perhaps a very sensible compromise would be if we could agree that there would be a half hour in the difference as between city and country. If country public houses were allowed to remain open for only a half an hour later than those in the city, it would not then be worth people's while to go out to the country to drink.

The Minister mentioned my name in connection with a passage in the Commission's Report referring to rural Ireland. I should like to say that we all want to make of this a very good Bill. Public houses to which I have gone in the city close punctually at 10 p.m. or 10.30 p.m. as the case may be and for about ten minutes before the time, people are talking about the time. Perhaps sometimes it does take five minutes or so to get people out of the houses but it is my general impression of public houses in Dublin that they close punctually. I cannot say I am an authority but one cannot be a politician in rural Ireland without knowing what happens in public houses there.

I am looking forward to a new law which will be fair to the people and respected by the Minister's officials who will have to carry it out. I want to see a measure which the general body of publicans will also respect and observe. That is what we have all been hoping for. Half of the cynical approach of the people to the law is brought about by the disrespect which has arisen in rural Ireland for the licensing laws.

Tomás Ó Maoláin

I never heard such unctuous hypocrisy as all this talk and pretence about the observance of the licensing laws in Dublin by the public and those who operate the laws. Surely the Senators who made those statements are aware of what is happening here. Surely they are aware of the evidence given to the Licensing Commission. Surely, if they have any contact with the world around them, they must know what goes on between 10.30 p.m. and midnight in respect of drinking in this city and its suburbs.

There is no doubt whatsoever that the law is being flagrantly defied and broken night after night and Sunday after Sunday, because of the fact that in spite of what Senators have said, there is a demand for more suitable hours during which people can get a drink and get it in comfort. There is no doubt whatever that the consumers have no organisation, but there is every evidence as evidenced by Press reports of meetings of various small trading bodies and of licensed associations outside Dublin which have appeared in the Press during the past two or three years, to show that the hours suggested by the Commission commend themselves to those people. There is every evidence also from contacts which people have with the country to substantiate the claim that, in rural Ireland particularly, there has been discrimination against the country dweller in our existing legislation, and this uniformity of hours which is being given in this Bill will to a great extent rectify and put an end to that discrimination and end the urban bias which has existed in our legislation.

Mr. Burke

No one spoke against the country hours.

Tomás Ó Maoláin

Certainly Senator Murphy wants the hour to be put back to 10.30 p.m.

Mr. Murphy

That is not discrimination.

Tomás Ó Maoláin

Of course it is discrimination. Senator O'Quigley provided us with as fine a sample of the survival of the slave mind from the days of the conquerer as I have heard in this House.

Mr. Donegan

I thought the slave mind existed only in Fianna Fáil.

Tomás Ó Maoláin

Senator O'Quigley has suggested that the Irish people could not be trusted to drink, that the Irish people, unlike those of any country in Europe or any country in North or South America, could not be given reasonable hours to drink because they might drink too much. He has the same mentality as the gentleman who imposed a ban on drinking on St. Patrick's Day on everybody but the wealthy sections of our community. I think he ought to be ashamed of himself for suggesting that the Government should control the hours of drinking in the same way as one would control the sale of poison. In civilised countries, countries just as civilised as this, where men are just as civilised as Senator O'Quigley, all through Europe, one can drink around the clock, as I pointed out on the last occasion. There is no question whatever that our people are in any sense inferior in any way to the people of those countries. They can be as well trusted to have a rational approach to facilities provided for them in regard to drink as the people of any other country, and I resent that insinuation by Senator O'Quigley.

Senator O'Donovan and Senator Murphy both seem to suggest that everybody in Dublin was agreed that 10.30 p.m. should be the hour. I do not know what type of people they mix with, but Senator O'Quigley mixes with what are described as the best people, because ordinary people, with whom he does not mix, are absolutely dead against this idea which he expressed, that 10.30 p.m. is a reasonable hour. I should like Senator O'Quigley, Senator Murphy and Senator O'Donovan to make a spot check at any street comer in Dublin at any time between 10 p.m. and 10.30 p.m. and ask the people who are wending their way towards a hostelry for a drink whether they think that 10.30 p.m. is a reasonable hour or whether they should be permitted to have a drink up to 11 p.m. or 11.30 p.m. I am quite certain that they would be astonished at the answer.

I would ask them to stand outside the Gate or the Olympia Theatre any night at 10.30 or 10.35 p.m. when the shows end and make a spot check on the theatregoers when they come out and find themselves in the position on any of those warm nights of having a thirst on them, as most human beings have, and who would like to remedy that thirst by getting a bottle of beer, but who cannot do it because of the unreasonable laws which close the public houses at 10.30 p.m. I ask Senator O'Quigley to make such a spot check outside any theatre at any time during these summer months. He will be astonished at the answers he will get.

There is no reason in the world why a minority of employers and workers here in the city of Dublin should dictate the policy of the majority and deny the majority the right to drink in comfort and in suitable hours just because it does not suit them to have working hours which do not appeal to them. Many other classes of the community have working hours which do not appeal to them. We cannot all be at leisure at the same time.

There is no doubt that so far as trade unions are concerned, not more than 10 per cent. of the workers in the licensed trade are members of the trade unions, and I do not think the trade unions can speak in their name and declare that they are vehemently against these proposed hours. So far as traders are concerned, there is a six per cent. minority of the total trade population in Ireland who are against the extended hours, but the wishes of the majority must supersede the ideas and the convenience of the small minority. Therefore, I do not think any case has been made for the amendments suggested here by Senators Murphy, O'Quigley and Burke.

Mr. P. Crowley

In support of these amendments, I should like to make a few general observations which I hope to do in the sense of a comment on the Bill generally. I should like to begin by going back to the point dealt with by the Minister and by Senator Ó Maoláin that we have in fact some demand for an extension of these hours. In that context, I think the Minister quite frankly was being unfair to the House in quoting the sentence he quoted from the Commission's Report, because unless I read that sentence incorrectly and heard the Minister incorrectly, I am satisfied that the sentence refers specifically to the rural areas.

Again, I want to make the point that in fact there is no broad public demand of any kind whatever for the extended hours suggested in this Bill. Like some others who have spoken, I want to say that I do not accept the fallacious proposition that there is some type of benefit to be created to the tourist trade by the passage of this Bill. Surely we do not have to argue that the tourists coming into this country are not, normally, at any rate, dependent on the ordinary hours in which the public houses are permitted to remain open. Ninety-five per cent. or ninety-nine per cent. of them will be staying in establishments where they can drink any time they want to right round the clock, without any regard whatever to the ordinary hours during which the citizens are permitted to drink in public houses. I hope that will be the end of that argument because I do not think it is helpful to the debate on the Bill.

As a trade union official, I naturally must direct my attention to the effect which the passage of Bill will have on the very large number of people employed in the licensed trade. I have taken the trouble to consult the trade unions which cater for these people and, as Senator Ó Maoláin has invited us to consult various categories of the public, I invite him to come along with me and consult the trade unions. Not alone will they supply him with arguments but they will also give him evidence that the members of the licensing trade have no particular liking for this measure.

Tomás Ó Maoláin

They represent only 10 per cent. of the employees.

Mr. P. Crowley

I challenge that. I think that figure is entirely unrealistic and I should like to refute it.

Tomás Ó Maoláin

It is not.

Mr. P. Crowley

Apart from that consideration, I should like to make the point that an extension of the hours is bound to have a deleterious effect on the social welfare of the community as a whole, and in particular, of those people directly engaged in the licensed trade. It has already been pointed out that very large numbers of people are engaged in the industry, either as employers or employees, and if this Bill is passed unamended, not alone will they be faced with problems of working longer hours but also, at the end of a long and a very tiring day, of having to find their own ways or means of getting home. In many cases, they will have to travel very long distances at a very late hour and that will also apply to a very large number of female workers in the trade. Surely nobody can stand up in this House and say that is a good thing? I submit it is a very bad thing and something we ought to try to avoid, if we can.

I should also like to criticise the Bill on the ground that it makes no provision whatever for the protection of the health and welfare of workers engaged in the licensed trade. In that respect, it is very lacking and while, perhaps, it might be necessary if there were some type of public demand for longer hours, we cannot ignore the fact that in the absence of such a demand, it is an entirely unnecessary imposition on quite a large and important section of the community.

In a general sense, I should like to make the point that there is obviously an unanswerable case for granting similar facilities to the rural areas on weekdays and Sundays as already exist in the urban areas, but even in that instance, we ought to make quite sure that, in passing this Bill, we are not creating greater anomalies and possibly encouraging greater abuses than those we are trying to cure. Very serious problems will arise when the Bill is passed if we are to have what is known as combined public houses and grocery shops, which represent a very large percentage of licensed premises in rural areas, opening on Sundays.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

I think that will arise on another amendment. That refers to Sunday opening and is not relevant here.

Mr. P. Crowley

Then I shall come back to it when that section is reached, but I think it is a very important aspect of what ought to be debated by the House. Play has been made that the adoption of Senator Murphy's amendment could, in fact, be something like a reversion to the bona fide trade. That is utterly absurd. What is wrong at the moment is that there is a lack of uniformity in the hours of opening in the urban areas as distinct from rural areas, and we have the absurd position that houses on the fringe of cities are able to stay open longer at night than those in the cities. Surely that is a problem capable of a much easier solution than that suggested here? I do not think its solution would involve any protracted debate because the remedy is obvious—the introduction of uniformity in the hours of closing. It is not so important whether the closing hour be 10.30 p.m. or 11 p.m. Whatever is uniform will solve the problem and it should be possible to find agreement upon more reasonable hours than those suggested in the Bill.

As has been said, the law is being flouted at the moment and I believe it is most important to make sure that when this Bill is passed, the law will be observed strictly. In that connection I suggest that it is essential that, in future, the Government must eliminate the widespread evasion of the law by clubs. We have heard little mention of this during the debate but I suggest it is a very serious and important aspect of the problem and I hope the Minister will not overlook it. I want to suggest that instead of allowing the type of latitude that is still allowed in this Bill to clubs——

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

That also will be more relevant on another section.

Mr. P. Crowley

Very good, Sir. I thought I might get away with it this time.

Mr. Burke

The Senator may be making an omnibus speech.

Mr. P. Crowley

I thought I might facilitate the Chair by avoiding having to speak again. However, I shall enlarge on that point when the relevant section is under debate. Nothing I have heard so far from the Minister has convinced me that he has a case for the passing of this section of the Bill, without at least having a further look at the amendments. Like Senator Murphy, I believe it should be a very easy matter for us to find agreement upon a uniform hour, whether that hour be 10.30 p.m. or 11 p.m. as suggested by Senator O'Quigley. The important thing is that we should look for uniformity and if we make an honest approach to the matter, we can solve the problem.

Dr. Sheehy Skeffington

I have some sympathy with the amendments but, on balance, I think the Bill as it stands represents about as good a compromise as one can reach. It ought, in theory, to be sufficient to say: "Well, you can drink in winter until 10.30 p.m. and in summer to 11 p.m.," but I am afraid if these amendments are accepted, in practice, they will be open to further abuses and that the problems we are trying to solve will not be solved. It would be nice to think that our people are, in the main, a people of adults, that they can respect the law, and that if we decide they shall not drink after 10.30 p.m., they will all go home as good citizens and give up drinking. I am not by any means averse to a drink myself, but I do think in general that far too much drink is absorbed in this country, but I do not believe you can make people virtuous by legislation. I do not believe you can compel a certain attitude if it is not widely acceptable.

I think It has been implied in many speeches today that if we keep the public houses open until 11.30 p.m. the drinking classes—as Senator O'Quigley referred to them in the plural, and I know it has been said that work is the curse of the drinking classes—will regard themselves as being obliged to remain in the public houses to drink until 11.30 p.m. I do not think that is the case, and I do not think it is the case that the public houses themselves need necessarily feel compelled to remain open until the last possible moment allowed by law.

It seems to me that in Senator O'Quigley's speech and in the speeches of one or two who supported him, there was an implied contradiction because he said that among the drinkers, the consumers, there was no great demand and yet Senator Murphy, I think, suggested that if one public house were to keep open until a later hour, they would all have to do so because of the competition. Competition is produced only by the demand of the consumer, and if it is true the consumers do not demand this late opening, then an occasional pub which remains open until a later hour would not take a very considerable amount of trade from others who decided to close earlier. You cannot have it both ways. You cannot say, on the one hand: "Every public house must remain open until the very last moment" and, on the other: "There is no demand among consumers for the late kind of drinking."

It was suggested by many people that the law at present is far less observed in the country than in the city. There was a suggestion, from Senator Burke, I think, that we might allow an extra half hour in the country. Of course, the result of that would be not that people would rush out for this extra half hour but that they would go out to the public houses where they could drink for an extra half hour and they would then rush back drunk in charge of their cars. You would have the same situation as at present.

Mr. Burke

They might not come in, either.

Dr. Sheehy Skeffington

They might not come in and they might not arrive. The tendency would be to seek the extra half hour, if it is granted in the country. Therefore, it seems to me that perhaps, on balance, the Bill represents a good compromise. There is the extension of the hours. It would be nice if we could say we do not need to regulate this because we are a grown-up nation and we can take a drink or leave it. Some legislation, however, is necessary, and I think the present legislation, though there may be criticism of it, represents a happy compromise.

With regard to the point of the trade unions and late hours of working, I think that is irrelevant. It is up to the trade unions to negotiate the conditions of pay related to the work involved. If it is decided that this kind of late work requires a considerable increase in pay, that is the job of the trade union. It is not the job of Parliament to say: "Let us fix it so that a particular section of workers will not have to get their trade unions to do what they should do."

