I move amendment 1:
In page 3, Section 1 (1), lines 37 to 40, to delete all words from the word "structurally" to the words "the public" and substitute therefor the words "certified under this Act to be a restaurant for the purposes of this Act."
PRIVATE BUSINESS. - INTOXICATING LIQUOR BILL, 1927—REPORT.
Amendment 7 would need to be taken in connection with amendment No. 1. The intention is to provide a new definition for "restaurant." On reflection it became clear to us that the definition in the Bill as introduced might be construed to cover premises which it is not our intention should be comprised in the term "restaurant." There are certain publichouses in the city, for instance, in which counter lunches are given. Whilst that is so, it is clear that it is very difficult to lay down a rigid definition. It seems preferable, on the whole, to give a certain discretion to the District Court to determine whether given premises are fit to be described as a restaurant in accordance with the evidence before it. Amendment 7 is self explanatory. It will be realised that the proprietor of any licensed premises who desires to have the benefit conferred by Section 11 of the Bill must apply to the court for a restaurant certificate, and if the applicant is able to satisfy the District Court that the premises are being bona fide and mainly used as a restaurant, and after the police have been given the opportunity to argue contrary if they think fit, then the applicant is given a certificate. The possessor of such certificate is entitled to the privileges conferred by Section 11. It will be appreciated that this proposal makes police work more practicable. If people are found being served with intoxicating liquor on Sunday between the hours of 1 and 3 and 6 and 9 the police need only satisfy themselves whether the restaurant proprietor is the holder of a restaurant certificate. If we did not introduce this idea of a certificate from the District Court, then the police would have to prove in every case of prosecution that the premises were not a restaurant within the meaning of the Act, and one can conceive that, in certain cases, it might be a matter difficult to prove. I prefer the idea embodied in these two amendments—one and seven.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment 2:—
In page 5, Section 2 (4), lines 28-30, to delete all words from the words "and in" to the end of the sub-section.
This is a purely drafting amendment. Reference to Part 3 of the Bill, Section 21, shows that "offences under the provisions of the Bill relating to prohibited hours" come within Part 3, and it is tautology to repeat in Section 2, sub-section (4), that offences of this character must be recorded on the licence. It is also desirable that information as to what is a recordable offence can be found in Part 3 without reference to any other part of the Bill.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment 3:—
In page 5, at the end of Section 2 to add a new sub-section as follows:
"(6) Nothing in this section shall in the case of licensed premises situate in a county borough prohibit between the hours of half-past two o'clock and half-past three o'clock in the afternoon on any week day the receipt by post, telegraph, or telephone of orders for intoxicating liquor for consumption off the premises or the delivery at or dispatch of to the purchaser's residence or a railway station of intoxicating liquor sold for consumption off the premises."
This amendment carries out what I indicated, on a previous stage, it was our intention to do. It makes it clear that between the hours of 2.30 and 3.30, when certain licensed premises are closed, that all licence holders, "on" and "off" will be at liberty to take orders for liquor for consumption off the premises, or to deliver or to dispatch liquor so ordered at the purchaser's residence or to a railway station. The closing down from 2.30 to 3.30 is aimed at preventing drinking in bars, and there would appear to be no objection to the taking of orders for drink for consumption of the premises, or for delivery at the purchaser's residence or to a railway station. To prevent the transaction of that kind of business might simply be imposing an unnecessary and irritable restriction on the proprietors of licensed premises. Therefore, I am moving this amendment. The amendment may need some slight polishing in the way of draftsmanship. There is, for instance, one obvious slight mistake in it as it reads. In the third last line the word "of," following the word "dispatch," should, of course, be struck out.
There is something perhaps a little more substantial than that because this is the conception: that a person with an on-licence, a licence for consumption on the premises, may, if he receives an order by phone or by letter through his letter-box, send liquor to the residence of a customer or to a railway station, but it would not be a sufficient excuse for being found on his premises that you had come to order intoxicating liquor to be consumed at your residence or to be delivered there. In other words, what any person can do by 'phone or letter or telegraph he is free to do under this, and the on-licence holder is free to deliver at the residence of the purchaser or at a railway station. With regard to the off-licence holder, it is not proposed to insist on closed doors in his case at all. All we are asking of him is that for that hour he will not hand physically across the counter to purchasers intoxicating liquor. He may take an order verbally or otherwise for intoxicating liquor to be delivered at the residence of the purchaser or at a railway station. It may be that the word "railway" would need to be amplified—to deliver to a common carrier for delivery at the residence of the purchaser.
At any rate, I want to say that the wording here is not final, and that it may need repolishing by the draftsman and some amendment in the Seanad. I want Deputies to be clear as to the intent. The intent is that within this hour the on-licence holder will have shut doors, but if he gets by 'phone, letter or other means of that kind an order to send intoxicating liquor to the residence of a purchaser, he can book that order and complete it by delivery. The off-licence holder is only asked to abstain for that hour from the sale of drink across the counter—the actual handing over of intoxicating liquor to a purchaser across the counter—but he is not being asked to shut his shop at all.
I have come to the conclusion that it is unnecessary to ask the off-licence holders to shut their doors. There are only three hundred of them for one thing. For another thing, this hour, 2.30 to 3.30, which is the choice of the on-licence holders, would be a very inconvenient hour for them indeed, because it is, in fact, something of a rush hour in the provision trade. A great many of these off-licence holders do, in fact, close for an hour, but an earlier hour, 1 to 2. Having discussed factors of this kind with a deputation, I have come to the conclusion that it is not reasonable and not necessary to ask the off-licence holder to close at all for that hour, and the utmost restriction that we are putting on him is that within that hour he will hand out no intoxicating liquor across the counter. We are leaving him free, as indeed we are leaving the on-licence holder free, to take orders for intoxicating liquor and to deliver such orders freely at the residence of the purchasers or for consignment at the residence of the purchaser. I hope Deputies know just what is involved during that one hour break in the day.
