In moving the Second Stage of this Bill I want to make it clear that it does not purport to be anything like an exhaustive treatment of the problems which arise with regard to the liquor traffic in this country. In considering that I have always recognised what I think most of the Deputies will accept as axiomatic, that there are too many licences for this particular trade in this country, and that such abuses as exist, and such abuses as arose in the past, are due very largely to the fact that there was scarcely enough of legitimate trade to go round, and that you had the spectacle of people breaking the law to pick up the crumbs that fall from the table of those in a more substantial way. I think that the problem will never be adequately dealt with until some provision is made considerably to reduce the number of licences. I do not propose to go into comparative statistics, but I think that every thoughtful person is aware that there are too many public houses per head of the population.
To deal with that aspect of the thing would involve some scheme of purchase, and that must be another day's work for some future Parliament. This Bill in its 12 sections merely aims at checking certain existing abuses and anomalies. I have not attempted to deal with all the abuses that exist, on the assumption that they will continue to exist, and the only cure is complete abolition of the provisions which give rise to them. I have not, for instance, attempted to deal with or touch in any way the bona fide traveller. It remains to be seen whether such abuses as arise from that are abuses incapable of being dealt with by the new police force when it has grown to its normal strength.
But I do say this, in a quite fair and reasonable spirit, that the members of this trade themselves must realise that if these abuses continue, and if they prove to be impossible of treatment by normal vigilance and exercise on the part of the police, then some Minister or Ministry in the future will have to face that fact if it is doing its duty in a responsible spirit. We will have to deal with that question either by way of an extension of the distance or by the abolition of the privilege. No personage has so much abused his legal privileges as the bona fide traveller, and if he is abolished by law, he will be abolished for the reasons that he abused his legal privileges up to the point when they became a nuisance. I just say that. The members of the trade really have, in this matter, their future in their own hands, but I do believe that if the grave abuses arising out of the bona fide traffic are not found to be amenable to normal vigilance and treatment by the police force, that fact will have to be faced. This Bill in its first section deals with hours:
(1) It shall not be lawful for any person to sell or expose for sale any intoxicating liquor or to open any premises for the sale of intoxicating liquors on any day not being a Sunday, Good Friday, or Christmas Day before the hour of nine o'clock in the morning or after the hour of half-past nine o'clock in the evening. This sub-section shall not apply to any licensed person who is the owner or lessee of a theatre, music hall, or other place of public amusement.
The effect of that will be to leave untouched the hours on Sundays, Good Fridays, and Christmas Day, and to leave the hours of the ordinary week-day from 9 a.m. to 9.30 p.m. Some Deputies seem to think that because there was no special mention made of the hours on Sundays, Good Fridays, or Christmas Days, some point might arise in the future about that. I do not think that can be so. Indeed, I am quite satisfied that it is not so, and the existing law will stand except where altered by the provisions of this Bill. Therefore, the statutory hours and regulations with regard to Sunday, Good Friday, and Christmas Day will remain as they now are. Sub-section (2) of Section 1 deals with theatres, music halls, and places of amusement that have licences, and provides that:
It shall not be lawful for any person to sell or expose for sale any intoxicating liquor in any theatre, music hall, or other place of public amusement at any time being more than thirty minutes before the commencement of a performance or entertainment or at any time being more than thirty minutes after the end of a performance or entertainment or at any time after ten o'clock in the night.
The second section of the Bill is simply an enabling section to deal with a situation that might not arise half a dozen times in the year. But it might happen that on some occasion, in a town or in a village where you have a large concourse of people, that a situation might arise that would almost get out of hand, from the point of view of being dealt with by the small number of Guards that would be established in that place. That situation might either arise in the first instance from drink, or it might, having arisen from some other cause, be greatly intensified by the fact that the licensed establishments were open and doing business. We submit, for the consideration of Deputies, that at the request of the responsible police officer the District Justice should have power, if he is satisfied that a case of grave abuse prejudicial to peace and order has arisen and is in fact taking place in any town or village, to order the immediate closing of the houses if he is satisfied that it is expendient that the sale of intoxicating liquors should cease, and that he may order the immediate closing for the remainder of that day of all premises licensed for the sale of intoxicating liquor in that village or town.