The same applies to the question of transport as related to these late hours. It might, no doubt, be quite a good thing in general, apart entirely from the drinking classes, to have some kind of late bus throughout the night in various parts of Dublin as they have in Glasgow and other big cities where drivers and conductors volunteer because they get double pay for that kind of work. I do not think that is really relevant to the question of late hours in public houses. The new hours proposed are not unreasonable for reasonable people. I do not believe that the unreasonable people will or can be cured by legislation. Therefore, I am opposed to these amendments.

Mr. Donegan

I think that uniformity is necessary in the hour at which public houses close. It is true that most public houses are open to both bona fides and locals until 12 midnight. Whether or not that is flouting the law is not very important, because the fact is that most superintendents and sergeants of the Garda Síochána do not raid pubs in rural areas between 10.30 p.m. and 12 o'clock midnight. It is an unwritten law in some areas that locals can remain on the premises until 12 midnight. I have gone to political branch meetings in public houses off the main road and I have often seen the front door open until that hour. It is almost necessary that that should be the situation. In the country, men have to milk their cows around 5 p.m., but during the busy period, when they would most like a drink, they stay out in the fields cutting hay, if the weather is right, until 6 p.m. They come in, milk their cows, get the milk into the can and have their tea about 9.30 or 10 p.m. They then clean themselves up and go down to the pub for three or four bottles of stout and remain with their friends until shortly after 12 o'clock. Whether or not the fact that new time is not observed in quite a few country houses is a contributory factor, I do not know, but that is what happens in most of rural Ireland.

I remember when I was a Deputy hearing the former Deputy Dunne making a most impassioned plea on the Estimate for Justice on behalf of the fruit and vegetable growers of Rush and Lusk who had to work during the summer months for as long as daylight lasted and who could not have a drink until 12 o'clock. The reason he made that plea was that an area exemption order to give them the right to drink up to 12 o'clock had not been granted. The superintendent in that district was rather strict and insisted that only bona fides could be present from 10.30 to 12. Senator Murphy and Senator Crowley made an impassioned case for a minority, but here was a member of their own Party making an impassioned case from the opposite point of view but also on behalf of a minority.

While I agree there must be uniformity, there must be a later hour in the country, especially during the summer period, than 10.30 p.m. as is suggested in most of these amendments. I can see the difficulty in which Senator Miss Davidson, Senator Murphy and Senator Crowley find themselves. The ideal thing for the industrial worker who stops work at 5 or 6 o'clock would be that he should come home, have his tea, spend some time with his wife and then, if he is a member of the drinking classes, go down to his public house for an hour, be back in his bed after 11.30 and be fit to go to work at 8 o'clock the following morning. That would be the ideal for the industrial worker, but I feel the industrial worker should not impress his ideal on the whole of the country.

As Senator Sheehy Skeffington says, it is the job of the trade unions to negotiate for the workers in the public houses. Various classes of people all over the city, gas workers, firemen, street cleaners, have to work during the night, early in the morning or at various odd hours. Shift work of any kind is not pleasant, is not conducive to good health or to allowing a man spend the time he should with his family. However, modern living prescribes that such must occur. It is nobody's fault that these hours have to be worked. When the majority demands, the majority must rule. There is no more case for a barman who has to work until 11.30 at night than there is for a fireman who on certain weeks has to stay on duty all night or for a nurse in the Mater Hospital who for as long as six weeks at a time, is on the most arduous duty all night.

If the union or the trade association to which any worker belongs have a complaint, or if they feel that the home life or the family life of the worker is being interfered with, then it is their job to see to it that a change is made, that the employer gives more hours off or that there is shift work. If that means an extra penny on the pint, that, again, is no part of the difficulty with which this House is confronted. My view is that the compromise of 11.30 p.m. in the summer and 11 p.m. in the winter for town and country is as fair a compromise as could be devised, having regard to the country with its problems in the background and the town with its problems. The representatives of the organised workers make their case to create an ideal situation for the industrial worker but I think a fair compromise has been achieved and nothing better could be done.

I shall finish as I started by saying I believe that on Sundays or week days, with regard to closing at night, there must be uniformity. At that end of the period, there is a danger, and, as Senator Sheehy Skeffington said, even if the difference is only half an hour, people may be sitting in their motor car at 6 o'clock waiting to go for a drink and may decide: "We will go out three miles and settle down there, because we will have that extra half hour at the end." I feel quite certain that no better hours could be proposed than those contained in the Bill.

Mr. Carter

I do not see much merit in the amendment. What system of equity would the movers of the amendment substitute for the bona fide system. If we are all agreed that the object of the Bill is to create uniformity, it would create a differential. Are we to re-enact the bona fide clause? If not, I cannot see how we are to have this differential.

A Commission was set up in 1957, and the members were agreed to a large extent at any rate, that we must have uniformity. Therefore, if we seek to insert amendments of this description, we are throwing the trading hours back into chaos again and having recourse to some trade like the bona fide trade, which was so strongly condemned by all members of the Oireachtas, by the public and by everyone, so far as I can see, except the Dublin publicans. The Dublin publicans, apparently, constitute themselves as a sort of pressure group to ensure hours that suit themselves. As the Minister pointed out, there is no reason why we should let the tail wag the dog in this instance. The other parts of the country are entitled, by virtue of overwhelming numbers, if you like, to have uniformity. The main objective of the Bill is good, and it should be preserved.

Miss Davidson

In supporting the amendment to shorten the hours of trading in public houses under this Bill, I say once more that I believe it would be for the good of the general public, if the public house hours were shortened. I endeavoured to point out that view on Second Stage, and I am still of the same opinion. I was completely unimpressed by what I might describe as Senator Ó Maoláin's bibulous pilgrimage through the unholy lands——

Tomás Ó Maolán

Oh, no.

Mr. Donegan

A European pubcrawl.

Miss Davidson

——and his claim that unrestricted drinking hours would be for the good of our people and would illustrate to the world the pride and freedom of our people. We are not unmindful of the fact that there are classes of workers who must work late hours and, at column 1522, Volume 52, of the Official Report of 8th June, I said:

We know there are certain essential undertakings where the employees cannot have the normal holidays and all reasonably-minded workers accept this situation.

I think that will be generally agreed.

I should also like to refer to something the Minister said in regard to the categories of workers who have to work unusual hours. At column 1540 of the same volume, the Minister said:

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 interviewed the union which caters for these employees. I learned that that is not a normal staff. They wait at what are regarded as special functions. They are a special staff which begin work, perhaps, at 8 o'clock or 9 o'clock at night, and they are paid special rates, bearing in mind the fact that they have to pay for taxis to get home.

The Minister then went on to say:

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.

The union assured me that there is no ordinary hotel trade where the workers work to three a.m. and then have to go home. They assured me that no staff works late in hotels except the special staffs who work for what they call special functions.

Mr. Ryan

A number of arguments have been advanced as to why the hours should be changed by half an hour or an hour, and some of these arguments have something to recommend them. At this stage of the Bill, we should completely reject the suggestion, which is still being made by some Senators, that there is no demand for later hours than those existing at present. It seems to me to be completely at variance with the facts to say there is no demand for later hours. It is quite clear, if we take, for instance, the bona fide system in Dublin when there are tens of thousands of people leaving the pubs in Dublin every night and getting into cars and going to the bona fide houses——

Mr. Carter

That is a bit of exaggeration.

Mr. Ryan

I shall not go into the figures. Say, 9,000 or 8,000 are leaving the city——

Mr. O'Quigley

How many bona fide houses are there in Dublin?

Mr. Ryan

Name a figure.

Éamon Ó Ciosáin

We do not know.

Mr. Ryan

They represent thousands of people who are obviously demanding later hours than the existing hours of 10 p.m. or 10.30 p.m. in the public houses in Dublin. It is quite clear that by going to the bona fide premises, they are demanding later hours. It is quite clear that the tens of thousands—this time I shall say tens of thousands without qualification—of people all over the country about whom we have heard again and again, who drink in the local public house well after the permitted hours are demanding later hours than are permitted under the present law. If the fact that they are drinking after the permitted hours is not a proof that they demand later hours, I do not know what one could bring forward by way of proof.

Recent statistics of the thousands of offences against the licensing laws are an indication that people are not satisfied with the existing hours. They persist in drinking after the permitted hours. That is absolutely clear proof that there is a demand for later hours than those permitted under existing laws. Whatever arguments are adduced for adjusting hours—arguments, for instance, that we are a weak people who must be protected against ourselves which in itself is arguable—let us face the fact that there is a demand for later hours and let us approach the amendments and the Bill on the basis that there is undoubtedly such a demand.

When we talk about hours, it is a question of getting hours for which the people will settle. It is a question of getting a compromise which will have the support of the public generally. If the hours are fixed too early, people will not be satisfied and will not settle for them and there will be widespread evasion as there is at present. It is necessary to have hours which will appear to the public to be reasonable in all the circumstances and will be somewhat later than those allowed at the moment.

The hours in the Bill are as good a compromise as can be got, bearing in mind that many people would like much later hours while many other people might think it proper that there should be much earlier hours. Although some good arguments have been adduced for the amendment, we must agree that the hours in the Bill are better.

Mr. Murphy

In his intervention, the Minister referred to the Commission of which I was a member. I signed the Minority Report but that minority was a very substantial minority. Indeed, for a time, the Commission were in grave doubt as to which was the Majority Report. However, some persons signed one way and, as a result, what we thought was the Minority Report became the Majority Report. I happened to be with that very substantial minority.

The minority had something to say about the closing hours. There is nothing illogical in what I have advocated here and the fact that I signed the Minority Report. The views I have been expressing here are similar to the views expressed by this very substantial minority. In its report, that minority said:

After hearing the evidence of employers, workers, temperance organisations and consumers, we reached the conclusion that there was no general demand for longer hours in the County Boroughs, although we are prepared to recommend the removal of the present distinction between Summer and Winter and to suggest 10.30 p.m. closing all the year round.

We fully agree that in the country areas the later working habits of the population and other reasons justify a week-day closing hour there of 11.30 p.m. and we realise that this, coupled with our proposal for the cities, creates a difference of one hour between the country and the County Borough closing times. We also recommend that there should be general opening throughout the whole country on Sundays.

In making this recommendation it will be noted that its effect would be to reduce the differential in trading hours between County Boroughs and other areas, at present two hours in Winter and one and half in Summer, to a flat one hour all the year round. We are satisfied that this recommendation will create no problem or give grounds for abuse.

At this point I want to say something about the very holy word that has been introduced in regard to the licensing laws, the word "uniformity." We are told it is essential that there should be uniformity in the trading hours throughout the country. There is the view that the bona fide trade was the background to this “uniformity.” There was a substantial difference between the closing hour in the county boroughs and outside the county boroughs, which encouraged people, if they had a few drinks taken and when they were less logical and less reasonable than they might otherwise be, to travel further to have more drinks and thereafter to be a danger to themselves and other road users.

The argument of the Minority Report is that a distinction of one hour would cut out that sort of traffic. On leaving the public house at 10.45 p.m., when the closing hour was 10.30 p.m., people would not be disposed to jump into their cars and run helter-skelter out the country to a public house that would close at 11.30 p.m. It was reasoned that that difference was not sufficiently wide enough to permit the continuance of the bona fide trade.

That Minority Report had regard to what I have regard to, namely, the need of the publicans, of the employers and of the drinking public in the county borough areas. It did not disregard what Senators have been speaking about now, namely, the different social habits in the rural areas. That was a reasonable approach. Senators might dismiss from their minds the very holy word "uniformity" which has been introduced. We are generally reasonable at this hour of the afternoon. Being reasonable people, we must recognise that a closing hour of 10.30 p.m. in the city and 11.30 in the country areas, if we want it, would not encourage the continuance of the bona fide traffic and would meet the needs of the county borough people and the rural community.

Tomás Ó Maoláin

Is the Pioneer Total Abstinence Association not keen on that word "uniformity"?

Mr. Murphy

They were, but I do not imagine it can be argued that the Total Abstinence people are, as is implied, in favour of or very anxious for a closing hour of 11.30 p.m. for four months of the year.

Tomás Ó Maoláin

They ought to have as much interest in protecting the people as the Senators over there, seeing that they signed the report for the 11.30 p.m. closing.

Mr. Murphy

Is Senator Ó Maoláin speaking on behalf of the Total Abstinence people?

Business suspended at 6 p.m. and resumed at 7.15 p.m.

Mr. Murphy

It has been asserted by Senator Ó Maoláin that the trade unions represented only ten per cent. of the workers involved. I wonder to what workers he is referring. If he is referring to the workers involved in Dublin, definitely the assertion is not correct. The workers employed in the public houses in Dublin are practically completely organised in trade unions.

Tomás Ó Maoláin

How many of them are in the Dublin pubs?

Mr. Murphy

Does the Senator mean the workers employed in public houses throughout the country? I should imagine that if he is referring to the people who work in public houses, many of whom are the proprietors and their families, ten per cent. might be correct but when I refer to workers, I refer to the people employed, who are paid a wage and who are not simply the proprietors or the families of the proprietors.

Tomás Ó Maoláin

That is what I was referring to.

Mr. Murphy

Is the Senator referring to the actual people?

Tomás Ó Maoláin

Assistants, porters and so on.

Mr. Murphy

I think the Senator's information is quite incorrect. They are practically fully organised in Dublin, Cork and other big centres. They are organised by different unions but they are trade union members, generally speaking.

Tomás Ó Maoláin

What is the percentage of the total number employed in the trade?

Mr. Murphy

I have not that information readily available. I could not accept the assertion that only ten per cent. of the people employed are organised.

Dr. O'Donovan

The employees— people who are employed and paid wages.

Tomás Ó Maoláin

Yes.