The Minister evidently has changed his mind, as he admits, and thinks now that it would be possible to have the off-licence holders open. I presume he means mixed traders——
No, not mixed traders but off-licence holders.
——open for the purpose of receiving verbally orders during that period, whereas the on-licence holder can only receive orders by 'phone, telegraph or through the post. I understood some time ago that it was the intention of the Minister that if the period of closing was restricted from two hours, which originally was passed in this House, to one hour, that it was to be complete closing.
Yes, there will be complete closing for all who hold licences for consumption on the premises.
I quite follow, but it is only in regard to off-licences that people are to be permitted to go into the shop. Of course the number of off-licences may be small, as the Minister said, but at the same time I think he will find it rather difficult to carry out his intentions. He may, as he said previously, have a higher opinion than, as he said, I seemed to have of people engaged in this trade. I do not see for the moment that there will be a steady and direct movement to illicit trading, but at the same time undoubtedly these people will be open to great temptation and it will place them in a very awkward position when people go into their shops. They will find it very difficult to refuse them. However, he has made up his mind that this system will work. I trust it will, and as far as off-licence holders are concerned who, he says, are not mixed traders, they will not by this proposal be interfered with. I do not think there can be any great objection from any part of the Dáil to his suggestion.
I am not making a complaint about this amendment. The Minister for Justice says that there are only 300 off-licences involved. He must also take into account that if the hour between 2.30 and 3.30 is a busy one for off-licences and grocers the same thing applies to mixed traders. If the Minister gives the off-licence holders an opportunity of keeping open for this hour to sell other articles and if they can take orders for the sale of intoxicating drink so long as they do not hand it over the counter why should not the same thing apply to mixed trading? There cannot be a large number of these mixed traders in Dublin. They are generally in the country. I think this is a great hardship and gives a monopoly to the off-licence holder as against the mixed trader. The customer who is dealing with the on-licence holder when the latter is closed goes into the off-licence. The result is a certain amount of harm is going to be done to the mixed trader. When I voted in favour of having premises closed for one hour from 1.30 to 2.30 I did not think the Minister for Justice was going to alter his own decision, because he said that all houses with a licence were to be closed for that hour. Now I find it only applies to on-licences.
By compelling the mixed trader to close for an hour you are giving a monopoly to the man with the off-licence. I hold what applies to one should apply to all. A man, living, say, in O'Connell Street, who is a mixed trader, paying £50 or £60 more than his neighbour the off-licence man, is made to close and the man who pays less is allowed to open. I do not think that is fair when you take into account the harm that is done. As Deputy Redmond has said, you will find it difficult to administer the law or to get proof whether a man has or has not been supplied in an off-licence with a pint or a half-pint of whiskey. The Minister himself has said if the houses were to be closed for two hours he would be quite agreeable to leave the mixed traders keep their doors open for the sale of goods other than liquor if they put some card in the window saying "This shop cannot sell so and so."
Personally I am pleased with the way the Bill has been amended, and I think that the people in the country in general, who were so much up against the Minister, particularly on that clause, have greatly altered their opinion. A big majority who may have been against him some time ago probably see eye to eye with him at present. On this particular amendment I think a lot of people who have to depend on mixed trading are going to be deprived of a very big amount of their turn-over at the end of the year by being compelled to close down for that hour. I think the Minister should at least act as fair on this amendment as he has acted throughout on the Bill. It would be very advisable, and it would be much appreciated by the mixed traders.
Is the Minister proposing to delete the word "of" in the third last line of the amendment?
Yes.
Is the Minister satisfied or not that the words proposed in the amendment make the distinction clear between the holder of an on-licence and an off-licence?
The words of the amendment are capable of improvement, but this amendment, taken with the one which follows, makes it quite clear that the off-licence holder is not expected to close his doors during that hour, and both sets of licence holders will be free to take orders for delivery, and the only need for mentioning the post, telephone, telegraph and so on in the case of the on-licence holders is to ensure that no man, by a mistake or otherwise, will say as a defence: "I thought I was entitled to admit this man, because when he knocked at the door he told me he was coming with an order." I want to make it quite clear that this permission to sell for delivery at the residence of the purchaser does not mean that the holder of an on-licence may admit persons to his premises because they are coming with orders. Whereas the off-licence holder, who is not asked to shut his door at all during this hour may, of course, take orders verbally across his counter, and the only restriction on him is that he may not hand out the goods across the counter during that hour.
Amendment, as amended, agreed to.
I move amendment 4:—
In page 5, Section 3 (1), line 40, to delete the words "licensed premises" and substitute therefor the words "premises to which an on-licence is attached."
This enables the off-licence holder to keep open during the hour subject to the conditions which I have mentioned.
Amendment agreed to.
Notice taken that twenty Deputies were not present; House counted, and twenty Deputies being present—
I move amendment 5:—
In page 5, Section 3 (1), lines 47, 48 and 49, to delete the words from "(a) in a county borough" to "(b) elsewhere."
This is merely a drafting amendment, which became necessary owing to the changes made on the last stage. In the course of the change which the Bill has undergone since it was introduced, paragraphs (a) and (b), which were at one time distinct, are now identical in purpose, and the present amendment consolidates them into one.