I put that up for the consideration of Deputies, believing that if it is embodied in the Bill and conceded, it might be a very useful provision at some time in the future to prevent grave trouble arising in the form of riot or artificial excitement of that kind.
Now, the third section deals with penalties for opening during prohibited hours. It is purely a consequential section, and is to transfer the existing penalties which referred to the existing hours to the altered hours provided for in the Bill; and Section 4 deals with exceptions from the application of the Act and the regulations about hours. It says:
Nothing in this part of this Act shall be construed to apply to sales of intoxicating liquor to lodgers, or to the sale of intoxicating liquor in packet boats, or in canteens in pursuance of any Act regulating the same, or in a registered club as defined by the Registration of Clubs (Ireland) Act, 1904, or shall preclude the sale at any time at a railway station of intoxicating liquors on arrival or departure of trains, or the sale of intoxicating liquor to bona fide travellers within the meaning of the Licensing (Ireland) Acts, 1833 to 1905.
These are the proposed exceptions to the general rule of hours.
Now, Part II of the Bill deals with clubs. Clause 5 says:
(1) In order that any club may be eligible to be registered under the Registration of Clubs (Ireland) Act 1904, the rules of the club shall (in addition to the matters mentioned in Section 4 of the said Act) provide that no excisable liquor shall be supplied to any person (other than members of the club lodging in the club premises) before the hour of nine o'clock in the morning or after the hour of half-past nine o'clock in the evening on any day.
(2) This section shall not apply to any club which at the passing of this Act is registered under the Registration of Clubs (Ireland) Act. 1904, until the expiration of the certificate of registration of such club which shall be in force at the expiration of two months from the passing of this Act.
Now, the force of that is to bring the club hours into uniformity with the hours of licensed establishments, except for people who are genuinely lodging upon the premises, and who would be in the same position as residents in a hotel. They will not apply to existing certificates, but would apply upon application for a renewal. I have heard that section commented upon, but I want to know a case against it. After all, is it right or proper or a healthy thing for the country that under the guise of clubs little all-night drinking shops should spring up all over the country? I am afraid that to an extent that is the tendency, and that that is what has been happening. Deputies may say that that should be provided against when applications are made for certificates and for registration and that we should be very strict and careful in considering the rules of the club. In reply to that, I have only to say that a club may make an excellent start and degenerate very rapidly, and I do not see a case for the extension of the hours for the sale of drink in clubs beyond the ordinary hours. After all, a twelve and a-half hours day is a long time for drinking, and a man who could sit out all that time should have a pretty good head. At any rate, I will be interested to hear from Deputies who oppose this section the case against it. I think it is substantially true to say that a big proportion of the night crimes that are committed and have been committed throughout the country are attributable to these clubs. Men coming out of them in the small hours of the morning, not in a very responsible frame of mind, are in just that mood that their grievances loom very big, and they come out and take vengeance upon their neighbours. I think it would be a sound thing, and a healthy and a good thing, for the country to make the hours in the clubs the same as in licensed premises, except for people bona fide lodging upon the premises. Passing to Section 6, it is largely consequential upon Section 5. It provides that clubs may be searched by the police, and that a search order may be issued authorising their inspection, and it provides a penalty for persons refusing their names and addresses. I think, if Section 5 is approved, it will be agreed that it will be futile and inoperative without Section 6.
Section 7, in Part III of the Bill, deals with offences and penalties. It provides for forfeiture of a licence on conviction of certain offences::
(a) Selling illicitly distilled spirits, or
(b) Having possession of illicitly distilled spirits, or
(c) Harbouring, keeping, or concealing illicitly distilled spirits.
I will not treat the House to another tirade upon poteen and its effects upon people, but I do not think it is seriously questioned that it is a grave evil, and up to quite recently it was a growing evil, and it is necessary for a healthy State that it should be stamped out. Sub-section (2) of Section 7 says:
Whenever a spirit grocer as defined by Section 81 of the Licensing Act, 1872, shall be convicted of an offence under Section 83 or Section 84 (which sections relate to the consumption of liquor on or near the premises of a spirit grocer) of that Act, the licence of such spirit grocer in the case of a first such offence may be forfeited, and in the case of a second such offence shall be forfeited.
That is to deal with a case of a man who goes outside the terms of his licence. Licences to spirit grocers are granted upon certain very definite conditions, and a breach of these conditions should involve the forfeiture of the licence.