Mr. Murphy

Senator Sheehy Skeffington usually—I am sorry he is not here—makes a knowledgeable contribution to the debate on any Bill before the house, but in regard to this Bill, I think he is not particularly knowledgeable. Anybody who knows the trade we are talking about will, I think, acknowledge that there is no real contradiction in my asserting there is no public demand for a later closing hour than 10.30 p.m. and my suggesting, at the same time, that public houses in the city of Dublin could not possibly close before 11.30 p.m., if the law puts the closing time back to 11.30 p.m. We all know, when people have a few drinks at that time of the night, as I said earlier and as I said on Second Reading, they are not quite the same people as they are at 8 o'clock or 9 o'clock the following morning.

Senators were kind enough to acknowledge that there were arguments for a 10.30 p.m. closing hour in Dublin city and, I think, in the other county boroughs, but I must also accept the arguments put up by Senators, who know more about the rural problem, that a 10.30 p.m. closing hour would not suit the rural community. I want to suggest that it is not impossible for us to meet both points of view. There is, I think, a good point of view against an 11.30 p.m. closing time in the county borough areas and there is equally as good a point of view in favour of an 11.30 p.m. closing in the rural areas. I think it is possible to meet both points of view.

It was asserted that the Dublin publicans and the employees were trying to stuff their point of view down the throats of the majority in the country and that they wanted the hours changed to suit their particular point of view. I am suggesting it is possible to meet their point of view and that it is equally possible, at the same time, to meet the point of view of the rural areas.

I should be prepared to withdraw this amendment, if there were any indication that between now and Report Stage favourable consideration would be given to trying to meet those two points of view; in other words, a different closing time in the county boroughs and the rural areas. The answer which I know the Minister has in mind is the desirability of uniformity, but, as I said earlier on, let us think of the arguments in favour of uniformity. It is no magic word. The idea behind uniformity was to cut out the bona fide traffic, any abuses which crept into the bona fide trade.

I want to suggest to the House— this is my view and I think it is reasonable—that if there is a difference of one hour between the closing time in the county borough and rural area, there will not be that movement to the rural area from the city public houses when they close. That is where the abuses have arisen. That is what the Minister and all sides of the House should want to stop—that movement out, when the city pubs close, to the bona fide public house for another hour and a half of drinking during the summer period, with its consequent risk to life and limb.

I want to suggest that if public houses in the city close at 10.30 p.m. possibly people will not leave them until 10.45 p.m. If the closing time in the rural area is 11.30 p.m. they will not think it worth while then to get into their cars and charge out to the country for the small time that is left, between the closing time in the city and in the rural area. In that way, you would not have the abuse of the bona fide trade; you would not have that inducement to leave the city public houses when they close and proceed to the bona fide houses.

Tomás Ó Maoláin

Does the Senator suggest that the public houses which by law are supposed to close at 10.30 p.m. may not actually close until 10.35 p.m.? Therefore the law will not be enforced.

Mr. Murphy

It would be, in the sense that there would be no serving of drink after 10.30 p.m. Surely nobody envisages that under the new law everybody will be out of the public houses at 11.30 p.m.

Tomás Ó Maoláin

Why not?

Mr. Murphy

That is unreasonable and impracticable and could not be done.

Tomás Ó Maoláin

It can be done, but you want until 10.30 p.m. to ensure that it is done.

Mr. Murphy

I know what happens in the North where the law is very rigidly enforced and where there is provision for very heavy fines for breaking the law. Even there, the public houses are not cleared at the time laid down in the legislation. There is always that ten minutes or quarter of an hour between the closing time and the time the people leave the premises. I do not think there is anything unreasonable in suggesting that with a difference of simply one hour, there would not be that inducement for people to leave the city public houses and proceed to the rural area. In that way the point of view of the people in the county borough and in the rural area would be met.

There is no political point of view involved in this. If we can—and it is the responsibility of the House to endeavour to do it—we must try to meet the wishes of as many people as possible in this new legislation. I should like the Minister to give us some indication that between now and the Report Stage, he will give favourable consideration to the suggestion that both points of view could be met, without running the risk of continuing the bona fide trade and the abuses which have crept in in regard to that trade. I hope other Senators who know the circumstances of the rural community will agree with me that this is a fair compromise which would be generally satisfactory and that they will ask the Minister to adopt it.

Tomás Ó Maoláin

We would then have to vote against the Minister.

Mr. O'Quigley

In commenting upon the amendments before the House, the Minister quoted an extract from the Commission's Report as indicating that there was in fact a demand for the hours set out in the Bill. I have referred before, and I intend to continue to refer, within the rules of order——

An Cathaoirleach

Not with undue repetition, I hope.

Mr. O'Quigley

——within the rules of order, to refer to the position when the reports of commissions suit the Government. The reports then become the Bible and are quoted in the Seanad and the Dáil as being the last word. The Minister in this case reads an extract and that is an end of the matter. "The Commission had convincing evidence..." If, as frequently happens, the Government do not accept the recommendations of a commission, the report is then of no value whatever. Accordingly, as far as reading extracts from commissions' reports affects me, I must say I do not place any reliance whatsoever on them and when the Minister must quote from the Report of the Commission here, it weakens his position.

The fact is there is no disputing the need for meeting the reasonable requirements of the people in rural Ireland. Therefore, there was no necessity for the Minister to read any extract from the Report. Everybody agrees that as far as Sunday opening hours were concerned, the law was quite inequitable, unreasonable and unjust, as far as the people of rural Ireland were affected. Therefore, I do not see what was the necessity for reading from the Report.

It will be accepted that it is desirable to have uniformity of hours throughout the State. In fact this Bill will become known as the great Act of Uniformity. I wish that Senator O'Reilly were here. He is wont to illustrate current problems by reference to Irish and Continental history, and he could tell us how much suffering and tribulation the Act of Uniformity of Henry VIII brought to this country. I am concerned very much as to whether certain sections of this Act of Uniformity will cause strong tribulations to families by too late drinking hours in the cities and in rural Ireland.

I quite concede that there will be occasions when people in rural Ireland working on the farms, cutting hay at this time of the year and later on cutting corn, will be working as long as there is daylight, and at the end of a hard day, in order to get the hayseed out of their throats and noses, will find it desirable to have a drink in a public house. You cannot store pints in an ordinary dwelling house; therefore, the man on the farm is entitled to have his pint freshly drawn from the barrel.

That is the justification for saying that his reasonable requirements must be met; but we must also bear in mind that the number of occasions on which that type of necessity will arise is extremely limited. The number of days in any year on which people will work as long as there is daylight to cut hay, even on the biggest farm, will be very few, and the same applies to corn. You do not have people working to all hours, once they have been cut, except, perhaps, cutting turf and coming home late. That will happen only on a very few nights during the summer.

Therefore, when you come to talk about rural needs, it should be borne in mind that as a matter of practice and fact, 11 p.m. is not at all unreasonable and would probably be quite satisfactory, certainly during the whole summer period, and for the few days that would be involved, people would be prepared to put up with any inconvenience that might arise. We should also bear in mind that this is in fact an improvement on the existing position.

Senator Ó Maoláin was somewhat unkind to me when he spoke of my knowing only the views of the best people.

Tomás Ó Maoláin

You asked for it.

Mr. O'Quigley

My views are got from people drinking at the bars of public houses, and good people drink at the bars of public houses, though they are not the best people in the sense in which Senator Ó Maoláin used that phrase. The best people are to be found in clubs, as the Senator knows.

Tomás Ó Maoláin

I do not belong to any clubs.

Mr. O'Quigley

I do not either, and my views, as gathered from people drinking in bars in Dublin and in the country, are that there is no demand whatever for the hours in this Bill, but great reluctance and fear that, if they come in, people will be compelled to change their way of life. That arises from the fact that they will not leave at 10.30 p.m. What will be keeping them there is natural fondness for having an extra drink in social company. They do not want to have that temptation to keep them. I remember recently hearing at a mission or some such religious gathering a preacher outline the different ways of dealing with temptation, and saying that one very good way was to run away from it. People will not run out of public houses, and they do not want to be put in this situation because they know that they will not run away from it.

Senator Ó Maoláin refers to the fact that on the Continent people can drink round the clock. That is so, but we know what alcoholism has cost France. Eighteen months ago, it was said that it was costing more than the Algerian War, which was costing £1,000,000 a day.

Tomás Ó Maoláin

We know what restrictions are doing in the case of Sweden, which has the highest suicide rate in Europe.

Mr. O'Quigley

Talking about the highest suicide rate in Europe in Sweden is hardly relevant.

Tomás Ó Maoláin

It is as relevant as the Algerian War.

Mr. O'Quigley

I am talking merely about what it costs in France. As far as suicide is concerned, I should like to have statistics as to how many per thousand of the Swedish population go to church every Sunday of the year.

Tomás Ó Maoláin

What has that to do with it?

Mr. O'Quigley

That probably accounts for a great deal of the suicide, where people have no hope and nothing to live for.

Tomás Ó Maoláin

Nonsense. They are very religious people in Sweden.

Mr. O'Quigley

We shall not accept that.

Tomás Ó Maoláin

Do not accept my word. Make inquiries yourself.

An Cathaoirleach

Senators must not cast aspersions on other people.

Mr. O'Quigley

I respectfully agree with your ruling, Sir.

Tomás Ó Maoláin

Bring the Senator back from Algeria and I shall return from Sweden.

Mr. O'Quigley

If I were not rocketed about the place by Senator Ó Maoláin, I would not find myself in the position that I have to draw attention to these known and established statistical facts. I want also to refer to another factor—the effect of drink on people here and in Continental countries.

An Cathaoirleach

The remarks, I hope, will be relevant to the amendment.

Mr. O'Quigley

Entirely relevant, because they all bear on whether or not the hours suggested in the Bill or those in the amendment are the more desirable. In that context, Senator Ó Maoláin referred to the hours, or lack of hours, on the Continent. I am trying to distinguish the two positions. On the Continent, the alcoholic content of whatever people are drinking as compared with what people drink here is much lower. That of course has its own effect on the amount of intoxication to be found there. You cannot merely talk about what causes it on the Continent without taking into consideration all these other relevant factors. We can be certain that Senator Ó Maoláin and those who support longer hours will say the trade unions are entitled to fight for higher wages, which will be passed on to the consumer, so that as a result of this measure the price of drink ought to be increased.

Tomás Ó Maoláin

Nonsense.

Mr. O'Quigley

That is the clear result of what has been said. The price of drink will undoubtedly be increased as a result of longer working hours which the staffs of public houses will have to work.

Tomás Ó Maoláin

They will not have longer working hours. The Conditions of Employment Act will look after that.

Dr. O'Donovan

The price is going up. Everybody knows that.

Mr. O'Quigley

They will be working at later hours at night. It may be some consolation at this stage for the drinking public to know that they are getting a cheaper pint and a cheaper bottle of stout now before the passing of this Bill than they will get six months after its passage, and they ought to drink and be merry, for tomorrow they will be paying for it through their noses.

Senator Murphy has robbed me of a comment I was about to make on Senator Sheehy Skeffington's contribution. Senator Sheehy Skeffington is always able to fit every Bill before this House into the socialist pattern which he advocates on every possible occasion. On this occasion, there is nothing on which dialectical materialism or anything of that kind can be brought to bear on this measure, and so, whether it is good or bad, Senator Sheehy Skeffington on this occasion has forborne to advocate that the State should nationalise all public houses and that then all would be well for the drinking classes. He has forborne to do that, but endeavoured to make some kind of comment upon the contributions made by Senator Murphy and myself. It is perfectly clear that he was completely at sea and in as much fog when talking about this matter as he would find himself at about twenty minutes to eleven in any public house at night-time.

The plain fact of the matter is, as Senator Murphy said, that if one public house in an area decides to remain open it does not matter whether all the other public houses are content to close or that the majority of the drinking people are also content to stop drinking at the hour the majority of the public houses will close. All houses will have to remain open and the inevitable tendency will be that everybody will drink for the full stretch of the time allowed in this Bill. There is no inconsistency between that statement and the statement that people do not want the new hours proposed in the Bill.

It was amusing to listen to Senator Ryan talk about the tens of thousands of people—mark you, the tens of thousands of people—leaving Dublin every evening after 10.30 in summertime to go out to the bona fide houses. There must be a great many more public houses around Dublin than we thought and they must be ten times or twenty times larger than we thought if they can accommodate the tens of thousands of people who go out to them from Dublin.

Tomás Ó Maoláin

There are seven hundred or eight hundred of them——

Mr. O'Quigley

There are not.

Tomás Ó Maoláin

——within reach of Dublin.

Mr. O'Quigley

Seven or eight would be more like it. The point, however, to be deduced from Senator Ryan's view of the demand that these people represent is that because we have an intemperate and immoderate set of drinking people who say that they must get into their cars after drinking in Dublin and go out to the bona fide houses, because they exist the whole law should be revised to meet their particular requirements. I thought the Minister and Senator Ó Maoláin were talking about the greatest good for the greatest number. According to Senator Ryan, because there is a set of people who constitute a minority, and a minority of intemperate habits—that applies to a great number of the people who went to the bona fide houses—the whole pattern of social behaviour and of drinking should be changed. That to my mind is a most pernicious argument and if for no other reason than to scotch that outlook I think these amendments should be accepted.

Mr. Brennan

As one who has some knowledge of the trade from both ends, both as a supplier and as one being supplied, I as a rural trader would like to say that as far as I am aware the Bill is welcomed in country districts. While I listened to the debate for the last few hours I found it hard to reconcile the different points of view expressed by Senator Murphy and Senator O'Quigley. I wonder if the people in the trade in Dublin would be so enthusiastic as Senator Murphy would like us to think if there were different trading hours in the city of Dublin and outside the borough? Would it not occur to him that, in the first instance, the customer would not bother going to his local public house? Would he not naturally go where he could remain for the longest time? I think he would. There was a certain amount of discussion about the number of people who leave Dublin after regular closing hours and while the Dublin people do not seem to agree on the matter, if my memory serves me right, the traffic on any road by which I have ever left Dublin resembled the traffic coming from a race meeting so great were the numbers going to popular and even unpopular public houses. I can assure the House that they are not all local people.

