Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Tuesday, 1 Mar 1927

Vol. 18 No. 11

IN COMMITTEE ON FINANCE. - INTOXICATING LIQUOR BILL, 1927—THIRD STAGE.

The amendments to this Bill are of a very complicated character. I propose a particular procedure should be adopted in Committee which we have not been in the habit of following, but which we did, in fact, follow on one occasion, on the occasion of the Committee Stage of the Liquor Bill, 1924. This is, I think, the only method by which we can arrive at a proper decision on the various points to be raised at particular parts of this Bill. For example, to Section 1 of the Bill there is no amendment, but to Section 2 there is a very considerable number of amendments, and the question is complicated by the fact that there are three periods involved, ordinary week days from Monday to Friday, Saturdays and Sundays, all of which have separate hours of opening and closing. Then there is the hour of opening, the hour of closing, and the question of the break from 3 to 5. I suggest that we consider the procedure we will adopt before we actually enter on the Committee Stage. Amendment 1, by Deputy Redmond, to Section 2, is an endeavour, with regard to subsection (1) (a), to continue the existing law, I take it, relative to hours of opening and closing.

Amendment 2, by Deputy Lyons, seeks to substitute for "ten," as an opening hour, the hour of "half-past eight." Deputy Redmond's amendment 1 means an opening at nine o'clock. What I propose, therefore, is that if we take Deputy Redmond's amendment we would not take the amendment to delete sub-section (1) (a), but simply the question of the opening hour in the morning, and instead of taking any amendment to what is in the Bill, to propose the question that the word "ten," the word proposed to be deleted by Deputies Redmond and Lyons, should stand part of the section. On that motion Deputy Redmond's amendment could be discussed and also Deputy Lyons' amendment to put the hour back to "half-past eight." If the word "ten" is allowed by the Committee to remain as part of the sub-section, then both amendments fall. If the word "ten" is deleted, a motion will be made to insert the words "half-past eight," that being the biggest change. If that were carried it would stand, but if it were not carried then a motion would be made to insert the word "nine." This procedure would also be followed in the case of similar amendments regarding hours.

I do not think there is any other method that will enable Deputies to get a decision. In that way we will take a decision with regard to the opening hour. Then there is an amendment by Deputy Heffernan dealing with the break, and there are subsequent amendments dealing with the closing hour. The object of my proposal throughout the Committee Stage would be to segregate proposals so that the Committee could discuss each proposal by itself.

May I take it that if Deputy Redmond's amendment to delete sub-section (1) (a) is defeated I can go on with my amendment to delete certain hours?

The Deputy will see it more effectively, I think, as it progresses.

The Dáil went into Committee.
Question proposed—"That Section 1 stand part of the Bill."

There is only one point on this section that I desire again to call the attention of the Committee to. Mention was made of it, I think, on the Second Reading, and that is on the interpretation of the word "substantial" in line 37. The word "restaurant" is defined. "Restaurant" means "licensed premises structurally adapted for use," etc. The word "substantial" occurred also in another part of the Bill, and I think it might be advisable, I do not say that it would be possible actually to draw a line, to have some explanation given in the Bill as to what is meant by the word "substantial." We have had a description given by Deputy Cooper and others about the sandwich in days gone by where a person was entitled to a drink if he partook of a sandwich, and it was suggested that the same sandwich lasted for more than one beverage. I think that it would be advisable if some means could be devised by which a definition would be given of this word. I am not prepared to offer a solution at the moment. It is not my Bill. I would like to have defined more explicitly what is meant by a "substantial" meal.

It is provided in other parts of the Bill that a person shall be entitled to consume intoxicating liquor on partaking of a substantial meal. Of course I shall have an opportunity later on to refer again to this term. In the meantime. I ask the Minister to look into the matter and to see if there could not be some more definite meaning given to the term "substantial," because, of course, that would naturally give rise perhaps to considerable litigation. It would be the subject matter for litigation if the question arose as to whether a person was entitled to a drink when he was having a "substantial" meal. The question would arise "What is a ‘substantial' meal?" I think there should be some attempt at any rate to define what is in the mind of the Minister when he inserts the word "substantial."