This amendment means that it is proposed that these premises shall be allowed to open between nine and ten in the morning, but not during the one hour in the afternoon. Of course, that carries out the Minister's intention as he has expressed it, but I fail to see on what grounds the on-licence mixed premises should not be allowed to trade during this hour in the middle of the day. As it is proposed that they should be allowed to trade from nine to ten in the morning, I do not think there is much to be said for insisting upon their closing in the afternoon, because they have an on-licence, and allowing the off-licence houses to keep open. The fact, as mentioned by Deputy Lyons, that one is for consumption on the premises, probably paying a higher licence duty, I do not think is a sound reason for not allowing the same sort of trade to be carried on, what is known as a mixed trade. It will, of course, be a considerable hardship on those licensees who have on-licences that during this hour in the middle of the day they will not be able to do any trade in goods other than liquor, whereas their neighbours who have only an off-licence will be entitled to do that business. I think that is a matter for the Minister to consider further. His original intention, as I understood it, was that they were all to be closed down. Now he has come to see that certain of them should be allowed to open, and if supervision can be carried out in regard to the off-licences, I do not think there would be any greater difficulty in carrying it out with regard to all. If there are three hundred off-licences where the Minister thinks he will be able to supervise this new form of restricted trading, I do not see why the same supervision could not be exercised in regard to the others. Of course there will be a difference in number—I may be told that the number will be doubled or trebled. That argument might carry some weight if the off-licences were only a small number, but as they number about three hundred, I do not think the risk would be very much greater if the on-licensed houses were allowed to trade in goods other than liquor during the same period as the off-licence houses are.
I agree with Deputy Redmond that the on-licence houses should be allowed to trade in the same way as they are in the mornings. There should be the same privilege in the middle of the day as in the morning. I believe the off-licences are a greater danger to the community than the on-licences, because when a trader supplies two or three gallons of whiskey or two or three bottles there is no supervision over the way in which it is drunk. It could be drunk by drunken men, because it is not an offence to drink it in a private house. On the other hand, if a man is caught in a publichouse with a sign of drink on him it is an offence. For that reason there should be as much, if not more, supervision over the off-licence. The Minister has met us pretty fairly since the Bill was introduced, and I think he should wind up now in a satisfactory way and not discriminate between the two classes of licence.
Amendment put and declared carried.
I move amendment 6:—
In page 5, Section 3 (2), lines 57 to 60, to delete all words from the words "or to any premises" to the end of the section.
This is, in fact, consequential on amendment 4. The insertion of amendment 4 had the effect of restricting Section 3 to on-licences, and as a chemist has an off-licence it is no longer appropriate to mention him in Section 3, sub-section (2).
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment 7:—
In page 9, before Section 11, to insert a new section as follows:—
11.—(1) Where on the occasion of any application for a certificate for a new on-licence or a certificate for the transfer or renewal of an on licence, the applicant requests the court to certify that the premises in respect of which the certificate is sought are a restaurant for the purposes of this Act, the court, if satisfied after hearing the officer in charge-of the Gárda Síochána for the licensing area that such premises are structurally adapted for use and bona fide and mainly used as a restaurant, refreshment house or other place for supplying substantial meals to the public, shall grant to such applicant a certificate (in this section referred to as a restaurant certificate) certifying that such premises are a restaurant for the purposes of this Act.
(2) The court shall not entertain an application for a restaurant certificate unless and until satisfied that no less than ten days before the date on which the application is proposed to be made notice in writing of the intention to make the application was given to the officer in charge of the Gárda Síochána for the licensing area.
(3) Every restaurant certificate shall unless sooner revoked under this section remain in force until the next annual licensing district court for the licensing area.
(4) A Justice of the District Court may, on the application of the officer in charge of the Gárda Síochána for the licensing area, at any time revoke a restaurant certificate if he is satisfied, after hearing such officer and the holder of such certificate, that the premises to which such certificate relates have ceased to be structurally adapted for use or to be bona fide or mainly used as a restaurant, refreshment house or other place for the supplying of substantial meals to the public.
(5) Every holder of a restaurant certificate shall cause such certificate to be displayed prominently in the premises to which such certificate relates.
Amendment agreed to.
New section ordered to be added to the Bill.
I move amendment 8:—
In page 10, before Section 14, to insert a new section as follows:—
14.—(1) The Justice of the District Court upon its being represented to him by the officer in charge of the Gárda Síochána for a licensing area (not being or forming part of a county borough) that, by reason of the expected incursion on any Sunday or Saint Patrick's Day of a large number of persons into such licensing area for a special occasion, the observance on that day by the holders of on-licences attached to premises in such licensing area or any particular part thereof of the provisions of this Act relating to prohibited hours and the enforcement of such provisions on that day by the Gárda Síochána will be attended with unreasonable difficulty may, if he so thinks fit, grant in respect of such licensing area or any particular part thereof (in this section referred to as the exempted area) an order (in this Act referred to as an area exemption order) exempting all holders of on-licences attached to premises in the exempted area on such Sunday or Saint Patrick's Day from the provisions of this Act relating to prohibited hours in respect of such premises during such period or periods (not exceeding in the whole three hours) as may be specified in such order.
(2) Whenever an area exemption order is granted the holder of an on-licence attached to premises in the exempted area to which such order relates shall if he takes advantage of such order during the period or periods on the Sunday or Saint Patrick's Day named therein supply on his premises food and non-alcoholic drink at reasonable prices to any person demanding the same.
(3) Whenever an area exemption order is granted the holder of an on-licence attached to premises in the exempted area to which such order relates shall if and so long as he complies with the provisions of the foregoing sub-section be exempted during the period and on the Sunday or Saint Patrick's Day named in such order from any penalty for contravention in respect of such premises of the provisions of this Act relating to prohibited hours, but not from any other penalty under this or any other Act.
This amendment carries out what I had undertaken at an earlier stage to do. It is self-explanatory; it gives the District Court the power on the occasion of big football matches and hurling matches in provincial towns to permit licensed premises to open for three hours on Sunday or Saint Patrick's Day where it would be impracticable to administer the regulation governing the supply of drink to bona fide travellers. With this amendment there must be read sub-section (7) of Section 4. "No general exemption order shall be granted for any time on any Sunday or Saint Patrick's Day or Christmas Day or Good Friday." That is the general position and this amendment is the exception.