I hope that whatever time the Minister decides on will be enforced rigidly because it is a well-known fact that what I would describe as undesirable drinking takes place. I agree with Senator O'Quigley when he speaks about the different types of people who frequent different types of bars, ordinary bars and lounge bars. To my mind the lounge bar was introduced to cater for both males and females. I agree that where they drink is not so important as the conditions under which they drink. It is well known that certain places can remain open until any time at night they wish, while others are not allowed to do so. Because of that I hope that whenever the Bill is enacted it will be rigidly enforced. I hope the position will be put on a sound basis for the next twenty to thirty years.

The trade all over the country is quite happy about the Minister's attitude towards the reduction of licences. It is a step in the right direction and I should like to compliment the Minister and his predecessors on that aspect of the Bill. The aim of previous Ministers has been to cut down the licences——

An Cathaoirleach

That matter does not arise on the second amendment.

Mr. Brennan

I respectfully submit that it is relevant in the sense that the object the Minister has in mind is to reduce the number of licences as far as possible.

An Cathaoirleach

It may be a fact hut it is not relevant on this amendment.

Mr. Brennan

Very well. That is my contribution.

Dr. O'Donovan

I realise of course, that we are simply attempting to sail against the wind in this discussion but nevertheless we have a duty to perform. I notice that Senator Ó Maoláin and Senator O'Quigley have one thing in common—that neither is a member of a club of any sort. I am afraid I cannot even find that much in common with Senator Ó Maoláin on this Bill because I belong to a modest club. I was really rather shocked when the Minister, in answer to the case I made about the position in the city of Dublin, quoted from the Report a sentence which specifically referred to the rural areas:

We had convincing evidence from all over the country that the present hours fail to meet actual needs in rural areas.

An Cathaoirleach

What is the reference?

Dr. O'Donovan

The reference is the Report of the Commission of Inquiry, the Majority Report, at page 11. I think Senator Murphy, being a member of the Commission, may have felt constrained to be more modest than I am going to be in dealing with this matter. This Report was signed by 12 people and there was a Minority Report signed by nine. The Minority Report was made the Majority Report by the fact that the two members representing the Pioneer Total Abstinence Association switched sides. That is common knowledge and that is how the Minority Report became the Majority Report. And this is the body that deluged us with literature about this Bill.

Tomás Ó Maoláin

After all, the Pioneers should know something about it.

Dr. O'Donovan

Apparently they know a lot about switching sides. I do not know about saying they were going to sign one thing and then coming along and signing exactly the opposite. I was not a member of the Commission and therefore I feel quite entitled to say what a member of it might not like to say about his brethren on the commission. This Majority Report, as such, is not worth the paper it is written on. I am not suggesting that there are not interesting things in it such as this provision about Sunday opening, which I think is a great improvement, and making conditions uniform throughout the country, but when we look at the problem one is up against if one tried to get the views—and on this I insist —of the owners of public houses in Dublin, the workers and the people who drink in the public houses in Dublin, it is tremendous.

There was a great belief, as I said, that there would be an hour of 11 o'clock fixed and that the workers would then be able to get home with the available transport facilities at present. There is no use in Senator Ó Maoláin talking about discussions or absence of discussions. Let us be clear about it. I heard some little discussion on this problem. After all, the Bill has been in existence for six or nine months. It was thrashed right out; then it went underground; and then the rumpus broke out in the Fianna Fáil Party; and when it bobbed up again, there was a general belief that the Bill was to be altered to that extent and that the uniform hour would be 11 o'clock all over the country, summer and winter. There is no use in Senator Ó Maoláin talking about a minority of employers and workers who will dictate to the majority and deny the majority comfort and convenience. I do not know whether I heard correctly or not——

Tomás Ó Maoláin

The Senator did.

Dr. O'Donovan

I am talking about opinions now, the opinions that were unanimously conveyed from inside the counter, on top of the counter and outside the counter. They were all the same here in the city of Dublin, that the existing hours were fairly reasonable. They admitted that there was a case relating to the country and they were trying, like sensible people, to see how they could reach some via media, a middle of the road course——

Tomás Ó Maoláin

In how many public houses could that spot check be said to have been made? The Senator says it was inside, outside, up on the counter and down off the counter—was it in one public house, or in 10, I want to know?

Dr. O'Donovan

In 700 or 800, if the Senator wants me to say it.

Tomás Ó Maoláin

The Senator does not believe that?

Dr. O'Donovan

I believe that this view was commonly held all over the city of Dublin and nobody could shake me in that belief, certainly no statement by anybody supporting the Minister on the Bill in this House. We know the Senator said that the trade unions represent only 10 per cent. of the employees and that he certainly was not correct. There are 3,000 employees, if my recollection is correct —I recall it from the time of the strike, 3,000 to 3,500—in public houses in the city of Dublin.

Tomás Ó Maoláin

And in the whole country?

Dr. O'Donovan

The Senator suggested that only 10 per cent. of the workers——

Tomás Ó Maoláin

How many are there in the whole country employed in the licensed trade?

Dr. O'Donovan

There are certainly not ten times 3,000.

Tomás Ó Maoláin

The Senator should get that figure before he starts talking about Dublin.

Dr. O'Donovan

The word "employee" has a specific meaning—a person who is paid wages—and I take it the Senator was talking of the people. Why did he not bring in all the people, the drinkers and——

Tomás Ó Maoláin

I was talking about barmen and porters.

Dr. O'Donovan

And any farm labourer who helps to roll in a barrel of porter for the local woman down the country—why does he not include that person?

Tomás Ó Maoláin

The Senator should find out how many workers are employed.

Dr. O'Donovan

That can be found out. My recollection is 3,000 or 3,500 in the city of Dublin.

Tomás Ó Maoláin

Get the figure for the country and then let us have the proportion for Dublin.

Dr. O'Donovan

All right, I shall make a statistical guess.

Tomás Ó Maoláin

We do not guess about statistics.

Dr. O'Donovan

I should say that half the people employed in the liquor business are in the city of Dublin. That is my statistical guess as to the number of employees.

Tomás Ó Maoláin

You are a long way out.

Dr. O'Donovan

Senator Sheehy Skeffington made one reflection. He said if we were a nation of adults, we might be trusted perhaps with unlimited drinking hours. When the question of France was discussed here some time ago. Senator Ó Maoláin asked: "What about the Swedes?" He said: "Look what happened in Sweden about whiskey restrictions". But it was the other way round. He said the problem was so terrible that they had to ration whiskey. That was not what caused the trouble. It was the other way. The trouble was because——

Tomás Ó Maoláin

Nonsense. There were no public houses open. They had to do the drinking secretly. That is correct.

(Interruptions.)

An Cathaoirleach

Would the Senator get back to the amendment?

Dr. O'Donovan

Having made that remark, that if we were a nation of adults, we might be trusted with unlimited drinking hours, Senator Sheehy Skeffington said that far too much drink is absorbed in this country. If there is far too much drink absorbed here today, I wonder what it was like in 1900 when the consumption was about three or four times what it is today per head. Quite frankly, I think the consumption of drink is extremely moderate here. I knew a good lady who came to live in this city and she was here for 10 years, she told me, before she saw a man drunk. She had come from a big town in the midlands where, before the first World War, it was a common thing to see them every Saturday night. I saw them myself in the small town of Clonmel nearly 50 years ago and it was a common sight then, but conditions have changed completely and there is no use in pretending that there is any grave social problem associated with the licensed trade today. I may be wrong but that is my opinion.

Seán Ó Donnabháin

Why fight about it? After all, there is only half an hour involved?

Dr. O'Donovan

I shall answer the Senator. It is only a half-hour but it is a very important half-hour. It is upsetting an agreement between the employers and 3,500 workers. Not only that but, beyond question, it will increase the prices of drink.

Tomás Ó Maoláin

Who said it?

Dr. O'Donovan

I do not mind who said it or who did not say it. I am saying it will.

Tomás Ó Maoláin

We do not believe everything the Senator says.

An Cathaoirleach

Senator O'Donovan.

Dr. O'Donovan

Senator Ryan said that suggestions are still being made by some Senators that there is no demand for later hours. I insist that that is correct, that there is no demand in the city of Dublin for later hours. The licensees in Dublin were prepared to compromise to meet the position in relation to rural Ireland and to try to get some agreed middle of the way. There is no use in getting proof. What is the proof that there is a demand for later hours?

Tomás Ó Maoláin

What proof is there that there is not?

Dr. O'Donovan

I shall give the proof provided by a number of Senators just to show the kind of proof it is. The proof of the demand for longer hours is that, the bona fide trade being in existence, on certain occasions—it only happens on certain occasions and only once in a while—people will leave the city of Dublin at 10.30 p.m. because they are in that humour and will go out to one of the houses on the periphery of the city. The total number of these houses is not at all large. I think of an area that I know reasonably well. There is one in Templeogue, one above Whitechurch, one at Goatstown, which is well known to large numbers of people, one at Stepaside, which is also well known. There is a tremendous area and you have only four or five that I can think of.

Tomás Ó Maoláin

The Senator's travelling was very limited, if that is the best he can do.

Dr. O'Donovan

It is a fair segment of the circle around the city.

Tomás Ó Maoláin

The Senator should stop talking if that is the best he can think of.

Dr. O'Donovan

The Senator can add to it.

Tomás Ó Maoláin

I certainly can. I have told the Senator the figure.

Dr. O'Donovan

The Senator mentioned a figure of 700 or 800.

Tomás Ó Maoláin

Go ahead. Let the Senator give me a list of the ones he knows.

Dr. O'Donovan

It is an absurd figure as a serious figure in this discussion. I might have a view that the bona fide trade is not at all the serious thing it has been set up to be but I am prepared to go with the Minister that it is desirable to have uniformity, that is, only assuming that there is no other solution. I think there is a possible other solution. If there were a special law in relation to this area, where so many people are employed, that is, the area of the city and county of Dublin, and perhaps the town of Bray, anybody who wanted to go ten to 15 miles would be welcome to it. One way of amending the law would have been to extend the distance from three miles to ten miles. If it were the case that you would not be a bona fide traveller until you had gone ten or 12 miles, that would kill a whole lot of it.

It seems to me that it is no proof that there is a demand for later hours to say that there are at present later hours in existence by the fact of intoxicating liquor being available up to 12 midnight almost within three or four miles of the centre of the city of Dublin, not alone three or four miles from the suburbs. It is available within a couple of miles of the suburbs. That is no proof at all of a demand for later hours.

The final point I would make is this. I take it the Government do not want the cost of living to go up. I take it it is accepted, the cost of intoxicating liquor being included in the index of the cost of living now, that the cost of intoxicating liquor is part of the cost of living. It may not be part of the cost of existence, as someone has commented. Certainly if these hours are imposed on the trade in Dublin, as is apparently the intention, there is not the slightest doubt that the price of drink in the city of Dublin will go up. People may say that that is no concern of ours. I think it is a serious concern. The proof of that is quite simple. The men working in public houses get double time for Sundays, and if these hours are imposed there will have to be complete readjustment of the hours, whether by increasing staff or giving time and a half for overtime for the extra hours now being imposed on the trade. Therefore, so far as the city of Dublin is concerned this Bill is all wrong.

I am not saying that the Bill, if it could be implemented, has not great merits so far as the rest of Ireland is concerned. I know the Minister feels that it is harsh when we say—he has protested that we ought not to say it and I appreciate that the Minister is certainly in earnest about it—we are imposing an evil on the city of Dublin for which there is going to be no countervailing benefit to the rest of the country. If I were satisfied that this Bill could be implemented absolutely in the rest of the country I would think about it again but the evils that will arise in the city are considerable and could be abated by a reasonable approach to the present hours.

An Cathaoirleach

May we take it that the Minister will conclude the debate on these amendments now?

Mr. Murphy

I want to make a correction.

Mr. Burke

Will I be allowed to move my amendments?

Mr. Traynor

I am prepared to give way.

An Cathaoirleach

We are still on amendments Nos. 2, 3 and 4.

Mr. Burke

I misunderstood the Chair.

Mr. Traynor

Senator O'Donovan appears to impute some dishonest motive to the representatives of the Pioneer Total Abstinence Association. They were in a very difficult position, as we must all know. They were representing a very strict type of temperance organisation and they were faced with coming to a decision which must have been a very difficult one for them. They came to their decision on grounds which they made very clear in a separate report of their own in the course of which they said:

In accepting the recommendations concerning closing hours on weekdays we are aware that a closing hour as late as 11.30 p.m. carries many serious disadvantages not the least being an undue interference with family life with regard to owners, assistants and patrons of licensed premises. However, as the alternative to a general closing hour of 11.30 p.m. was to allow different closing hours in the city and the country and so to open the door to abuses attached to bona fide trading we have agreed to this recommendation so as to secure a uniform closing hour in all areas. We would prefer a general closing hour in all areas of 11 p.m.

That was a reasonable statement of their case and indicated the difficult position in which they found themselves. There was nothing dishonest in their taking that decision. In regard to Sunday opening, having said something similar, making reference to the hours of Divine Service and so on, they said:

We are not happy in agreeing to the hours 5 p.m. to 9 p.m. recommended in the Report. The alternative, however, was to allow different hours, of opening in different areas which would, in our opinion, lead to greater disadvantages than are contained in a uniform opening period of 5 p.m. to 9 p.m. For this reason we subscribed to the recommendation.

That was the only reason they had for voting as they did vote. Looking at the Commission's Report I happened to notice that Senator Murphy voted for 11.30 in that minority report.

Mr. Murphy

For the rural areas.