I am open to consider any suggestion from the Deputy, or any Deputy, but I have not much hope myself that I could arrive at a satisfactory definition. I think it is eminently a matter that should be left to the individual opinion of each justice.

I had intended referring to another expression used in this section about which I have some little doubt. In the last paragraph the words "Dublin Metropolitan Area" occur. The paragraph reads: "For the purposes of the application of this Act (except part 5 thereof) to the Dublin Metropolitan area. That area shall be deemed to be a county borough," and so on. I do not quite follow at the moment what is meant by the Dublin Metropolitan area. The Dublin Metropolitan Police District, by Section 61 of the Dublin Corporation Act of 1900, was extended to include certain outside areas such as Clontarf and others, except in regard to the sale and consumption of intoxicating liquor. I do not know whether what is meant here is the Dublin Metropolitan Police District. In fact, I would like if the Minister could explain the meaning of the term "Dublin Metropolitan area."

It is a term really used in the Police Forces Amalgamation Act and in other Acts as covering the area served by the Metropolitan Division of the Police. It is not the city area.

It is larger than the city area, I take it?

Yes. It is the area formerly served by the Dublin Metropolitan Police and now served by the Dublin Metropolitan Division of the Gárda Síochána.

Then there is a special area served by a special section of the Gárda Síochána?

I was not aware of that.

Before the Minister passes from that I want to say that I do not know whether the term "urban county district" is the usual one, and I just call attention to it. It seems odd to me. I do not think I have met it in other cases.

It is the strictly correct expression. It is taken from the Local Government Act of 1898.

Perhaps the Minister would explain what he understands by the term "substantial meal," because it becomes of very great importance in Section 11 and in Deputy Cooper's amendment. I know that a "substantial meal" is something other than a Barmecides Feast. It seems to me to be a very elastic term and that its elasticity would provide means whereby those who sought to evade the operation of the Act can do so.

The point has been already raised.

Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 2.
(1) Save as is otherwise provided by this Act, it shall not be lawful for any person in any county borough to sell or expose for sale any intoxicating liquor or to open or keep open any premises for the sale of intoxicating liquor or to permit any intoxicating liquor to be consumed on licensed premises—
(a) on any ordinary week day, before the hour of ten o'clock in the morning or between the hours of three o'clock and five o'clock in the afternoon or after the hour of ten o'clock in the evening, or
(b) on any Saturday, before the hour of ten o'clock in the morning or between the hours of three o'clock and five o'clock in the afternoon or after the hour of half past nine o'clock in the evening, or
(c) on any Sunday, or on Saint Patrick's Day, before the hour of two o'clock in the afternoon or after the hour of five o'clock in the afternoon, or
(d) at any time on Christmas Day or Good Friday.
(2) Save as is otherwise provided by this Act, it shall not be lawful for any person in any urban county district the population of which according to the census which is for the time being the last census, exceeds five thousand to sell or expose for sale any intoxicating liquor or to open or keep open any premises for the sale of intoxicating liquor or to permit any intoxicating liquor to be consumed on licensed premises—
(a) on any ordinary week day, before the hour of ten o'clock in the morning or after the hour of ten o'clock in the evening, or
(b) on any Saturday, before the hour of ten o'clock in the morning or after the hour of half past nine o'clock in the evening, or
(c) at any time on any Sunday or on Christmas Day, Good Friday, or Saint Patrick's Day.
(3) Save as is otherwise provided by this Act, it shall not be lawful for any person in any place, not being a county borough or such urban county district as is mentioned in the foregoing sub-section to sell or expose for sale or to open or keep open any premises for the sale of intoxicating liquor or to permit any intoxicating liquor to be consumed on licensed premises—
(a) on any ordinary week day,
(i) during a period of summer time, before the hour of ten o'clock in the morning or after the hour of ten o'clock in the evening, or
(ii) during any time which is not a period of summer time, before the hour of nine o'clock in the morning or after the hour of nine o'clock in the evening, or
(b) on any Saturday
(i) during a period of summer time before the hour of ten o'clock in the morning or after the hour of half past nine o'clock in the evening, or
(ii) during any time which is not a period of summer time, before the hour of nine o'clock in the morning or after the hour of half past eight o'clock in the evening, or
(c) at any time on any Sunday or on Christmas Day, Good Friday, or Saint Patrick's Day.
(4) Every person who shall sell or expose for sale any intoxicating liquor or open or keep open any premises for the sale of intoxicating liquor or permit any intoxicating liquor to be consumed on licensed premises in contravention of this section shall be guilty of an offence under this section and shall be liable on summary conviction thereof, in the case of a first offence, to a fine not exceeding twenty pounds or, in the case of a second or any subsequent offence, to a fine not exceeding forty pounds, and in any case the conviction shall be recorded, in accordance with the provisions of this Act, on the licence of the person so convicted.
(5) Every reference in this Act to the provisions of this Act relating to prohibited hours shall be construed and have effect as a reference to the provisions of this section, and all references in this Act to prohibited hours or to times or hours in which the sale of intoxicating liquor is prohibited by this Act shall be construed as references to the hours during which the sale of intoxicating liquor is prohibited by this section.