Section 8 doubles the fines. It reads:
All and every fine or other money penalty imposed by any of the Licensing (Ireland) Acts, 1833 to 1905, or the Spirits (Ireland) Act, 1831, the Spirits (Ireland) Act, 1854, the Spirits (Ireland) Act, 1855, or the Spirits (Ireland) Act, 1857, or authorised by any of those Acts to be imposed, shall on and after the passing of this Act be and the same are hereby increased to double the amounts respectively mentioned in those Acts.
I do not know whether Deputies will accept the details advanced in that section, but these fines were fixed at a period when money had a very different value from what it has to-day. Amongst the representatives of the trade to whom I spoke in reference to that section there was no serious demur. It was recognised that the maxima of fines fixed a great many years ago—in 1833, 1854, and up to 1905—were fixed at a time when the purchasing power of money was very different from what it is now. There is a case for the doubling of the fines just the same as there was when we were dealing with the District Justices Bill for doubling the fees and expenses in connection with the Courts which had been fixed a great many years ago.
Passing on to Part IV., which is miscellaneous, it deals with a variety of matter—the powers of granting new licences. It says:
(1) The power of granting new licences conferred by Section 4 of the Licensing (Ireland) Act, 1902, shall only be exercisable where the increase of population referred to in that section amounts to an increase of not less than twenty-five per cent. in the census return last published before the date of the application for the new licence, over the population of that city or town as stated in the next preceding census return.
(2) A new licence shall only be granted under the said Section 4 of the Licensing (Ireland) Act, 1902, in substitution for two or more such existing licences as are mentioned in that section.
(3) Section 3 of the Licensing (Ireland) Act, 1902, is hereby repealed.
I have put in a new section in the original draft—that is, Section 10—which covers the case of hardships which I found existed on a very fairly large scale throughout the country. During the years that the magistrates were not functioning people had not the ordinary facilities for applying for a renewal of certificates, and this Section 10 is to cover them and to provide, because of that, that the licences ought not to be held to have lapsed during the period that the traders were carrying on without a formal certificate.
Section 11 deals with restrictions of the sale of methylated spirits. Dublin Deputies are aware of the extent of this evil, and are aware that the drinking of methylated spirit is a growing evil. It is a problem that has proved difficult in other countries, and I do not for a moment believe that the provisions of this Bill are final or adequate treatment on that, or do anything more than go some way to check the evil. This Section forbids the sale of methylated spirits between the hours of nine o'clock on Saturday evening and nine o'clock of the following Monday morning, and it provides that the name and address of the buyer of methylated spirits must be known to the seller or vouched for by some person known to the seller. He must state the purposes for which he requires the spirits. It also provides that a book, just as in the case of poisons, shall be kept, and the names and addresses of purchasers entered into it, together with the purpose, or alleged purpose, for which the spirits were bought, and the quantity sold, and the date. It also gives power of inspection to Excise officers and police.
Section 12 is the last section, and it simply closes a certain loophole which existed in the past with regard to poteen-making. I think there was a decision of the Courts that a bog was not a "place" within the meaning of the Act, and consequently bogs were largely used. Section 12 states:
In the construction and application of Section 19 of the Spirits (Ireland) Act, 1831, the expression "room or place" as used in that section shall include and be deemed always to have included any building whatsoever, and any yard, garden, field, bog, or other piece of ground, and any cave or other underground place whether natural or artificial, and any boat, vessel, or other structure on, in, or under water.
I hope that if that section passes it will be found in practice to be sufficiently comprehensive.
That is the Bill. We have gone through its provisions. I do not believe there is any provision in it that would not react for the benefit of the country, and that would not help appreciably to restore normal, decent conditions of life within the country. I hope that the Bill will receive substantial agreement amongst Deputies. If there is serious objection taken to any portion of it, I am prepared to reason that out and to attempt to meet such objection. I have brought in the Bill that I think ought to pass. The twelve provisions, I think, would be for the benefit of the country and for the benefit of the people of the country. While I say that, I realise that now, at the close of the Session, I could not persist if any serious opposition were to crystallise around any particular section. So it is simply in the hands of Deputies. I think that no provision ought to be objected to without a good and reasonable case being put up against it.