Mr. Traynor

Yes, for the establishment of the bona fide trade. It would be more honest if Senator Murphy put down an amendment saying that the bona fide trade should not be interfered with because what he is doing is trying to establish the bona fide trade through a back door. I will resist that as strongly as I can. The Senator perhaps does not realise it, but that is the effect it will have.

We have been talking about figures and Senator Ryan referred to the numbers of people leaving the city to participate in the bona fide trade. He was not too far out because I have now found after making inquiries that there are 186 houses around Dublin dealing in the bona fide trade. If those 186 houses were to deal with, say, only 50 customers, there would be a total of 9,300 customers. However, it is possible that during the hours of bona fide trading 100 customers could be catered for. If so, there would be nearly 19,000 people catered for.

Mr. Donegan

Totally impossible. Did the Minister ever see a pub that accommodated 100 people?

Éamon Ó Ciosáin

They would be coming and going.

Mr. Traynor

Senators were also arguing theoretically on a large number of points. I cannot deal with theoretical assumptions. I must deal with facts and the fact is that there are 492 licensed premises in Dublin and Dún Laoghaire and they employ 1,721 members of unions; in addition, 500 union members are employed in licensed premises in places like Cork and Galway. Therefore, about 700 licensed premises employ roughly 2,200 assistants and there are almost 12,000 licensed premises throughout the country.

Where did I get these figures? That is a fair question to ask. They are not my figures. These figures were supplied by the trade union representatives who were giving evidence before the Commission. I find it very difficult to believe that Senator Murphy is really serious when he suggests there should be a difference of an hour between the closing time in the city of Dublin and in County Dublin. Surely that is the re-establishment of the bona fide trade.

Mr. Murphy

No.

Mr. Traynor

Then I shall give up trying to reason with the Senator. I find it impossible to reason with a Senator who will not admit that to suggest a difference of an hour between the city of Dublin and the county is an attempt to re-establish the bona fide trade. If uniformity is not attained, there will be the city of Dublin, with its boundary and on one side of that boundary line within, say, 100 yards of it, there will be premises that must close at a certain time, and on the other side of that line premises that can remain open for another hour. What kind of abuse would that lead to? There will be no need to drive from one place to the other to get drink.

If we were to accept such a suggestion, which as I have already said is a most unreal one, what Senator Sheehy Skeffington said would be perfectly correct. People would not rush out of the public house at 11.30 to get drink in the other premises for the extra half-hour. They would be out there two or three hours before that, knowing full well they would have the extra hour sitting in the public house in the country. That is what we want to prevent. We want to ensure that all over the State the police will know that there is a certain fixed hour, 11.30, and that 11.30 is the hour they must see enforced.

I cannot hope to convince any of the Senators who have spoken on the other side. I am satisfied that they are wedded to the amendments they have put down. I can only assume from the figures I have given here that they are not fully acquainted with the facts, and I would only be wasting the time of the House if I tried to argue any further against these amendments. We could go on talking until we adjourn and we would not get any further.

Mr. Murphy

The Minister charged me with being dishonest in my argument in this matter. I shall excuse him because, as he said the last day, he has no experience in regard to public houses, being a teetotaller; similarly the members of the Pioneer Association have no great knowledge of the actual situation. What I am arguing here is that this Minority Report, which was once the Majority Report except for the switching of the views of the representatives of the Total Abstinence Association—and this should be noted by Senator Brennan—which advocated a closing hour of 10.30 in the county borough areas and 11.30 in the rest of the country, was signed not alone by the trade union representatives but by the representatives of the publicans of Dublin.

Mr. Traynor

The interested parties.

Mr. Murphy

The organised group of publicans in Dublin, the employers, were satisfied that this differentiation would not be harmful to them. The differentiation advocated in this Minority Report, which I suggest might now be carefully considered again, was a differentiation of one hour as against a difference which gives rise now to the bona fide trade of two hours in winter and an hour-and-a-half in summer. It is because of that fact that it is worth while for some people, having taken some drink in a city public house, to travel to a bona fide premises. The Minister should consult his own Party and ask their view as to whether they think a difference of one hour would present a great problem and whether they think there would be that rush from city public houses to rural public houses. In fact, by the time people would get to these areas from the centre of the city, the hour would be well passed.

I am not trying to introduce bona fide traffic again by the back door. I wish the Minister would accept my honesty in the matter. I am advocating the view which was subscribed to by the organised workers; and the organised workers are entitled to their point of view. I am also advocating the view of the publicans in Dublin. I think it represents the view also of the publicans in the other county borough areas. I do not think it is unreasonable to suggest that this would meet the views of the two conflicting parties. The rural dwellers want 11.30; city dwellers want 10.30. That would not create any problem. But the Minister says we should insist on 11.30 for everybody for the sake of uniformity.

Perhaps between this and the Report Stage the Minister will, as I have suggested, consult with his own Party members and ask them whether a difference of one hour would create any great problem and whether it would not, in fact, meet the point of view of both city dwellers and rural dwellers. If the Minister will give me that indication now, we can leave this over until the Report Stage.

An Cathaoirleach

Is the amendment withdrawn?

Mr. Murphy

No.

An Cathaoirleach

Senators should look at the section and at the amendment. I am putting the question: "That the words proposed to be deleted stand part of the Bill".

Question put and declared carried.

Mr. Murphy

Votáil.

An Cathaoirleach

How many Senators desire to vote?

Senators Murphy, Dr. O'Donovan, Miss Davidson and P. Crowley rose.

An Cathaoirleach

The Senators will be recorded as dissenting. The decision on amendment No. 2 governs amendments Nos. 3 and 4. We shall now take up amendment No. 5.

Mr. O'Quigley

What happens to amendment No. 3?

An Cathaoirleach

The decision on amendment No. 2 governs amendments Nos. 3 and 4.

Professor Stanford

On a point of order, I must say I would be rather inclined to vote for amendments Nos. 3 and 4, but I am obviously being given no opportunity to do so. Do they fall because of our decision on amendment No. 2? There is a different principle involved.

Éamon Ó Ciosáin

We decided to to take them all together.

Professor Stanford

I understood we were debating them together.

An Cathaoirleach

I drew the attention of the House to the position twice. The form in which the motion was put to the House was: "That the words proposed to be deleted stand part of the Bill".

Mr. O'Quigley

Surely, that meant the words referred to in amendment No. 2, taking the first amendment first.

An Cathaoirleach

The House has taken a decision on the question: "That the words proposed to be deleted stand part of the Bill." That governs amendments Nos. 3 and 4.

Mr. O'Quigley

If that is the case, there will be a different attitude on subsequent amendments. This is the end of co-operation.

An Cathaoirleach

I could not make the matter any clearer.

Professor Stanford

On a point of order, I think the matter might have been made clearer, if I may say so. One would be prepared, as I would, to support a motion that the words should not be deleted in relation to Senator Murphy's amendment. But I would also be inclined to support a motion that the words should be deleted on the basis of Senator O'Quigley's amendment. I think we went a little too fast there. Sir, certainly for some of the intellects in the House.

An Cathaoirleach

It has been the procedure on many former occasions to put the question in the form in which I put it. Fearing there might be some difficulty, I drew the attention of the House a second time to the form in which the motion was being put. The decision has been taken, and it must stand.

Professor Stanford

With great respect, may I suggest that in future such a compendious approach may be a little bit misleading? Two principles are involved and we could hardly decide on two principles in one decision. I hope you will look into the procedure for future occasions.

Mr. O'Quigley

I understood the position to be that we were discussing amendments Nos. 2, 3 and 4 together in order to avoid duplication, triplication and quadruplication of discussion.

Éamon Ó Ciosáin

We did not avoid it. We had it.

Mr. O'Quigley

That was clearly understood. I have never known it to happen before that three different amendments are voted on together.

An Cathaoirleach

May I draw the Senator's attention once more to the procedure adopted? I put the question, according to the standard procedure: "That the words proposed to be deleted stand part of the Bill." The House has agreed that the words shall remain in the Bill and that disposes of the matter.

Mr. O'Quigley

With respect, I took that to apply to amendment No. 2. I did not take it to apply to amendments Nos. 3 and 4. It may be possible, if the House wants to be accommodated, to get over that particular decision by suspending Standing Orders.

Mr. Donegan

We could talk into next week.

Mr. O'Quigley

Is the accommodation to be all on one side? If that is the approach, you can take the consequences.

Éamon Ó Ciosáin

The consequences of what?

An Cathaoirleach

I am now calling on Senator Murphy—amendment No.

Mr. Murphy

I move amendment No. 5:—

In page 4, line 25, to delete "half-past twelve" and substitute "one".

In this amendment we are dealing with the hours proposed for Sunday trading. The Bill provides for opening hours from 12.30 to 2 p.m. and from 5 to 8 p.m. for eight months of the year and 5 to 9 p.m. for the remaining four months. I am advocating the trade union point of view, without any apology to the Senators on the other side of the House, that those hours are unsuitable, represent a hardship on the workers employed in the trade and, furthermore, are not really required by the drinking public. I suggest in this amendment that the opening hour should be put back to 1 p.m. I take it we are dealing with each amendment separately now.

An Cathaoirleach

Amendment No. 5 stands on its own.

Mr. Murphy

At the moment the public houses in the county boroughs open at 1 p.m. We have heard a good deal about the fact that there should be no discrimination between urban and rural areas. I accept that that is a good argument. I do not accept, however, that because official drinking hours are extended to the rural areas city public houses should be compelled to open an hour earlier than at present. As Senators are aware, opening at 12.30 p.m. means opening while last Mass is still being celebrated. I think it is quite inappropriate that public houses should open at that hour.

To come back to the worker's point of view, because Saturday night is the busiest night of the week full staffs will be on duty until 11 p.m. or 11.30 p.m. and, as we know, they then have the difficulty of getting home. It would not be unreasonable that they would like to sleep next morning and go to last Mass but that, of course, will not be possible for them now if the provision in this Bill is not changed, if the opening hour is not put back to what it is at present, namely, 1 p.m. I do not think there is any real demand for a 12.30 p.m. opening and I believe the position is adequately and fairly dealt with by the present opening hour of 1 p.m.

An Cathaoirleach

In order to help Senators, may I direct attention to the fact that this amendment covers all areas and deals with St. Patrick's Day and Sundays, in connection with the early opening period? I think that should help the House to understand the discussion.

Mr. P. Crowley

I do not want to hold up the House on this matter except to lay some little emphasis on what Senator Murphy has said. I may say that I have been specifically asked by the representatives of the staffs who will be affected by this section of the Bill to make the strongest possible appeal to the Minister for acceptance of the amendment. Apart from any other consideration, to my personal knowledge there are certain areas in which last Mass on Sundays will still be in progress at 12.30 p.m., when the public house across the street from the church in a country village or town will open its doors for business. We could deduce many other arguments in favour of the amendment but I think that one should be sufficient to appeal to the Minister.

Mr. Lenihan

I thought the most welcome attitude of the Minister in the course of this Bill's progress through the Dáil was his meeting the very strong view in rural Ireland that the hours should be 12.30 to 2 o'clock on Sunday morning and afternoon, rather than 1 p.m. to 3 p.m. I find it rather difficult to reconcile Senator Murphy's attitude on this with some of his moral pronouncements on the necessity for restriction of trading hours on the previous amendment. The Minister, in incorporating the hours 12.30 p.m. to 2 p.m., is actually restricting the hours of trading by half an hour on Sundays.

Mr. Murphy

I did not suggest that they should stay open until 3 p.m. Read the amendment.

Mr. Lenihan

The original proposal was that the opening hours should be 1 p.m. to 3 p.m. The Minister, in fact, has restricted the trading hours by half an hour on Sundays, and Senator Murphy's trade unionists will now be able to get home to lunch at the reasonable hour of 2 p.m. or 2.30 p.m. Under the original proposal the customers and the trade unionists would have to wait until 3 p.m. or 3.30 p.m.

Mr. Murphy

I am not suggesting that. Read the amendment.

Mr. Lenihan

I am suggesting that the hours of 12.30 p.m. to 2 p.m. are ideal. There was a certain allegation that there was not a demand for longer opening hours.

Mr. O'Quigley

That was in a completely different case.

Mr. Lenihan

Senator Murphy went to the dishonest extent of bringing in the question of Mass.

Mr. Donegan

On a point of order, is it in order for a Senator to describe other Senators as dishonest?

Mr. Lenihan

Dishonest argument.

Mr. Donegan

The word "argument" was not used.

Mr. Lenihan

The very reason for the introduction of the proposal——

Mr. L'Estrange

Could we have a ruling from the Chair?

Mr. Lenihan

——to have this opening hour of 12.30 p.m. was the very fact that last Mass is finished at 12.30 p.m. in 90 per cent. of the country areas.

Mr. Murphy

The Senator cannot forget the cities.

Mr. Lenihan

I see Senator Burke nodding his head.

Mr. Burke

It is a fact. Nobody is going to come out during the middle of 12 o'clock Mass to go into a pub.

Mr. Lenihan

But the original proposal, the one suggested by Senator Murphy as being ideal, is the 1 p.m. opening. If that were the case, people would be hanging around town for a half-an-hour or an hour after last Mass until official opening time, and to rectify that situation the Government did the sensible thing in the Dáil by providing for 12.30 p.m. opening. It was to meet that very situation in which 90 per cent. of the people in rural Ireland will be out of Mass by 12.30 p.m. In addition to facilitating people in rural Ireland, it restricts the hours of work for trade unionists in Dublin city by half an hour and enables people, whether in rural Ireland or in Dublin, to get home for lunch by 2 p.m., and also enables the trade unionists to reach their homes by 2.30 p.m. It is far more practicable and sensible than the original proposal in the Bill.