The proposal now is that in Section 2 the word "ten," in line 29, stand and to allow a debate on the whole question of the opening hours in the morning.

I am quite agreeable to your suggestion that this section should be taken in the manner you have indicated, and I think it will tend to clarity of expression in the debate. On your ruling, therefore, the question that we have to decide now is that the word "ten" stand part of the section, meaning thereby that the opening hours for county boroughs in future shall be ten o'clock upon week days instead of nine o'clock as they are now according to the present law.

My two amendments to this section tend to leave the present law as it is in regard both to the opening and closing hours. With regard to the opening hours in county boroughs, I see no reason for further curtailment in the morning. Many arguments may be put forward for curtailment of hours in the evening. It may be said, with a certain amount of reason, that public-houses should not offer inducements to people, especially to working men, to stay away from their homes during the late hours in the evening and, perhaps, spend their money in a manner not best calculated to serve the interests of their homes.

I do not, however, think that the same arguments can apply in the case of the morning. In many county boroughs, particularly the one I represent, the city of Waterford, it is of considerable importance that working men should have facilities for obtaining refreshment, at least, at 9 o'clock in the morning. Ships constantly come into that port at early hours and they are either about to discharge or have discharged their cargoes at that time or are, perhaps, about to sail away. I do not think that any cogent arguments can be advanced whereby it can be shown that the fact of licensed premises being open at 10 instead of 9 o'clock in the morning is going seriously to conduce to the further sobriety of the people as a whole. In reality, the general bulk of people cannot get drinks in the morning because they are otherwise occupied, and those who are in the position to get it, such persons as dockers and quay workers, should not, I submit, be deprived of a facility which they would not be in a position to avail of later. I think it would be very difficult for any genuine temperance reformer—I am not speaking of fanatical teetotaller— to show that by curtailing the hours in the morning they are going seriously to advance the cause of temperance. It will be undoubtedly a hardship on a few and it will not affect the many, and to leave the hours as they are at present, namely, 9 o'clock in the morning, seems no extravagant demand. It is not asking for any concession. It is not demanding further facilities. It is merely, in effect, stating that the present hour of 9 o'clock is not too early and that the difference between 9 and 10 o'clock in the morning in the amount of liquor consumed between these hours will be so small as to render the effect nugatory.

I appeal to the Minister on the ground that the curtailment of this hour will not affect the multitude, but it will, perhaps, inflict an unnecessary hardship upon a few. I do not know that the same applies so much to the city of Dublin, but I certainly can speak for my own constituency, and, I think in this respect, for every county borough where the people, perhaps, come in early in the morning from country districts and may require refreshment sooner than they might if working in the city of Dublin. I think it is no extravagant demand, therefore, but merely a reasonable proposition, to say that the hour of 9 a.m. should remain as it is and not be curtailed by one hour further. The Commission reported, it is true, that in their view there should be a curtailment of the hour in the morning, but they really gave no weighty reasons for it, and I think it was on the general principle that it would be a good think to cut down hours. The question of cutting down the hour in the evening will arise later, but what we are dealing with now is the question of opening in the morning. I submit it is unnecessary, in the first place, that it is unreasonable in the second place, that it would do no great good to the cause of temperance in the third place, that possibly it would inflict, hardship on some deserving cases in the fourth place, and, therefore, I ask the Committee to alter the hour of 10 o'clock in the Bill to the present hour of 9 o'clock under the existing law.