Deputies will note that this exemption order can be granted only on the certificate of the responsible officer of the Gárda Síochána that a crowd is expected in the area so large that the administration of the bona fide regulations would be impracticable both for the trader and for the police. Whenever that certificate is forthcoming the District Court will have discretion as to whether or not an exemption order should be granted, but in no case shall it operate for a period of more than three hours altogether. That is as far as I am prepared to go to meet the case raised here by Deputy Morrissey. First, I make the police officer the judge as to the dimensions of the crowd expected and as to whether or not that crowd will be so great as to render the operation of the bona fide laws impracticable or extremely difficult and, then, that if the certificate of the police officer is forthcoming the District Justice may, if he thinks fit, grant an exemption order.
I am sorry the Minister has not thought fit to go the length of the amendment, or the proposal embodied in it, which I put down to Section 5 on the Committee Stage. That amendment proposed that on the occasion of any football or hurling match an exemption order might be granted, but it went on to suggest, in sub-sections, that food should be obtainable wherever this exemption order was granted. In one respect the Minister has gone further than I proposed. It is now suggested by this amendment that the occasion shall not be confined to a football or hurling match but a special occasion on which, in the opinion of the District Court, the ordinary law would be difficult to enforce. But he has narrowed it down very considerably by applying it only to areas outside the county boroughs. My original proposal included the county boroughs and though at the time I admitted that on Sundays there was a period during which liquor could be supplied in the county boroughs to anyone, whether resident or not, yet it was during this very time that people who came up from the country would be at the football or hurling match. Therefore I am disappointed that in the proposals the Minister made he has restricted the possibility of granting those orders to the areas outside the county boroughs.
I think the framework upon which he has grounded his amendment is quite sound. I am perfectly prepared to have the District Court decide whether, in view of the special circumstances of the occasion, the ordinary law would not be enforceable, but I do think that that should also apply to the cities. Take an occasion such as that of the big hurling and football matches that take place in the cities of Dublin or Cork or elsewhere. The crowd is so large, numbering tens of thousands, that though there is a period of three hours when liquor can be had, that is the very period at which the people are at the football or hurling match. I do not think it is quite fair that the exempted cities should not be placed upon, at least, an equal footing with the outside areas in this respect. I ask the Minister to apply this also to the exempted cities. With the proposal that the matter should be decided by the District Justice I have no complaint. Neither have I any as to the occasion on which it might be granted, but it is quite as likely that the period of opening in the cities would not be sufficient for the large crowds on those occasions as it is that the ordinary bona fide regulations would not be observed in outside areas. I think the District Justice in the city would be quite capable of determining from the circumstances brought to his notice whether the ordinary law would be enforceable owing to the enormous crowds that would be likely to flock in, and, therefore, I ask the Minister to extend this to the cities as well as to the outside areas.
The Minister has met the point I made rather fairly, and I am prepared to support the amendment. I agree with Deputy Redmond that difficulties arise in the cities on days of big matches, but these difficulties are not as great there as in provincial towns. Dublin has a large number of hotels and restaurants, and the publichouses are open for three hours. I agree that the hours during which the publichhouses are open clash with the hours at which the matches take place. Notwithstanding that, I think if Dublin people are business people, visitors to Dublin ought to be able to get reasonable refreshments on Sundays. There was a necessity for some such provision as the Minister is prepared to insert, and I am prepared to support the amendment.
I agree that the Minister has met the matter fairly. On the Committee Stage I pointed out that on holidays like St. Patrick's Day there is an influx of people to a town and they require refreshments. While the Minister has met the matter very fairly, the hours of opening in the cities do not suit those attending a football match. It is, however, hard to ask the Minister to go any further. At the same time, the Minister might give the District Justice power to grant an hour, in addition to the two or three hours already allowed, if a case was made before him.
I wish to support Deputy Redmond's appeal to the Minister. It is well known that large numbers of people from the Twenty-six Counties come to Dublin on days on which there are big demonstrations or football and hurling matches. The present hours for opening are between 2 and 5 on Sundays and holidays. That time is not sufficient when 30,000 or 40,000 people want refreshments. Publicans in the cities are paying bigger licence duties than those in the provincial towns. While the Minister has gone very far to meet the circumstances in the towns, I think he could allow exemption orders to be granted to publicans in the cities, as was the case in the past. I have often seen publichouses overcrowded on days when large numbers of people came to the city. It is all very well for Deputy Morrissey to say that these people could go to hotels and restaurants. They are working people from country districts, and when they go to Dublin, Cork, Limerick, or Waterford, they do not think of going to hotels or restaurants. They go to licensed premises, where they can have a meat or a cheese sandwich and a bottle of stout. I do not see why these people should not be allowed to get these refreshments in publichouses. They will not be able to get them if the Minister does not agree with Deputy Redmond's suggestion, and allow the cities the same privileges as provincial towns.
Amendment put and declared carried.
I move:—
In page 12, Section 20, line 34, t add at the end of the section a new paragraph as follows:—
"or
(d) the sale of medicated or methylated spirits or spirits made up in medicine and sold by medical practioners or chemists and druggists."
This is a drafting amendment. The provision set out in the amendment was always the law and, as there is partial consolidation of the law in this Bill, it is thought well to insert the amendment. Section 20 has already incorporated certain provisions of the existing law, and this is to complete the process.
Amendment put and agreed to.