Mr. Donegan

I feel that 12.30 p.m. to 2 p.m is about the best opening period that one could get because there is a habit in rural Ireland for people to avail of the facility of having a bottle of stout before lunch on Sundays.

Mr. Burke

Or two.

Mr. Donegan

The problem was how to allow such persons to enjoy this drink before lunch and to reconcile it with the late Masses and late Divine Services. It was not worth-while waiting until 1 p.m., from the point of view of both the publicans and the workers behind them, and so it was decided that the earliest possible opening would be 12.30 p.m., which would not hurt anybody. People who go to last Mass have to be in church before the First Gospel and they are usually out again by 12.30 so, in my view, 12.30 p.m. is about right as an opening hour. No shorter period than an hour and a half would justify opening public house doors and setting up the paraphernalia for doing business.

Mr. Murphy

For one bottle of stout?

Mr. Donegan

From the point of view of the publicans and the workers one and half hours is very reasonable. With regard to Senator Murphy's suggestion that staffs will be working late on Saturday night and would like to have a sleep until last Mass on Sunday, I would say that life is not so easy. It is just not that simple and I am quite certain that on Wednesdays and Thursdays—though I think railway pay day is Thursday—with reasonable co-operation between employer and employee there would be an opportunity for all the sleep required. The fact that somebody would have to work until 11.30 on Saturday night and be on duty again next day at 12.15, or 12.30, would not worry me in the least, whether I were employer or employee. I know I have to do a lot tougher things and shall have to continue doing them over a number of years, and I feel that 12.30 as an opening hour is round about right.

I try to be as honest as I can in my approach to this Bill because it is non-political and is not a Bill on which strong representations from vested interests should be taken into account. I would almost, but not quite—perhaps through lack of courage—include the people who have the Pin in the same category. You have all these pressures and I feel none of them should be allowed to impinge too much. The ordinary fellow who takes a drink and the ordinary publican who sells it provide the common denominator. It would be unwise if Dublin made the laws for Ireland or if Ireland made the laws for Dublin. I think that from 12.30 to two o'clock is about the right time. It means that the wife can expect her husband home about 2.15 p.m. and that is not too bad. If you delay it any longer, it would be too bad. At the same time, it means there is a reasonable opening period to allow the publican earn something to pay his staff and it obviates the silly situation of having the staff coming in for an hour.

Mr. Burke

I agree with what Senator Donegan has said. I think it is necessary to have a one-and-half hour opening period. Not everyone wants to wait until one o'clock for their drink. Outside of the larger towns, the last Mass in rural Ireland on Sunday is at 11.30 a.m. Even where the last Mass is at 12 o'clock, it is usually over about quarter to one. If one wants to go away in the early afternoon, one can have a drink with one's friend from 12.30 to one o'clock and then have an early lunch. If the public houses are closed at 2 o'clock, every woman in Ireland—and we appear to give very little thought to them in this Bill, as in other Bills— will be facilitated by having their husbands home at 2.15 p.m. at the latest.

Mr. P. Crowley

In fairness to Senator Murphy, the fact should be borne in mind that the effect of the amendment would be not to open public houses after two o'clock, but not to open them until one o'clock.

Mr. Burke

Would it not be hard on the public house to try to serve everybody in one hour? I do not think it could be done. Do not restrict us to one bottle of stout.

Mr. Traynor

The case Senator Burke has just made is the case I was confronted with in the other House. As I mentioned before the tea adjournment, the Government had decided on the hour of one o'clock. That was a result of representations made in respect of religious services. Believing that they were taking action that would meet with the approval of the clergy, they decided on one o'clock. But when I went into the Dáil, with the Bill, I was almost overwhelmed by the weight of argument against this hour of one o'clock. Twelve-thirty was the hour recommended by the Commission. When I reported back to the Government and mentioned the arguments put forward, the Government gave me permission to put down an amendment providing for an opening hour of 12.30 rather than continuing on with the hour of one o'clock.

The arguments put forward were generally along the same lines as those put forward by Senator Burke. I think they were good arguments and, as Senator Lenihan mentioned, the drinking hours have been reduced by half an hour. The amendment I introduced was intended to ensure that the men folk would have to get out of the premises at a reasonable hour and would go home to their families and, perhaps, do what they should do: attend to their families, take them out to the seaside and matters of that kind. All these factors certainly carried weight with me and it was because of them that I put down the amendment fixing the hour at 12.30 p.m.

As I said, the Dáil were almost unanimous. From all sides of the House, I was met with this attack on the one o'clock hour. I was told, just as Senator Burke mentioned, that the last Mass in rural Ireland is usually at 11.30 a.m. Up to then I was under the impression that there was a 12 o'clock Mass. I was going on the basis that that Mass would be over at a quarter to one and that the people would have to wait only the short period of a quarter of an hour. When I realised that the last Mass was, generally, at 11.30 and would probably be over at about 12.15, I realised the truth of what most of the Deputies were saying, that if the people coming from last Mass had to wait for something like three-quarters of an hour it would tend to induce licensees to admit some of these people illegally and thus we would be getting back to the dangerous situation which the police referred to in their evidence before the Commission. In order to avoid that, I had no difficulty whatever in making up my mind to put down 12.30 so as to ensure that there would be no possibility of people standing around for three-quarters of an hour. What will happen now is that they will have, perhaps, less than a quarter of an hour to wait.

Personally, I do not believe that there will be such a terrific rush on the part of congregations to get to the various licensed premises as we have been led to believe; but there will be people who will have business to do in some of these licensed premises other than getting a drink. I think I have been reasonable in meeting the views expressed by Deputies and I propose to adhere to the hours contained in the Bill.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

Is the amendment being pressed?

Mr. Murphy

Yes. Again we have the insistence on the requirements of rural Ireland in regard to this amendment. I wonder would there be any objection to taking into account the requirements of those unimportant people, in the view of the other side of the House, the people in the cities? Here it is definitely the case that 12 o'clock is the last Mass. At present the public houses open at 1 o'clock and there is no demand for an earlier opening. I referred earlier to the plight of the assistant working late on a Saturday night who might feel disposed to have a sleep in and to go to last Mass on Sunday morning. That would not be practicable with the Bill as it stands.

That is the immediate argument that sprang to my mind but in fact the unions' argument was that it is their experience that most of the workers in Dublin come from rural areas and are fond of playing football and hurling. Sunday is the usual time for them to play their matches. It was pointed out to me previously, with the one o'clock opening, they at least had the opportunity of getting to the Park and playing their matches on Sunday morning but that would not be possible now because they would be required to be on duty at an earlier hour.

Let us look for a moment at the over-all position on Sundays. Previously, the public houses opened for a total of four hours in the county boroughs and there was criticism of the fact that there were no legal opening hours in the rural areas. We are now not simply extending the four hours to the rural areas, but imposing 5½ hours in the 26 Counties for four months of the year and 4½ hours for the other eight months. We are increasing the total hours of trading on Sundays when there is no demand for that increase. There has been criticism of discrimination between the cities and the rural areas. It is now proposed to remove that discrimination, but, in doing so, it is proposed to increase the total trading hours on Sundays. I think our inclination should be to try to keep the trading hours on Sundays at as low a minimum as possible.

To go back to the plight of the assistants, we are providing here that the public houses will be open from 12.30 p.m. to 2 p.m. The position is that if they are open at 12.30 p.m., it will be too early for the people concerned to have lunch before going on duty They will have lunch after they finish at 2 o'clock and they have to be back on duty again at 5 o'clock. When then do they have their evening meal? We are providing that the pubs will not be closed until 9 o'clock for four months of the year. These people are human beings. Why is the Minister insisting on providing an opening hour of 12.30 p.m. in the cities when most Masses are at 12 o'clock and there is no need for that opening hour in the city?

I know about this great principle of uniformity. We have all heard about that. That was the cry of the people who were in favour of total abstinence, and I notice that those same people, in giving evidence before the Commission, pointed to the experience that where facilities for drinking are increased, intemperance also increased. The Minister has declined to give different treatment with regard to the closing hour on weekdays as between the cities and the rural areas, but surely there is no great need for uniformity in the opening hour on Sunday mornings. I accept the argument that in the rural areas Mass is generally at 11.30 a.m., as was said in this House and in the Dáil, and I think it is reasonable for the Minister to meet the point of view of the people concerned and to provide for an opening hour of 12.30 p.m., but surely in the cities we could equally provide for a difference. There is no great problem. No one in the city will go charging to the country because the public house is open half an hour earlier on Sunday mornings.

I suggest to the Minister that he should forget, for just half a minute, about this great principle of uniformity and agree, in respect of the cities at any rate, that the opening hour on Sunday mornings should be left as it stands at the moment—1 p.m. rather than 12.30 p.m.—and let the pubs in the rural areas open at 12.30 p.m., if that is what is required by the people concerned, as we are told it is.

Tomás Ó Maoláin

The opening hour at the moment is 1.30 p.m.

Mr. Murphy

1.30 p.m. to 3 p.m. in Dublin. That is right.

Tomás Ó Maoláin

The Senator said 1 p.m.

Mr. Murphy

In the county boroughs generally, it is 1.30 p.m. to 3 p.m.

Tomás Ó Maoláin

But the Senator is talking about Dublin and he said 1 p.m.

Mr. Murphy

We could make it 1 p.m. in the county boroughs generally, and leave the difference in the rural areas, and let them have an opening hour of 12.30 p.m. I ask the Minister to consider that. There is no great principle involved, and it would help at least to some extent to meet the situation of the people employed in the public houses in the city.

Tomás Ó Maoláin

Would the Senator enlighten us further? What has the fact that last Mass begins at 12 noon in Dublin to do with it?

Mr. Murphy

The public houses will be open while Mass is still on.

Tomás Ó Maoláin

They are open every day when Mass is on. They are open at 10.30 a.m. every day.

Mr. O'Quigley

There is a difference between Mass on a Sunday and Mass on a weekday.

Seán Ó Donnabháin

I was hoping that Senator Murphy would accept the reasonable statement made by the Minister in connection with this matter. I want to say that I certainly have never listened to a more tiresome and unrealistic debate in the Seanad.

Mr. Burke

It would drive one to drink.

Seán Ó Donnabháin

Many speakers have talked with their tongues in their cheeks. Senator Donegan said what he thought but other Senators did not.

Mr. Murphy

Because he agreed with the Senator.

Mr. O'Quigley

Do not provoke the remark that some people cannot think.

Seán Ó Donnabháin

Anyone would be provoked by the balderdash talked by the Senator.

Tomás Ó Maoláin

The Senator talks gobble-de-gook.

(Interruptions.)

Seán Ó Donnabháin

We have the G.A.A. and other organisations in many of our cities and towns, and people travel to different venues of sport all over the country. In that regard, this hour is better than a later hour. Again, it is better to have uniformity. I shall emphasise uniformity and Senator Murphy need not throw up his hands in anguish. An admirable feature of this Bill is that throughout the entire area of the State, we shall have uniform hours in restaurants and hotels——

Mr. Murphy

The Senator should read the Bill.

Seán Ó Donnabháin

We are forgetting that the law applies to restaurants, hotels and clubs as well as to public houses. As between the Dublin publican and the Dublin assistant and the country, we shall have uniform hours throughout the entire State——

Mr. Murphy

To suit the rural areas.

Seán Ó Donnabháin

——for public houses, for hotels and clubs, and the Garda who will have to enforce the law will know that the same law applies everywhere.

I have often travelled to Thurles, and I found that when a match is starting at 2.30 p.m. or 3 o'clock, the closing hours apply to people I meet in Thurles, but if I want to go into a public house yard, where there are sandwiches and drinks, I am a traveller and the person from Thurles is not. I think it is very suitable for the G.A.A. to have these facilities without any restriction as to whether a person has travelled three miles, 50 miles or 100 miles. When the match is over, the trains usually leave at 6 o'clock and people can have some refreshment in a restaurant, a hotel or a simple pub. I believe these Sunday trading hours are suitable for everyone who wishes to get refreshment. I use the word "refreshment" in relation to licensed premises, hotels, restaurants or public houses anywhere in the country. The fact that the hours will be the same all over the country is the whole appeal of this Bill and that is why uniformity is stressed.

Amendment put and declared lost.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

It seems to me that amendments Nos. 6 and 7 could be taken together.

Mr. Burke

And No. 8, Sir.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

So far as the discussion goes, if the Seanad wishes, we can take amendments Nos. 6 to 11 and also, indeed, amendment No. 12 in the one discussion.

Mr. Burke

Not No. 12.

Mr. O'Quigley

So far as I am concerned, I shall not agree to any such discussion, in view of the ruling we had from the Chair on amendments Nos. 2, 3 and 4. We got no assistance or co-operation from the other side of the House.

Tomás Ó Maoláin

At this stage, might I intervene to find out whether the Seanad would agree to sit late to deal with the Committee Stage of this Bill?

Mr. O'Quigley

No. To-morrow is a holyday of obligation.

Tomás Ó Maoláin

I want to point out that that was the understanding I had with Senator Hayes before he left.

Mr. O'Quigley

But this is another matter now.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

I am doubtful, judging by the pace of the discussion, if it would be possible to deal with the Committee Stage unless we sat into the early hours of the morning. There are a number of amendments in relation to clubs. I doubt if we could cover the amendments in any reasonable time, even up to 11.30 p.m. Would Senators perhaps consider the matter?

Mr. O'Quigley

No. To-morrow is a holyday of obligation.

Tomás Ó Maoláin

Because Senator O'Quigley did not get his way, he is obstructing. I am quite prepared to accept next week.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

It is doubtful if we would finish to-night.

Mr. O'Quigley

On a point of order. Is it in order for Senator Lenihan to refer to a Senator as a "zoological specimen"?

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

I did not hear the remark.

Mr. O'Quigley

He may have been looking at a mirror.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

It is not a parliamentary remark, but the Chair did not hear it.