I support this amendment on behalf of the people I represent. Deputy Johnson represents official labour and I represent independent labour, but as labour men we may agree to differ on this, that when a trader has employees whom he wants to start work at 9 in the morning he should be allowed to do so. No man bothers about a drink between 9 and 10 in the morning, and the takings of the publicans for that hour amount to nothing whatever, but it is necessary that the employees should start work at 9 so as to have everythingan and ready for the customers when they come in at 10 o'clock. If that will not be allowed you will certainly be doing a great injustice to the people who are primarily responsible from a financial point of view for the upkeep of the State. It is alleged, and I hope it is correct, that all the wealthy men in the city are publicans. If they are, as I said it here last Thursday week, it is through their own efforts. By making the opening 10 o'clock instead of 9 you are going to prevent these people from utilising their wealth in giving employment. If the Bill is allowed to stand as it is we are going to compel those publicans to dismiss a number of their employees. I wonder how the advocate of temperance would like that, considering the contributions of sixpences of these employees are keeping men like him in their positions. I put it to the Minister for Justice that if he intends to adhere to the principle of the Bill with regard to the opening hour he will be doing a great injustice to the people who have elected him, and if he goes back to them in the comingctions—back to the Unionists or Freemasons——

The Deputy must address himself to the amendment before us.

I am. Let the Minister for Justice go back to the people whocted him and say "I personally am responsible for this closing until 10 o'clock in the morning," and let him see the reception he will get from the workers. I do not pretend that the workers bother about a drink before 10 o'clock, because at the rates they are paid they cannot afford one. If Deputy Redmond's amendment is not accepted the Minister for Justice is going to cause a great deal of unnecessary trouble, but I recognise that it is not his intention to cause trouble in the Free State because he fully realises we have had quite enough of that. I sincerely hope the amendment will be accepted.

I must confess I am not very much concerned as to what the particular hour of opening should be, but I am concerned to know, and I would like to understand, in relation to the smaller towns, where a licensed trader is doing a mixed trade, what his position is, and whether he can open his house before 10 o'clock for the sale of other commodities.

On a point of order, does not this particular amendment apply only to the four county boroughs?

But the question of opening hours in Section 1 is general?

C o u n t y boroughs.

This has reference only to county boroughs.

Well, in the case of county boroughs, I suppose it would apply in some degree, but not to the same extent as it would apply in the rural areas. You have traders in the county boroughs who engage in mixed trading, and the question will arise as to the position of the mixed trader who opens before ten.

Will the Deputy read Section 3, sub-section (1), paragraph (a)?

Perhaps the Deputy will pardon me for interrupting him. I think what he is driving at is that mixed traders will be allowed to open at 9 o'clock. That is provided in Section 3. They will be allowed to open from 9 until 10. Probably what the Deputy is considering is the impracticability of having mixed traders open for the same hours——

Might I suggest, as a matter of order, that the Deputy ought to be allowed to tell us himself what he is driving at?

I cannot say that I am much impressed by the difficulties as regards supervision, or any other difficulties. The mixed trader who opens his door at 9 o'clock in the morning, although his house is not open for the sale of intoxicating liquor, will be liable to prosecution. That is the only point I am concerned with. I do not mind whether it is 10 o'clock or 9 o'clock, whichever might be considered wiser in the interests of the trade and the community. But I think we are taking an example from other places, and I do not think we should go very far with regard to copying some examples in relation to this particular trade. I think they are too much disposed to side-track and to try to restrict unduly the interests of the people engaged in this business. The people engaged in it are undoubtedly among the best elements of our community, people whom we should consider, and we should not be at all disposed or tempted to go to any extremes in order to impose penalties upon these people, and at the same time in the interests of what will not, or perhaps cannot, even be envisaged as a service to true temperance. After all, these are really pin-pricking methods, irritating a body of traders who are fully alive to their responsibilities, and who are a very worthyment in our community, and I do not think it is worthy of a Government that stands for all that we stand for in this State. As I say, I am not concerned as between 10 and 9; it makes very little difference to me; but I really think if you are going to allow a man to open his house for one thing at 9 o'clock, and for the other thing at 10 o'clock, it will make it very awkward, and it will be somewhat difficult to see that it is properly carried out.