I move:—
In page 13 to delete lines 37 to 42, Section 25, and substitute therefor the following section:—
"25. Whenever the holder of a licence for the sale of intoxicating liquor by retail is convicted of an offence to which this Part of this Act relates and such conviction is by virtue of this Part of this Act recorded on such licence, and at the time of such recording two convictions (subsequent in date to the passing of this Act) are by virtue of this Part of this Act recorded on such licence such licence shall thereupon be forfeited."
This is merely a redraft of Section 25. There is no change of substance.
Amendment put and agreed to.
I move:—
In page 18, at the end of Section 38, to insert a new sub-section as follows:—
"(6) Whenever an abolition order is made the registrar to the compensation authority by whom such order was made shall forthwith publish in the ‘Iris Oifigiuil' a notice of the making of such order, containing such particulars as the Minister for Justice may direct."
At an earlier stage of the Bill I undertook to introduce an amendment providing for the gazetting of reference orders and abolition orders. On looking into the matter I do not consider it is necessary to gazette reference orders. The abolition order is the important thing and, as it operates to abolish the licence as from 30th September succeeding the day it is made, the order itself being made not later than 31st December, and operating over a minimum period of nine months, there is ample notice to all parties concerned. To gazette reference orders would only mean a certain amount of expense and trouble without any special purpose.
Would the Minister have any objection to giving wider publicity to these abolition orders, which affect a number of creditors? You may have an abolition order referring to some licence in a remote part of Cork. The holder of that licence may have a liability to a creditor in Dublin to whom the notice of this abolition would be very useful. As a rule these creditors do not see "Iris Oifigiúil," and wider publicity would be very desirable. I do not know that it would involve much expense. In other measures we provided for publication through the means of a local paper and a Dublin daily paper. If the Minister could see his way to provide for that additional publicity in this case, he would be doing a useful service to the commercial community.
It would no doubt be very useful to the newspapers too. It would mean additional revenue from advertising.
Would the Minister, even at this stage, be prepared to state whether any consideration would be given a licensed trader who is willing to go some way towards surrendering his licence? There are a great many licensed traders doing a very small volume of business owing to the taxation of stout and for other reasons. That class of trader, I think, acting in co-operation with the Gárda Síochána, should get the preference in licence-abolition. There are a great many of these traders merely struggling on account of the dearness of liquor and the amount of unemployment.
I am not prepared to alter the Bill at all. We must select the licences to go and we cannot be hurried. We must regulate the rate of extinction. An amendment will be inserted in this Bill, I hope, enabling the six-day licence holder who extinguishes a seven-day licence within his own licensing area to get himself a seven-day licence. There are 2,000 six-day licence holders, and the thing for those people who are yearning for extinction, as Deputy Daly has explained, to do is to rush for the nearest six-day licence holder and ask him to buy up and extinguish his seven-day licence.
Would it be illegal for him to rush?
No.
Would I be in order in following Deputy Daly's example and asking a few questions? Can the Minister give us any indication as to finality in regard to these extinctions? Can he give the House any idea as to how many licences will be extinguished?
Finality will not come in my time.
It is a very serious thing for existing traders to have this risk of abolition hanging over them like the sword of Damocles. At any time it may descend. If the Minister could give any idea as to how many licences would be extinguished, it would give a sense of security to existing traders.
Amendment put and agreed to.
I move amendment 12:—
In page 20, before Section 43, to insert a new section as follows:—
(1) Whenever a licence is abolished by virtue of an abolition order any person who—
(a) was in the employment of the holder of such licence for not less than five years prior to the date of the abolition of such licence, and
(b) was employed by such holder solely or mainly in connection with the licensed business carried on in the premises to which such licence was attached, and
(c) was discharged by such holder as the direct and immediate result of the abolition of such licence, and
(d) has been unemployed for three months after he was so discharged notwithstanding reasonable efforts on his part to obtain employment
may be granted by order of the compensation authority by whom such abolition order was made a gratuity (in this section referred to as an unemployment gratuity) under and in accordance with this section.
(2) The amount of any unemployment gratuity shall not exceed a sum equal to three months' wages of the person to whom the same is granted and such other sum as the compensation authority may consider reasonable in view of the fact that such person will have to bear his own costs of all proceedings in relation to such unemployment gratuity.
(3) Every application to the compensation authority for an unemployment gratuity shall be made not later than the 30th day of March next following the date on which the licence of the person by whom such applicant was employed was abolished, and every such application shall be heard and determined by the compensation authority not later than the 1st day of June next following the said 30th day of March.
(4) At the hearing of an application under the foregoing sub-section the following parties and no other parties may be heard and adduce evidence, that is to say:—
(a) the applicant, and
(b) any holder of a licence in respect of premises situate in the licensing area, and
(c) the Attorney-General of Saorstát Eireann.
(5) Whenever an order (in this section referred to as an unemployment gratuity order) is made awarding an unemployment gratuity to any person the registrar to the compensation authority by whom such order was made shall forthwith transmit to the treasurer a copy of such order.
(6) Upon receipt of a copy of an unemployment gratuity order the treasurer shall forthwith send to the Minister for Finance a requisition in writing requesting him to advance and pay into the proper compensation fund the amount of the gratuity fixed by such order, and as soon as may be after the receipt of such requisition the said Minister shall out of moneys to be provided by the Oireachtas comply with such requisition, and thereupon the treasurer shall pay to the person named in the unemployment gratuity order the amount named therein.
(7) Every sum advanced and paid by the Minister for Finance to a compensation fund pursuant to a requisition of the treasurer under this section for the benefit of any ex-employee or ex-employees of the holder of a particular licence which was the subject of a compensation order shall for the purposes of the next succeeding section be added to and deemed to form part of the compensation money fixed by such compensation order and shall be deemed to have been advanced and paid into the compensation fund at the same time as the sum actually fixed by such compensation order was advanced and paid into the compensation fund.