Mr. L'Estrange

Did Senator Lenihan say to which side of the House he was referring?

Tomás Ó Maoláin

Senator O'Quigley has a vivid imagination.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

I take it the position is that we shall discuss Amendments Nos. 6 to 11 together, that there will be one decision on Amendments Nos. 6 and 7——

Mr. O'Quigley

How can we discuss these amendments if they are not moved? I do not propose to move any of the amendments standing in my name with any other amendment.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

The custom, I understand, is that the widest amendment takes precedence, that is, that the widest amendment is taken first. If Senators will look at Amendments Nos. 6 and 7 they will see that number 6 is the wider amendment. If we look at amendments Nos. 8 to 11, we shall see that No. 8 is the widest of these four amendments.

Mr. O'Quigley

We can discuss them separately, whatever the custom of the House may be. I shall not give any further co-operation.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

I understand that this is the rule of the House. If a Senator has an amendment standing in his name and if there is not a separate decision on it, there is no doubt that he can put it down again on Report Stage. I think amendments Nos. 6 to 11 all relate to the one subject, that is, to St. Patrick's Day and Sundays. They relate to the second period on Sundays and St. Patrick's Day.

Mr. Traynor

I think I am the victim of circumstances and of a misunderstanding on the part of some Senators.

Mr. O'Quigley

Nobody is blaming the Minister. I am not blaming the Minister.

Mr. Traynor

Allow me to continue. I am appealing now for a continuance of the agreement that apparently was reached. The Chair has stated correctly that it was agreed to take amendments Nos. 6 to 11 and also to bring in amendment No. 12 in relation to Section 5 in the name of Senator Donegan. I feel Senator O'Quigley misunderstood the situation. The Chair, as I remember it, put the question twice. He referred in the plural about deleting the words and he repeated it. When it came to a question of asking Senators to stand up, Senator O'Quigley did not stand up.

Mr. O'Quigley

No.

Mr. Traynor

He could have stood up and recorded his vote——

Mr. O'Quigley

No.

Mr. Traynor

——without necessarily supporting Senator Murphy's amendment. Then he could promptly have gone on to his own two amendments and pressed them. That is why I say I am the victim of a misunderstanding in the circumstances which obtained at that moment. I am now appealing to the Seanad to agree to carry out the programme as agreed to at the beginning of the debate.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

I understand the procedure in this House— and, indeed, on this Bill in the Dáil —is that these two amendments are taken together. Once a decision is taken that the words stand in relation to the broader of the amendments, the other amendment falls.

Mr. O'Quigley

That was never explained to us.

Mr. Burke

That was never explained to any of us.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

That, I understand, has been the procedure in this House for a very long time.

Mr. Burke

Senator Stanford did not understand it, either.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

I think in the circumstances, we should have a discussion on amendments Nos. 6 to 11 together and take two decisions, a decision on Nos. 6 and 7 and a decision on the other four.

Mr. Donegan

I was here. I feel the Minister has explained the situation. I did not understand at the time what was happening but I did afterwards, before the Minister spoke and immediately after the situation had developed. Senator O'Quigley or any one of us could have risen and made the objection when the words were spoken by the Cathaoirleach. Unfortunately, it was a ceremonial matter. The words used by the Cathaoirleach were "that the words proposed to be deleted stand." It was omnibus; it brought in the lot. Even Senator Stanford did not realise the situation. So long as Senator O'Quigley knew that, at the end, we could make our individual objection, it should cover the matter, should it not?

Mr. O'Quigley

My position is perfectly clear. As far as the other amendments are concerned, I did not understand nor was in any way given by the Chair to understand that we were voting upon three amendments at the one time. I did not intend to vote on the first amendment; I was interested in the other two. I have no grouse with the Minister but rather an abundance of goodwill for him in the very difficult job he has to do in this House. However, I take issue with other people on the other side of the House who are gloating over the fact that these amendments were got rid of. I do not consider that good for this House. I refuse to move any amendment in my name for the purpose of having it discussed with another or others.

Mr. Lenihan

An angry young man.

Mr. Burke

Could they not be discussed together and then moved separately? Would that get over the problem? They all deal with time.

Mr. O'Quigley

I refuse.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

I understand that amendments Nos. 6 and 7 are alternatives and that the decision will be on whether the word "five" shall stand.

Mr. Donegan

Let us presuppose that the words "seven" or "eight" have a large majority here. How is it decided then? How does the House vote for "seven" or for "eight"?

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

Once a decision was taken that "five" did not stand, you would have to take a decision as to whether you would insert "eight" or "seven". There is no doubt that, once there is a decision that "five" stands, there is a decision on the principle involved. This matter has been thrashed out thoroughly. I think amendments Nos. 6 to 11 certainly go together and I think that Senator Donegan ought to have an option as to whether amendment No. 12 will be taken separately or with the others. There is a slight difference in subject matter. It deals with area exemption orders.

Mr. Donegan

I feel that amendment No. 12 should be taken separately.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

Very good.

Mr. Burke

I move amendment No. 6:

In page 4, line 26, to delete "five" and substitute "eight".

One page 12 of the Report of the Commission of Inquiry, I notice it is stated at lines 9 to 13 that:

The general pattern of drinking involves three distinct periods of the day: morning trade after Church Services, afternoon trade following football matches or other similar events and late evening trade when the chores on the farm are finished.

These are the three periods in respect of which it was suggested it was reasonable to allow drinking on a Sunday. The interesting thing is that the first of these periods was allowed and was largely generally accepted with the exception that an amendment appeared in this House to shorten the period from 1 p.m. to 2 p.m. With that possible exception, the first period was universally accepted. I certainly cannot see why the second period was put into the Bill and the third period in the statement quoted was not considered.

It appears that the small number of people in Ireland who attend sports fixtures on a Sunday afternoon are to be accorded facilities while hundreds of thousands of people who have to do agricultural, domestic and other chores will receive no consideration whatsoever. I remember some years ago having a very unofficial conversation, indeed, with a Bishop about Sunday cinemas. He said that the only thing he had any objection to was opening the cinemas on Sunday afternoon. He said that in his Diocese he called the representatives of the cinemas to see him. He told them he would raise no objection to the opening of the cinemas, provided they opened after 8 o'clock on Sunday evening and did not show pictures that were not in keeping with the traditions of the Sabbath. He also gave as one of his particular reasons that he wanted all the people of Ireland, whether they were young, or old or middle aged, to be out in the afternoons and not locked up in a cinema.

We are permitting facilities here for many people to lock themselves up in public houses on a Sunday afternoon. I think it would be much better for the people in rural Ireland and in the big cities of Ireland to be out enjoying themselves. Good facilities are available in Dublin. Indeed, the facilities provided in Dublin are almost better than the facilities available in any other country in Europe.

I should hate to think that the hours from 5 p.m. to 9 p.m. should become the drinking hours in Ireland and that after football matches, no matter what the code, there should be an immediate rush for the public house by everybody in order to drink from 5 p.m. to 9 p.m. and thus create new horrors on the roads.

Have any Senators driven against people returning from some sporting fixture on a Sunday, Monday or any other day? In connection with these sporting fixtures, I should like to see drinking almost entirely prohibited before the fixture is over. I remember driving against a crowd returning from a match. A man drove straight at me with his lorry. I went into the next Garda Station and reported the matter but the man with the lorry was never picked up. He apparently had facilities for getting drink after the match he attended.

The people who attend these sports fixtures constitute only a small section of the community. Would it not be much better if these people were to go home and perhaps ask their wives, who are looking after their families, to come out for a walk and get a drink if they wanted it? Even if she were a teetotaller, she could meet other people. The idea that all men should drink and come home half-sozzled is no contribution to good social conditions.

The period from 12.30 p.m. to 2 p.m. enshrined the idea of consideration in relation to proper facilities for attending to religious duties and also for the wives at home. If that is so with regard to the period from 12.30 p.m. to 2 p.m., it is being destroyed by the period from 5 p.m. to 9 p.m. which is being inserted here.

In most of Ireland there are religious services. Perhaps these services are not services which the vast majority of the people feel they are obliged to attend. Yet they are there and the public houses are open as a temptation to prevent these people going to these services. In many parts of Ireland, evening Mass is now being celebrated between the hours of 6 p.m. and 8 p.m. and the public houses will be open during those hours. Evening Mass is. for those people who have to work hard in Ireland. It is one of the great changes made by the Papacy in recent years. If we believe in what we say about the period from 12.30 p.m. to 2 p.m., we should believe it equally in regard to the period from 5 p.m. to 9 p.m.

In conclusion, I want to reiterate what I said before. I believe that 8.30 p.m. to 10 p.m. would be a far more suitable period. The people in most of the towns come in in the evening when they have done their chores— milking cows, feeding calves or whatever else they have to do. There must be ten times the number who will be denied any facilities for drinking on Sundays, while the people who are off all evening and who did nothing to help in the farm are out filling themselves up. The people who have been holding the fort all day will be denied these facilities. I would ask the Minister in all seriousness to consider this amendment. It would be better for the people who attend sports fixtures to go home first of all instead of filling up 40 miles away from their home and then becoming dangers to themselves and to anybody they may meet on the road.

Any day on which there are facilities for drinking after sports fixtures, I always say one should give cyclists a wide berth on the road. When I have to pass a cyclist, it is better to allow him the distance he will fall, so that he will not hit the car if he does so. I say in all seriousness the Minister should amend the hours to those suggested in the amendment—8 p.m. to 10 p.m. and that he might have that amendment inserted on Report Stage. I cannot see any cogent reason why that amendment should not be accepted.

Mr. Traynor

I have not very much to say on this amendment. I feel certain that Senators could adduce evidence for almost any set hours they might deem to be better than those contained in the Bill. I am prepared to concede that. This particular set of hours has been discussed at tremendous length in the Dáil and the same variety of suggestions was made. The differences in the suggestions were astonishing: some people wanted 5 p.m. to 8 p.m., others wanted 8 p.m. to 10 p.m. and others still 8 p.m. to 10.30 p.m. Despite all the suggestions made, in the long run, it was decided that the hours now before the House were most suitable.

It may be that in some circumstances those hours may conflict with the work of some people on farms and elsewhere, but greater benefit will accrue to the vast mass of the people concerned by reason of these hours. We must remember that people will not go into public houses and stay in them the whole time between 5 p.m. and 9 p.m. Suggestions have been made in course of the debate, not necessarily in this House, which suggested that the hours from 5 p.m. to 9 p.m. would be utilised fully by the drinkers of this country. I do not believe that.

Fathers of families will bring their households to the seaside resorts. They will entertain their families and in the course of the evening will probably go in, have a drink and come out and join their families, but I do not think there will be anything in the nature of standing in public houses for hours. That is not likely to happen. I am satisfied in general that the hours contained in the Bill are those we should stand by and I feel we should at least give them an experimental period. If we find they are not suitable, that they conflict with the chores of farmers or other people who have to work on Sundays, then we can always bring in an amending Bill aiming at better hours. At the present time, and after a long debate in the other House, these are the hours we believe are most suitable.

What I am saying now in respect of Senator Burke's amendment applies to the other amendments put down to this section. They all show the varied views that exist in respect to hours. It is true to say that Section 4 was discussed for a longer period of time in the other House than any other portion of the Bill, and the same thing is happening here. I think a tremendous lot of hypothesis has been aired. We have a lot of theory which is not realistic. When this Bill operates, you will find, I think, that the people who will be utilising the licensed premises will be ordinary, normal citizens who will go into a bar to have a drink or two. Therefore, I strongly recommend that the hours contained in the Bill are those which should be given a test and which should be experimented with. As I have said, they can be amended later, if necessary.

Mr. O'Quigley

The Minister is, of course, right in saying that no matter what hours are suggested, nobody can say with certainty that they will be regarded as being correct in, say, five years' time—that the particular hours chosen will be the hours which will be most suitable to most people. However, there are some ways in which one can assess whether particular hours are suitable or not.

I approach the question of the Sunday opening hours very much from the point of view from which Senator Miss Davidson approached the whole Bill on the Second Stage. Hers was a very well-constructed, well thought-out and courageous approach. Much of what she had to say is extremely relevant to the Sunday opening hours. Sunday is, for many people, the only day on which the family have any opportunity of getting together; it is the only day on which fathers can be associated with their young children. In this connection, whatever one may have to say about trade unions being able to get proper compensation for the longer hours their members have to work, there is nothing trade unions can do with the hours as they now stand to enable fathers of families who are engaged in public houses, either as employees or as proprietors, to associate with them during the ordinary day-light hours on Sunday.

The position as I see it will be that you will have opening hours from 12.30 p.m. to 2 p.m. and it will be at the earliest 2.15 p.m. before the man gets out and gets home. If you take a Sunday afternoon, the earliest hour at which he will have finished his mid-day meal will be 3 o'clock and as the Bill stands he will be back on duty again at 5 o'clock. I cannot see how the publican or the barman can ever look forward in the future to being able to go out on Sunday afternoon anywhere with his family. When we come to consider these people, we must have some regard not alone to their rights but also to the rights their children have to the society and company of their parents, and that is something trade unions cannot win for the publicans and the barmen.

I recollect that the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs, addressing the Television Authority the other day on the inauguration of the Authority, very properly referred to the provisions of the Constitution—which I regret to say are far too infrequently referred to— in regard to the family, and said that the Television Authority should bear in mind that the people of Ireland had enacted in their Constitution that the State was guaranteeing to protect the family in its constitution and authority as the necessary basis of social order and as indispensable to the welfare of the nation and of the State. That was the Minister's directive to the Television Authority in regard to what kind of programmes they should have on the new television service.