I hope that the Minister for Justice will give favourable consideration to the arguments put forward by Deputy Redmond. I think I see in the statement he made some hope of serving all concerned in this disputed Bill. I think it would be fair to say, on behalf of the temperance people—and I know it is right in respect of the vintners' assistants— that they would favour an alteration of the hour in this section from 10 o'clock to 9. I gather from Deputy Redmond that he is more or less able to speak the voice of the vintners themselves.

I never said that.

Well, all the arguments lead to the conclusion that the vintners would favour exactly what the vintners' assistants favour, and I have a letter before me which suggests that the hour of 10 should be altered to 9 and that the closing hour should be one hour earlier in every case. There seems to me the basis of a compromise. The Bill as a whole is a compromise; the bad and the good seem to have got together. But here is an opportunity for the three sections that are interested to agree that the hour shall be 9 o'clock in the morning and that there shall be closing an hour earlier at night. That I take to be the conclusion to be drawn from Deputy Redmond's argument; it is the view of the vintners' assistants, and I think, while I have no authority to speak for them, the great majority of temperance advocates in the country would approve of that amendment. I would urge the Minister to agree to this proposal, on condition that the parties concerned will agree to the hour earlier closing at night. I think that that would be a distinct change in the direction of reform.

I would agree to that.

Perhaps I would be allowed to remind Deputy Johnson that the trend of my argument could never, by any stretch of the imagination, be taken as coming from the point of view of the vintners. I dealt entirely with the point of view of the general public, and I went so far as to say that this was a matter of such small concern to the general public that it did not affect the many but only inflicted an unnecessary hardship on the few. Of course what we are now discussing, according to the Speaker's ruling, is that the word "ten" stand part of the section with regard to the opening hour in the morning, and with respect to Deputy Johnson I suggest that he was entirely out of order in making any suggestion in regard to the closing hour. But what I did say was, and what I venture to repeat is, that there might be arguments for closing in the evening an hour earlier, a very different thing from saying that I was in favour of these arguments.

I admit that there are.

I said that there might be arguments for closing an hour earlier in the evening, but I said that these arguments did not apply to opening an hour later in the morning, and I think it would be well for Deputies to realise that what we are now discussing is not the curtailment of the hour in the evening, because that is not proposed in the Bill, and it was not even proposed in the original Bill. What is proposed is that an hour should be taken off in the morning. I would desire to substantiate further the case that I have endeavoured to make by elaborating the argument put forward by Deputy McGoldrick in regard to the smaller towns. We are now discussing county boroughs, and though Section 3 does provide that mixed traders may open from 9 until 10 in the morning for the sale of commodities other than liquor, I say that that provision will be practically impossible to carry out, or that you will require at least one Civic Guard to every two or three licensed houses, if not to every licensed house. To suggest that licensed houses should be closed for the sale of liquor until 10, and should be allowed to open for the sale of other commodities up to 10, and that proper supervision could be exercised over the conduct of these houses is to suggest the impossible, and I would add that to the other arguments that I have endeavoured to make on behalf of the general opening of all houses, mixed and otherwise, at the existing hour, 9 o'clock in the morning.

What we are really discussing is whether the word "ten" stand in line 29, Section 2, Sub-section (1). Deputy Redmond's amendment No. 1 is, I suppose, not strictly before the House, but I would like to say, in passing, that when I read his amendments No. 1 and No. 5 I feared for a moment that he had gone prohibitionist, at least for the county boroughs, because the effect of these amendments, if passed, would be to make it unlawful for any licensed house in any county borough to open at all.

I disagree with that entirely.

I think if the Deputy will burn a little more midnight oil on it he will find I am right.

I do not think so. I considered that and I will deal with it later.

If the amendment were passed it would mean that there was no provision at all for hours of sale in county boroughs on any week day or Saturday.

There is the existing law.

"Save as is otherwise provided by this Act, it shall not be lawful"——

On Good Friday and on any Sunday.

——"for any person in any county borough to sell or expose for sale," and so on.

On any Sunday or St. Patrick's Day.