This amendment is also a fulfilment of an undertaking I gave to provide for gratuities to certain employees who had lost employment by reason of the abolition of licences. This is the best I can do in the matter, and I undertook to do that much.
I appreciate the efforts of the Minister, and I recognise that he has fulfilled the undertaking he gave I fail to see, however, the necessity for the provision in paragraph (d) that an employee must be unemployed for three months before receiving compensation. How are these people to live for the three months? If they fail to secure employment during the three months, then the Compensation Commission will consider their claim for a gratuity, being a sum equal to three months' wages—that is, the three months they have been unemployed. Of course, I understand that men who have been in positions for a number of years may have some little money saved, but a number of those people have not the means of saving. Many of them have to devote their salaries to the maintenance of their parents or the members of their family.
What about unemployment insurance?
I understand that they are entitled to unemployment insurance at the rate of 15/- per week. But in a great many cases a person who applies for unemployment insurance benefit finds himself signing on for six weeks before obtaining any benefit. Hardship will, therefore, be inflicted on people deprived of employment by the forfeiture of licences. Having gone so far, I think the Minister should go a little further and provide that something should be done for those people, say in a month or six weeks, so that they will not be in want.
I think the condition imposed in paragraph (d) will have the effect of causing a good deal of hardship to employees who may be dismissed. It says that the applicant must prove, before he can make application for compensation, that he has been unemployed for three months after he was so discharged, notwithstanding reasonable efforts on his part to obtain employment.
During that three months that applicant must depend on unemployment insurance benefit, but, as everybody knows—I am sure the Minister for Industry and Commerce will bear out this—it takes an applicant considerable time on a great many occasions to get benefit, and this person cannot receive one halfpenny for a period of four weeks. Then he gets unemployment insurance benefit and presumably must still remain unemployed in order to complete the period of three months and at the end of that time, when any little savings he may have had will have become exhausted, he has got to set the machinery in motion, which will not be an inexpensive machinery, in order to prove his claim for compensation. What is to happen the employee if he secures one week's work or two week's work during the three months immediately following the period of his discharge? Would that operate to disqualify him until such time as he was for three months idle? I think this sub-section will impose a good deal of hardship, and I think it might reasonably have been deleted. The Minister might say then a person might walk out of one job and into another. That would happen in very few cases, if any, and often the job he might walk into might not be a job in his own town. He may have to go elsewhere; he may even have to go at a lower rate of wages than he was in receipt of in his previous employment after years of service.
I think the Minister might consider the question of allowing him to make his claim for compensation much earlier than three months after the date of his discharge. Even though he does get a job within three months, he may not get it in his own place; he may get it at a lower rate of wages and he certainly will be put to the expense of moving to one town from another. If he was married his three months' wages would hardly pay the expenses incidental to removing himself and his family from one town to another. I think sub-section (d) might reasonably be deleted because, as it stands, it simply obliges the man to be idle and penniless, practically, for three months, before he could establish his claim for compensation. After he has been idle and penniless he is put under the obligation of proving his case. He could not do that unless he had some funds.
I am glad to be able to congratulate the Minister on having at last received the felicitations of Deputy Lyons. I want to call attention to another sub-section, without quarrelling with Deputy Redmond's argument; that is sub-section 4 under which parties may be heard—the applicant, any holder of a licence and the Attorney-General. Is it necessary to charge the Attorney-General with this duty? Presumably he will not carry it out in person. Presumably he will instruct counsel to appear on his behalf. But in the aggregate these cases will be fairly numerous and this provision involves that all the papers in respect of all the cases will be sent to the Attorney-General's office and examined there. I suggest to the Minister that the question might well be considered, before the Bill is finally dealt with, of substituting State Solicitors. That would be a matter of decentralisation, but I think it might save the Attorney-General some unnecessary trouble.
The Attorney-General means State Solicitor, in fact.
Why not say so?
It is another way of saying it. The Chief State Solicitor's office is under the Attorney-General, and the Attorney-General appearing that way simply means the local State machinery.
Amendment put and agreed to.
I move amendment 13:—
In page 22, Section 45, before sub-section (8) to add a new sub-section as follows:—
"(8) The amount apportioned on any person by an apportionment order shall be deducted by the treasurer from any moneys payable to such person under any allocation order, and when so deducted shall be paid by such treasurer to the officer of customs and excise for the licensing area."
This is in the nature of a drafting amendment. It provides that when compensation is being paid to a licence-holder at a time when he himself owes a levy for some preceding abolition, it should be competent to deduct the amount due by him from the compensation moneys payable to him. That is the substance of the amendment.
Does the amendment mean that if the licensed holder owes any money to the State it can be deducted?
Yes.
In other words, you are dealing with this compensation in the same way as the personal injuries or damage to property awards. Income tax and other things can be deducted from these awards.
The Deputy might read the amendment.
I have read the amendment.
The Deputy might re-read the amendment. It does not say that if he owes income tax or any form of money to the State that it may be deducted from the compensation money payable to him, but if there is any money due on his licence, so to speak, in respect of previous extinctions, then that may be deducted from the compensation payable to him in respect of the extinction of his own licence. If it is a debt cognate to the money that is to be paid to him in the sense that it arises out of this process of extinction of licences then the amount of that debt may be stopped from the moneys payable to him. That is an eminently reasonable provision.
If he is a trader in poor circumstances, and may be in the position of owing £200 or £150 to other firms, I want to know would that £200 or £150 be taken from the amount awarded to him?
The Deputy wants to get clear from the Minister that something that is not in the amendment is not in the amendment. I hope I have made it clear.
That some other interpretation cannot be put on it.
Amendment put and agreed to.