That statement of the Minister was clearly relevant to this Bill, for not alone are we dealing with the families of the publicans and the barmen but we are also dealing with the family of the man who has a particular weakness for having a drink on Sunday. He, like the barman, would be home to have his meal about 3 o'clock and he will be in no mood to go out until sometime around 5 o'clock. If he does, he will probably start drinking again when he goes out and his wife probably will not be able to get him home until 9 o'clock. This problem exists, despite what Senator Ó Maoláin says about my not knowing anything of what goes on in these public houses. This is the kind of thing this Bill is promoting, because once a man has from 2 p.m. until 8 p.m., as Senator Burke suggested in his amendment, it is a fairly good stretch in which he knows he cannot get a drink, and he can do something better for himself and his family for the whole afternoon.

There is a further objection to the word "five" as it appears in the subsection. I do not understand how anybody can say that drinking hours which straddle the normal mealtime hours meet the public demand. What the section says is that there is a large public demand that people should be taken away or lured away from the ordinary mealtime into a public house, that they should be able to drink from 5 p.m. until 8 p.m. in winter time, which straddles the normal tea hours. I know of no such such demand, and this is certainly a case where time will prove that this Bill has not properly gauged the public requirements or the public reaction.

There is in this country something which is again recognised in the Constitution, a practice as important as going to attend G.A.A. matches. That is the family Rosary, which is said in many houses after the evening meal, particularly where there are young children. The tea meal takes place between 6 p.m. and 7.30 p.m., and then the Rosary is said. If it is not said then, it is not said so far as the young children are concerned, until probably after 10.30 p.m., at the end of the news on Radio Éireann on Sunday night. That is an institution as important as any other, and the point of view of people who crusade on behalf of the family Rosary is as important as any other.

No regard whatever is paid in these hours of 5 p.m. to 8 p.m., or 5 p.m. to 9 p.m. in wintertime, to that longstanding institution that is associated with all that is best in our history. No regard whatever is being paid to the family Rosary, and instead of that, at a time when there are so many attacks being made upon our way of life and our philosophy, it is being made much easier for people to get away from those good customs which have made us the people we are today, whatever we be.

I see no reason whatever why the Minister or the Government, if they had that consideration in mind, could have decided that still there is a large public demand for having drinking hours all over the country in the interests of uniformity, and that the hours should be from 5 p.m. to 8 p.m. in the wintertime and 5 p.m. to 9 p.m. in the summertime.

Again, apparently with some kind of an eye to the people who go to football matches, whether G.A.A. or soccer, or to any kind of athletic gathering, who on any particular Sunday constitute a minority of the citizens, this hour of 5 p.m. is pitched at that level to accommodate the needs of those people. I do not think we ought to change the whole pattern of social and family life in the interests of what still remains a minority, however big it may be.

Senator Burke has rightly referred to the fact that this business of going into public houses after football matches is conducive to too much drinking and more road accidents on Sunday afternoons. The Minister takes obviously an optimistic view of human nature and of the people he knows, and nobody can blame him for that. He thinks that people will have a few drinks and then be about their business. But that would not happen, particularly coming from a match. If there is one time more than another when people begin to talk at great length, it is after football matches, as to whether the man was in the parallelogram before the ball went in or not, and there will be a most heated long-winded discussion on topics of that kind.

Tomás Ó Maoláin

What is wrong with that?

Mr. O'Quigley

Nothing in the world. I am merely stating as a fact that that is what happens. The Minister is not right in his assessment of the position that people will go in, have a few drinks and then make for home and everything in the garden will look lovely and green. That will not happen. People will drink for the full stretch from five until nine o'clock.

Tomás Ó Maoláin

Nonsense.

Mr. O'Quigley

And nobody knows that better than Senator Ó Maoláin. A while ago, Senator Ó Maoláin was trying to persuade us that people could not be got out of public houses at 10.30 and 11 o'clock at night time. Now he is trying to persuade us that people are most moderate, that they have a few drinks and off they go. That does not happen and will not happen on Sunday afternoons.

Tomás Ó Maoláin

The Senator has a very poor opinion of the Irish people.

Mr. O'Quigley

I have not a poor opinion of the Irish people; on the contrary, and I strongly resent any suggestion that I have a very poor opinion of the Irish people. I have a correct assessment I believe, speaking for myself, of my own faults and failings and I do not regard myself as any worse or any better than the average man.

Tomás Ó Maoláin

Then the Senator should withdraw his suggestion that they have no self-discipline and that they will go crazy——

Mr. O'Quigley

I did not make such a suggestion. I do not see the average Irishman as a man with sprouting wings.

Tomás Ó Maoláin

A man need not have wings to be an ordinary sensible citizen who can take a drink in a rational manner. According to Senator O'Quigley's statement, he will go crazy and cannot even be trusted with the right to have a drink from 5 o'clock to 9 o'clock.

Mr. O'Quigley

If Senator Ó Maoláin is correct, that we can trust the ordinary, average, decent, temperate and sober man, then the Government would not be introducing this Bill at all. We would have no licensing hours. But from experience they decided that people do tend to take more drink than is good for them. What we must recognise is that we are dealing with fallen human nature. Do not forget that.

Tomás Ó Maoláin

Nonsense.

Mr. Burke

You do not believe in fallen human nature?

Tomás Ó Maoláin

You may have such things in Fine Gael.

Mr. O'Quigley

I do not know if Senator Ó Maoláin has been in any of these premises this evening but I think he must be taking leave of his senses when he says it is nonsense that we are dealing with fallen human nature. We must take appropriate safeguards in the light of that outstanding fact. However, I do not propose to say anything more on that except to express my firm conviction——

Tomás Ó Maoláin

The Senator has said enough.

Mr. O'Quigley

I want to assure Senator Ó Maoláin that as long as I am a member of a House of Parliament, I shall speak within the rules of order for as long as I want and no gibes or jeers or anything of that kind will prevent me in the slightest degree from expressing my views as best I can. If he thinks that this kind of gibe is going to shorten the discussion, then experience will teach him that that will not be so, as far as I am concerned.

Tomás Ó Maoláin

I have had experience of Senator O'Quigley's tactics for the past three years and I do not need any education on them.

Mr. O'Quigley

Yes. Well, I can only say this——

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

I think this discussion should now cease.

Mr. O'Quigley

I agree entirely.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

Both parties have stated their view.

Tomás Ó Maoláin

I have not stated mine yet.

Mr. O'Quigley

If anybody reads the Reports of Seanad Éireann for the past three years, since the time Senator Ó Maoláin became Leader of the House, or any three years previous to that, he will find nothing in them to equal Senator Ó Maoláin's record for disorderly interruptions.

Mr. Traynor

I want to put Senator O'Quigley right on one thing, that is, the family Rosary will not be interfered with in the slightest degree as a result of the passing of this Bill. If the Senator had examined the tables at the end of the explanatory memorandum, he would have seen the position in regard to what the hours were and will be in the future. The present opening hours on Sundays in county boroughs are from 1.30 to 3 p.m. and from 5 to 7 p.m. Outside the county boroughs there are the bona fide provisions from 1 to 8 p.m. and there are, in addition, in seaside resorts the area exemption orders which permit four hours of drinking for local people. Therefore, I cannot see how the hours proposed in this Bill will either increase the working hours of the employees or interfere with any of the practices which the Senator referred to.

The extended hours in the Bill, as I said on Second Reading, called for the abolition of the bona fide law and the abolition of the periods permitted under area exemption orders and that is the main reason the hours are extended from 5 p.m. to 9 p.m. I do not share the Senator's view that, generally speaking, people are going to remain in public bars from the time they open until they close. It is admitted that some individuals would do that. You have that type of person but in general our people are not what someone described as lounge lizards. They do not do that kind of thing. They are normal people who go in, have a drink or a couple of drinks, have a chat with a friend and go out. In general, they are not lounge lizards and they do not go in and sit in the bar and remain there for four or five hours. They are normal people but there are, as I am quite prepared to admit, abnormal people who like to go into a bar and stay there until it closes.

The reason the closing hour, which operates in the county boroughs, was brought in was definitely for the purpose of stopping that sort of thing, but, in fact, it operated only against a very small minority of the drinking public. I think the hours from 5 to 9 o'clock are reasonable hours and I am pretty certain they will be used by the general public in a reasonable way.

Mr. Burke

I must ask the Minister to consider my amendments, because he did say to us that perhaps after experience he would change the present hours if the 5 o'clock to 9 o'clock period did not work. It is the one thing I can point to which would improve this Bill: if the hours were shortened and if the hours were made after the supper hour. There are four things which would require to be considered. There is recreation; it provides greater facilities for recreation and having the family together from the time the public houses close at 2 o'clock until they open again at 8 p.m. in the evening.

It allows ample facilities for playing games during that period, for walking or hiking or any other recreation. Even at the seaside, would it not be better for the people to be down on the beaches in the long summer evenings rather than be saying at about twenty minutes to five: "The pubs will be open in a few minutes. We will go up and get in first." I do not think that is necessary. There is also the question of rural opening. All over rural Ireland at present there are missions and retreats and hardly one of them is over before 9 o'clock, official time, and the very minute the people come out everything closes down. Yet, they could spend two hours drinking before going into the retreat. That is something few people want to do. They would be better off playing hurling or rugby or association football or engaged in any other form of sport.

I think the burden is on somebody to prove that the people will not go on drinking more than they want and more than they ought when they drive motor cars. I should like to ask the Minister if he has ever found himself driving among motorists coming from any form of sport, race meeting or anything else. It is generally found that if these drivers have drink on board, they drive to the danger of everybody. I should like to impress on the Minister that we should be much better if we had the hours of 8 p.m. to 10.30 p.m. or 8 p.m. to 10 p.m. or some hours much later than those we have at present. That would do away with these abuses.

My experience of rural life is that there are too many people going into public houses in the normal hours; they will be allowed in on Sundays and they stay in for the whole day. I do not think that would amount to 50 per cent. or 25 per cent. of the drinking public, but it might be 10 or 15 per cent., and if that number of motorists are coming back from various sports fixtures after having too much drink, they are a menace to everything on the road and for that reason I ask the Minister to consider what is suggested. The Report Stage of the Bill will be taken in a week's or a fortnight's time and, in the meantime, he could consult the Garda authorities. They are very responsible people, and he could ask them what they think of the hours and whether it would be better for a man to devote these hours to his own family and recreation. I heard of a case of a Bishop who stated that he would— so to speak—give his blessing to the cinemas opening after 8 o'clock at night, rather than have them open in the afternoon when the people should be out enjoying good air and healthy exercise.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

Could we have a decision as to whether we shall attempt to finish this Stage of the Bill tonight?

Tomás Ó Maoláin

It is evident from what the gentlemen on the other side said a few minutes ago that it is not intended to make the effort to finish tonight. Senator Hayes is not here. Therefore, I suppose the mice can play when he is away and it would be a waste of time discussing the prospects of finishing.

Mr. O'Quigley

I wonder if it is in order for the Senator to refer to us as mice.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

I think it is a fairly well-known phrase and is not intended to be derogatory.

Mr. O'Quigley

We might be inclined to talk about rats if he talks about mice.

Mr. Donegan

Senator Ó Maoláin asked for all he got and more.

Tomás Ó Maoláin

I always give back as good as I get, and I shall continue to do so.

Mr. Donegan

In that case the Senator will not get any business through here.

(Interruptions.)

Mr. O'Reilly

It is my view that Senator Burke holds his opinions strongly and sincerely and he is quite entitled to put his point of view on this amendment but while he speaks sincerely, he can be honestly wrong.

Mr. Burke

Surely. What I said is not in the deposit of faith.

Mr. O'Reilly

What I would fear is that if Senator Burke's amendment were accepted and if there were breaches of the law, it would nullify the intentions of the Bill because there is really no use in trying to brand all rural Ireland as a land of drunkards. That has not been done, I think, by Senator Burke but it has been done by other speakers on the amendment.

Mr. Burke

Oh, no.

Mr. O'Reilly

If people who drink from 5 p.m. to 9 p.m. cannot be reasonably regarded as topers, I do not know of any other term by which you could describe them but I do not think people will use all these hours. People will be free to enter and leave within those hours and these hours will have the great merit of preventing drinking during hours when the law does not permit it.

It is my view, and I have some experience of the matter, that too much restraint really adds to or creates intemperance. I might point out to Senator Burke—and he can check this tomorrow—that it is the experience in rural Ireland, particularly where you have one isolated public house, that groups of people coming out from Mass on Sunday want to get into a public house and to break the law by drinking, to blow the froth off a glass of porter and spit in the sawdust. They enjoy breaking the law——

(Interruptions.)

Mr. O'Reilly

These same public houses are open on certain Church holidays, like tomorrow. I have this from certain publicans in Leitrim: on those days when the doors are wide open, the people who want to get in illegally on Sundays do not go in at all.

Mr. Burke

They go to Carrick-on-Shannon.

Mr. O'Reilly

I think Senator Burke will agree that happens also in Tipperary.

Mr. Burke

They go into the big towns.

Mr. O'Reilly

I think when you try to restrain people you create greater abuses. Prohibition in America, as Senator Lenihan would say, was the classic example of that. In my view, when people have reasonable facilities they will use them reasonably and there will be less intemperance and that is all to the good. It can be said that it is wrong to have such long hours. No group of men in any Party can agree absolutely on hours. All we can ever achieve is to agree by a majority and we can mend our hand if we find the decision does not work well in practice but I suggest that the Senator should not press his amendment because I think it would defeat the purpose he intends to achieve.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

I should like to suggest to the House that we might finish Section 4 to-night, if the House has no objection.

Mr. Murphy

I thought we had agreed to adjourn at 10 o'clock?

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

Then the time has come to arrange for the next sitting.

Tomás Ó Maoláin

Tuesday, June 21st.

Progress reported; Committee to sit again.

The Seanad adjourned at 10 p.m. until 3 p.m. on Tuesday, 21st June, 1960.