No, on any ordinary week day.

No, I propose to deal with that.

Leaving no provision for the sale of intoxicating liquor on any week day or Saturday.

On a point of order. Has not an arrangement been made by the Ceann Comhairle that we should discuss the question of 10 o'clock, and not an amendment to delete a sub-section?

I am pointing out how fortunate it is that we are discussing the deletion of the word "ten."

I submit that the rules of order are as imperative for Ministers as for Private members.

I submit, sir, that they are even more so. On this question of 10 o'clock opening as against 9 o'clock opening I have not very much to say. The present hours are in the county boroughs from 9 a.m. to 10 p.m. The proposed hours are from 10 a.m. to 3 p.m. and from 5 p.m. to 10 p.m. In the one case you have a thirteen hours day; in the other case, two spells of five hours, with a two hours break.

Deputy Redmond has told us that it would be a hardship if licensed houses were not allowed to open at 9. I think the word "hardship" should be reserved for genuine cases. It is a word that has considerable currency, a considerable false currency, in my opinion. One hears that this is a hardship, and that that is a hardship; and the net effect of the misuse of the word is to weaken it in its application to matters which do constitute a genuine hardship. Let us examine this hardship of a 10 o'clock opening. Throughout the greater part of Great Britain the opening hours for licensed houses are from 11.30 in the morning to 3 in the afternoon, and from 5.30 in the afternoon to 10 at night. There is a hardship. There is a genuine hardship—only an 8 hours' drinking day, with a 2½ hours' break in the middle of it; but the proposal of 10 hours is a great hardship here. The hardship of being without drink between 9 a.m. and 10 a.m. is stressed by Deputy Redmond. I am not prepared to accept his case. I think that we must prune, and prune substantially, the drinking day that exists here—at least that we should do it if we have the interests of the State and its people at heart; and that if we do not do it, there will be only one reason for it. That is: that we were cowed and demoralised by the opposition of a particular vested interest. Deputy Redmond said that there might be arguments for taking off an hour in the evening, but that there are none for taking off an hour in the morning. There, like Deputy Johnson, I will meet him. If he will tell me that he will agree to take off an hour in the evening, we will leave that hour on in the morning, but otherwise we will not.

Even 10 o'clock is too early. If we had here, as they had in Great Britain, the licensed house that is a licensed house only, and if we had not here the factor that by far the great majority of the licensed houses do a mixed trade, I would be proposing to the Dáil even a later hour than 10 o'clock, but you have the mixed house which some provision is made for in Section 3. I do not want more than an hour at any rate in which the house will be open for one side of its business and not open for the other so there is the difficulty in getting the hour for the commencement of the licensed business as late as it really should be, for I think it should be as late as eleven o'clock. If one has to prune the day it must be by pruning at both ends with perhaps this break in the day that is also suggested for the four county boroughs but I am not prepared to accept any modification or any departure from the 10 o'clock opening in the county boroughs. I ask the House to take the view that it is not in fact a hardship on anyone, either on the licensed trade or on the general public or any section of it that the hour for opening in the morning be 10 a.m. rather than the present hour of 9 a.m.

I would not have intervened in this debate were it not for the remarks of my colleague from Tirconaill. He made some observations which really do not affect this amendment. With regard to the Minister's observations I think that in this discussion to-day he has behaved with the greatest consideration. I know Dublin fairly well and I think he has made a very fair offer—that if the proposed hour of opening in the morning be changed from ten to nine there should be an hour earlier closing in the evening. I think probably that will meet Deputy Johnson's point. I do not know whether Deputy Johnson or his Party might not care for refreshments at a later hour but we are discussing the proposals in the Bill.

The only objection that I take to the Bill is in regard to the closing hours from 3 to 5, but we have not reached that yet. So far as the Minister's observations go in regard to the four county boroughs, I think he has acted not only well but generously.

The Minister endeavoured to cast a doubt upon the effect of my original amendments if they had been put, and possibly carried. All I have to say in regard to that is, that I am perfectly satisfied that the effect of those amendments would have been that, except in regard to Sundays, St. Patrick's Day, Good Friday or Christmas Day, the law would have remained the same as it is, but that is rather beside the question we are debating. I do not think the Minister has altogether justified the change that he has proposed. He is proposing to curtail the hours of opening by one hour in the morning. He went so far as to say that he would be prepared to curtail the hours of opening further in the morning only for the difficulty in regard to mixed trading. Of course, he may consider that an argument. I do not know that it will be any easier to supervise the mixed houses for one hour or two hours.