I move:—
In page 22, before Section 48, to insert a new section as follows:—
"48.—Whenever a licence is abolished by an abolition order and the premises to which such licence was attached were held under a contract of tenancy, and were subject to a covenant, agreement or condition that the tenant of such premises should sell only intoxicating liquor purchased from or through his landlord (whether such covenant, agreement or condition extended to all intoxicating liquors or only to one or more particular class or classes of intoxicating liquor) then on and after the date of the abolition of such licence the standard rent of the said premises shall be determined in accordance with the provisions of paragraph (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 2 of the Increase of Rent and Mortgage Interest (Restrictions) Act, 1923 (No. 19 of 1923), notwithstanding the fact that the case may come within the provisions of paragraph (a) of sub-section (1) of the said Section 1.
In many cases tied tenants were charged less for the houses which they occupied than the full letting value of the houses, that being part of the brewer's arrangement for providing an outlet for his own produce. If the licence is abolished and compensation paid to the tied house tenant, it would be obvious that this special letting arrangement should be ended; in other words, that the rent prior to the extinction of the licence was a special rent based on the business arrangement, that the brewer was getting the advantage and the facility of an outlet for his own special produce, and the rent arrived at in cases where any rent was paid at all, would be a rent based on a recognition of the business arrangement between the tenant licence holder and the brewer landlord.
It may be taken that all these publichouses fall within the Rent Restrictions Act as dwelling houses. It was represented to me that when the licence was abolished the house might be taken outside the Rent Restrictions Act, and vacant possession given to the landlord. While there is a certain amount in that, I feel that perhaps the most we should do is to enable the rent to be adjusted on the basis that there is no longer any relationship of brewer and tied tenant existing. The gist of the amendment is that the court can fix a standard rent for the house on the basis of what it would have been reasonably let for in 1914, if there was no question of tied tenancy involved, and if there was no question of a sale of intoxicating liquor in connection with the premises and a special business arrangement as between the tenant and the landlord brewer. When you abolish the licence, then the whole basis on which the rent was arranged before that falls through, and it is reasonable to make the provision that the court can fix a rent after that special business arrangements has ceased to exist, the arrangement as between the tied tenant and the landlord brewer.
In this section the Rent Restrictions Act of 1923 is referred to. Is that right?
Yes, No. 19 of 1923.
There is no reference to the Act of 1926.
It is a reference to a special sub-section. It is not a general reference to the Act. It states: "On and after the date of the abolition of such licence the standard rent of the said premises shall be determined in accordance with the provisions of paragraph (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 2 of the Increase of Rent and Mortgage Interest (Restrictions) Act, 1923." It is not a general reference; it is a particular reference to portion of the 1923 Act.
Is that continued in the 1926 Act?
It is.
I cannot say I am altogether in love with this proposal. Of course, when the licence is abolished the nature of the contract of tenancy must of necessity undergo certain alterations.
Radical alterations.
At the same time, most of these tenancies, according to my information, are tenancies from year to year and terminable, I think, on a three or six months' notice, but that does not very much matter, because they would be within the Rent Restrictions Act. Really, the effect of this will be that after the licensee's means of livelihood is taken away, there will be a possibility of the rent being raised, because if the Court will have consideration, as is suggested here, of the altered circumstances by reason of the brewer not getting the advantage of having his liquor sold there, it is quite natural to suppose that the rent it considers a reasonable one will probably be greater than what it would have been if the licence remained. It is a difficult matter about which to come to a fair conclusion.
Undoubtedly the brewer will not be in the same position, because his liquor will not be sold there, but, at the same time, I do not know that it will be possible for the Court to form much reasonable grounds for altering the rent. It will be very difficult for it to say what these premises would have fetched in 1914 if there had been no licence attached. It will really be largely guess-work. For that reason it is not a provision with which one would be head over heels in love, but undoubtedly the brewer will have some right to have his new position reconsidered. I think, myself, that the basis the Court should go upon would be the possible reasonable rent of the premises without the licence from the date of the abolition of the licence and not from the year 1914. However, I presume it is a matter of opinion. As a result of this I only trust that the rents of these licensees, whose licences are being abolished, will not be systematically raised.
I do not think that the amount paid annually by the tied publican to the brewer should be looked upon as a rent at all, because it is a kind of agreement between the publican and the brewer. To my mind, the more important a house would be, and the more drink the publican would sell, the less rent he would be charged, because he would be of greater benefit to the brewer. For that reason the amount payable annually to the brewer from the publican can be no guide at all as to what rent should be if the house were taken under ordinary circumstances.
Amendment put and agreed to.
I move:—
In page 23, Section 50, to add at the end of the section a new sub-section as follows:—
"(2) In this Part of this Act the expression ‘sports club' means a club within the meaning of and for the time being registered under the Registration of Clubs (Ireland) Act, 1904, the main object of which is the promotion of any outdoor pastime, sport, game or recreation amongst its members."
We come now to the amendments bearing on the question of sports clubs. This amendment provides for the definition of a sports club. The important thing is contained in amendment 16, which shows the special provisions made for sports clubs. On the last stage I indicated that I was satisfied that there was a case for having a somewhat different set of hours for outdoor sports clubs from the ordinary social club. After defining a sports club in amendment 15 we move on, in amendment 16, to provide that a sports club shall be eligible to be registered under the Registration of Clubs Act, 1904, "if, instead of complying with the appropriate provisions of the preceding section the rules of such club (in addition to the matters mentioned in Section 4 of the said Act) provide that no excisable liquor shall be supplied for consumption on the club premises to any person (other than a member of the club lodging in the club premises) or be consumed by any person (other than a member of the club lodging in the club premises) on any day (not being Sunday, Good Friday, Christmas Day or St. Patrick's Day) during the months of May, June and July, and before the hour of half-past twelve o'clock in the afternoon or after the hour of half-past ten in the evening." Those are the ordinary weekday hours. In the summer time period the hours are from half-past twelve o'clock in the afternoon to 10.30 in the evening, and then during any month other than the months of May, June and July half-past twelve o'clock in the afternoon or after the hour of 10 o'clock in the evening.