We will attend to that.

I do not consider that very much of an argument. The Minister said he would be prepared to propose a further later hour. I take him at his word. I imagined from the original text of the Bill, that the Minister himself would be prepared to go the whole hog and propose that there should be no such thing as the consumption of liquor in the Saorstát in houses open for that purpose, but he has had to cut his cloth slightly, even since the introduction of the present Bill, according to the measure laid down by the members of his own Party. However, I think there is no justification for depriving people, between the hours of 9 and 10 o'clock, of partaking of refreshment by way of intoxicating liquor if they are in such a position that they shall not be enabled to take it at other hours, than there would be for depriving them of doing that at any other period during the day. Admittedly, there is not anything like the same drinking in the early hours of the morning. I do not think that can be controverted. It is, therefore, penalising the very few who would be entitled owing principally to their position as workmen or others engaged in business for not being able to avail themselves of other hours.

The question of the closing hour does not arise on the amendment we are discussing. Up to this the Minister has not even attempted to alter those hours on ordinary week days in any portion of the Bill, and to construe my words into suggesting that there were arguments in favour of closing earlier in the evening when what I merely said was that there might be arguments for earlier evening closing but that there were no arguments whatever for an earlier closing in the morning is, I think, to misrepresent what I actually said. Arguments may be brought forward for closing in the evening earlier, but to say that they are arguments does not mean that they are good or sound arguments. I say that no argument of any sort or kind can be brought forward, and certainly no argument has been brought forward by the Minister this evening for curtailing the hour of opening in the morning. I hope when this motion is put to a division that I will get support for this amendment, which is not asking for a change, but is merely asking that the existing hours in the morning, which have not been seriously attacked by the Minister as injurious to the general welfare of the people be allowed to remain for the opening of licensed houses in the county boroughs on the ordinary week days.

I congratulate the Minister for Justice. He has resumed his original rôle of strong man. He refuses to be cowed by a section of the community. Deputy McGoldrick is under the impression that those of us who stand for the temperance cause asperse the members of the licensed vintners' trade and that we do not regard them, as he wishes us to regard them, as respectable elements of society. That is no part of the temperance case.

We know from experience that there are men engaged in the liquor trade who may yield to no one in point of excellence in citizenship, but there are three interests as regards the liquor trade, not merely the employees of the licensed houses, for whom, in some subtle way which I am unable to follow, Deputy Lyons is so much concerned this evening; there are also the licensees, but before and above all those are the interests of the public at large, of the social fabric itself, and of the reputation and well-being of the State. Now the hour of nine o'clock, we have been told by various speakers, differs very little from ten o'clock. This hour is inconsiderable in the calculation. I hold that every hour makes all the difference. It is the breakfast hour for a great many people, and those who take intoxicating liquor instead of the normal breakfast are put on the inclined plane, down which the descent is easy for the remainder of the day. Deputy Redmond, to my amazement, spoke of providing facilities for workmen on their way to work to procure drink. Surely, no one desires that. Surely, the very object of this legislation in which we are engaged is to save men of that type from themselves.

And other types.

And other types. I do not at all suggest they are the only type. When we come to deal with the clubs I shall have something to say about the gentleman drinker, the gentleman soaker. I am dealing with the specific point made by Deputy Redmond now. If there are citizens at the hour of nine who require refreshments, they are travellers—people who have arrived in the city. I want the House to remember that the clause we are dealing with now is county boroughs, cities, not the country. A different case can be made for country districts. I am speaking of the city, where great masses of men are congregated, and where there are already sufficient facilities for drinking; where temptations are in every corner in the workman's way to the place of his employment.