Then, on any Sunday or Good Friday "during a period appointed by or under the Summer Time Act 1925 ... to be a period of summer time at any time except during such stated period or periods not exceeding in the whole seven hours and not commencing before the hour of one o'clock in the afternoon and not ending after the hour of ten o'clock in the evening, (ii) during any time which is not appointed to be a period of summer time, before the hour of one o'clock in the afternoon or after the hour of eight o'clock in the evening, or (c) on St. Patrick's Day before the hour of one o'clock in the afternoon or after the hour of eight o'clock in the evening, or (d) on Christmas Day before the hour of twelve o'clock noon or after the hour of three o'clock in the afternoon."
You have set out there the hours considered reasonable for a club that fulfils the requirements of the previous amendment and comes within the definition of a sports club. I am satisfied there is a case for special hours, for some adaptability of the hours, with regard to clubs that are genuine outdoor sports clubs, like golf clubs and others, and I recommend these hours to the Dáil.
I think the Minister has put forward a very reasonable amendment. However, he draws a distinction as between sub-section (a) and sub-section (b), applying summer time in sub-section (b) and a three months test in sub-section (a). It would seem more natural to have stuck to summer time as distinct from ordinary time throughout. There is no difference between July and August except, perhaps, at the very extreme end of August. It would seem more of an improvement to have kept a clear distinction between summer time and what is not summer time in the whole section.
Half-past ten is a very late hour and I am prepared to give that only for the three months where you have the longest period of light. The whole thing is an attempt to get at what the reasonable hours would be having regard to the time at which playing must cease because of failing light. We have attempted to follow that very closely. I am prepared only to give that half-past ten for three months and ten o'clock must suffice for the remainder of the year.
When does summer time end?
Summer time ends in October—generally at an early date in October.
Amendment 15 agreed to.
Amendment 16 agreed to:—
In page 24, before Section 52, to insert a new section as follows:—
(1) A sports club shall be eligible to be registered under the Registration of Clubs (Ireland) Act, 1904, if instead of complying with the appropriate provisions of the preceding section the rules of such club (in addition to the matters mentioned in Section 4 of the said Act) provide that no excisable liquor shall be supplied for consumption on the club premises to any person (other than a member of the club lodging in the club premises) or be consumed by any person (other than a member of the club lodging in the club premises)—
(a) on any day (not being Sunday, Good Friday, Christmas Day or St. Patrick's Day)—
(i) during the months of May, June and July before the hour of half-past twelve o'clock in the afternoon or after the hour of half-past ten in the evening, or
(ii) during any month other than the months of May, June and July before the hour of half-past twelve o'clock in the afternoon or after the hour of ten o'clock in the evening, or
(b) on any Sunday or Good Friday—
(i) during a period appointed by or under the Summer Time Act, 1925 (No. 8 of 1925) to be a period of summer time at any time except during such stated period or periods not exceeding in the whole seven hours and not commencing before the hour of one o'clock in the afternoon and not ending after the hour of ten o'clock in the evening,
(ii) during any time which is not appointed to be a period of summer time, before the hour of one o'clock in the afternoon or after the hour of eight o'clock in the evening, or
(c) on Saint Patrick's Day before the hour of one o'clock in the afternoon or after the hour of eight o'clock in the evening, or
(d) on Christmas Day before the hour of twelve o'clock noon or after the hour of three o'clock in the afternoon."
Amendment 17:—
In page 24, Section 53 (3), line 60, immediately after the word "deposited." to insert the words—"less such part thereof as bears to the whole of the moneys so deposited the same proportion as the time during which such licence has been continued in force by virtue of sub-section (1) of this section bears to one year."
This is a fairly obvious amendment. When a person is allowed to trade, pending the result of the appeal, on deposit of the licence duty it is provided in the event of his failing he will not be entitled to get all the duty back; there will be retained by the State a proportion of the duty attributable to the period over which he was allowed to trade pending the result of the appeal. I think that is a very reasonable provision. It simply provides for an apportionment of the deposit in the event of the appeal failing. Some portion is retained in respect of the period over which he continued to trade.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendments 18 and 19 should be the one amendment?
Yes.
Amendments 18 and 19:—
In Section 54, page 24, to delete sub-section (1), lines 63-65, and in page 25 to delete lines 1-4 and to substitute the following sub-section:
"(1) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any other Act, the Revenue Commissioners shall not grant, whether by way of new licence or of transfer or renewal of an existing licence, a wine retailer's off-licence to any person other than a person who is carrying on the business of chemist or druggist or a person who is for the time being the holder of a spirit retailer's off-licence or a beer retailer's off-licence then in force."
These amendments carry out my undertaking to provide for the abolition of miscellaneous wine licences. It will be clear from the amendment that henceforth a wine licence will not be granted to any persons other than a chemist or a person who shall be for the time being a holder of a spirit retailer's off-licence or a beer retailer's off-licence. I think that is precisely what I undertook to add.
Amendments agreed to.
I do not want the motion—"That the Bill with amendments be received for Final Consideration"—put for the reason that there are two more amendments to come. One is an amendment which I spoke of on the last occasion bearing on tied houses. That amendment is not yet ready. There is another amendment that Deputies are familiar with, an amendment with regard to six-day licence holders enabling them if they extinguish a seven-day licence to get the seven-day licence themselves. I would like to insert these two amendments before the Bill leaves the Dáil. I would prefer not to take the actual motion for the Fourth Stage this evening. The two amendments will be circulated to Deputies before Friday next and I would like to take the Fifth Stage also on that day.
Debate adjourned until Friday, 1st April.