I say, as regards the traveller who arrives in the city, that it may be necessary that he should be provided with refreshments of this kind but his case is met, as Deputy Redmond will realise on reflection, by arrangements for bona fide travellers. Consequently the hardship, to which allusion has been made, does not arise with regard to that class. It is quite right that everything should be done that will prevent the growth of intemperance. There was a period when political enthusiasm for certain ideals was so widespread and keen that temperance and patriotism went hand in hand for a time. Unfortunately, for some reason which it is difficult to understand, intemperance has begun to revive and I think where we are concerned for the stability, well-being and future of the Free State we should see to-day so far as we can help, that we will react against these influences making for intemperance. I would not approve of the quid pro quo of the hour in the evening. That is a separate question and should stand by itself. I contend for dealing with this on its own basis, for what it is. I do hold and insist that the difference between nine o'clock and ten o'clock in the morning is a very material difference. I am very glad that the Minister for Justice is going to stand firm upon this point.

Question put—"That the word ‘ten' in line 29 stand part of sub-section (1), paragraph (a)."
The Committee divided: Tá, 64; Níl, 18.

  • Pádraig Baxter.
  • Thomas Bolger.
  • Séamus Breathnach.
  • Seoirse de Bhulbh.
  • Próinsias Bulfin.
  • Séamus de Búrca.
  • John Conlan.
  • Bryan R. Cooper.
  • Louis J. D'Alton.
  • Máighréad Ní Choileán Bean Uí
  • Dhrisceóil.
  • James Dwyer.
  • Michael Egan.
  • Patrick J. Egan.
  • John Good.
  • Thomas Hennessy.
  • John Hennigan.
  • Connor Hogan.
  • Patrick Leonard.
  • Seosamh Mac a' Bhrighde.
  • Liam Mac Cosgair.
  • Seán Mac Curtain.
  • Maolmhuire Mac Eochadha.
  • Tomás Mac Eoin.
  • Pádraig Mac Fadáin.
  • Patrick McGilligan.
  • Patrick McKenna.
  • Risteárd Mac Liam.
  • Eoin Mac Néill.
  • Seoirse Mac Niocaill.
  • Liam Mac Sioghaird.
  • Liam Mag Aonghusa.
  • Pádraig Mag Ualghairg.
  • Martin M. Nally.
  • John T. Nolan.
  • Michael K. Noonan.
  • Peadar O hAodha.
  • Risteárd O Conaill.
  • Parthalán O Conchubhair.
  • Máirtín O Conalláin.
  • Séamus O Cruadhlaoich.
  • Eoghan O Dochartaigh.
  • Séamus O Dóláin.
  • Tadhg O Donnabháin.
  • Mícheál O Dubhghaill.
  • Peadar O Dubhghaill.
  • Pádraig O Dubhthaigh.
  • Eamon O Dúgáin.
  • Seán O Duinnín.
  • Mícheál O hIfearnáin.
  • Aindriú O Laimhín.
  • Fionán O Loingsigh.
  • Domhnall O Mocháin.
  • Séamus O Murchadha.
  • Pádraig O hOgáin (Gaillimh).
  • Pádraig O hOgáin (Luimneach).
  • Seán O Raghallaigh.
  • Máirtín O Rodaigh.
  • Seán O Súilleabháin.
  • Micheál O Tighearnaigh.
  • Caoimhghin O hUigín.
  • Seán Príomhdhall.
  • Patrick W. Shaw.
  • Liam Thrift.
  • Nicholas Wall.

Níl

  • Seán Buitléir.
  • John Daly.
  • Séamus Eabhróid.
  • David Hall.
  • Séamus Mac Cosgair.
  • Patrick J. Mulvany.
  • Tomás de Nógla.
  • William Norton.
  • Ailfrid O Broin.
  • Criostóir O Broin.
  • Tomás O Conaill.
  • Aodh O Cúlacháin.
  • Eamon O Dubhghaill.
  • Seán O Laidhin.
  • Domhnall O Muirgheasa.
  • Tadhg O Murchadha.
  • Pádraig O hOgáin (An Clár).
  • William A. Redmond.
Tellers: Tá—Deputies Dolan and Sears; Níl—Deputies Redmond and Daly.
Question declared carried.

That disposes of amendments 1 and 2.

Progress ordered to be reported.

The Dáil went out of Committee.
Progress reported; Committee to sit again to-morrow.
The Dáil adjourned at 8.15 p.m.
Barr
Roinn