Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Friday, 16 Oct 1942

Vol. 88 No. 11

Committee on Finance. - Intoxicating Liquor Bill, 1942—Second Stage (Resumed).

So much has already been said on the Bill that nothing new can be said by any Deputy speaking at this stage, but a few matters have been stressed by Deputies from all parts of the House which I think cannot be too often stressed, so that I shall not be blamed for repeating them. I am interested, firstly, in the question of Sunday opening in the rural areas. The Minister knows the conditions in the country. Sunday is the only day on which the man who is working from Monday morning until Saturday night and who has not an opportunity of having a drink during those six days, can have that little recreation and enjoy the few pints he can spare the money for, after meeting his other calls for the week. Everybody knows that the law as it stands is abused in that respect—that the countryman is having his pint, although the Guards are watching him. He is going to get it some way, but if the hours asked for by the licensed trade from 4 to 8, or 3 to 7 on Sundays, were granted, that abuse would be removed. I am not so keen on the 1 o'clock to 2 o'clock opening after Mass, and I think that 3 to 7 would be preferable because the man has then had his dinner, and can take a walk to the public house and drink his two or three pints in comfort and be home for his work afterwards. I hope the Minister will agree that there should be no differentiation between rural workers and those in city areas.

The next point is the bona fide business and I think that the wiping out of that trade is an obnoxious proposal. I do not see why that business could not be carried on from 6 in the morning until 12 at night. I can visualise a time in the near future when carters with their horses will have to travel long distances. They may have to start with a ton or 25 cwt. load at 5 o'clock in the morning for delivery 30 miles away or more. From 6 o'clock until 9 that carter will have to travel and his horse will then need rest and feeding. He will have to stand at the crossroad for an hour but will not be able to have a drink while his horse is having a rest. The same thing may happen on the return journey. He will have to feed his horse four or five times on the road, and in the times we are facing, when such a situation will probably arise, it would be most unfair if the man who is bearing the brunt of the heavy work of the country were to be cut off from a drink.

With regard to the question of concessions to seaside resorts, I think the appeal made to the Minister is very fair. Seaside resorts must be catered for and it is only fair that that should be so. These are the points stressed by very many other speakers and, as I say, nothing new can be said, but although much has been said from all sides about them, I think it necessary to stress them still further and I hope that when the Bill goes through these concessions for which we are asking will have been granted.

I do not propose to add very much to what has already been said, but there are a few points which many Deputies have lost sight of. They have talked of the bona fide traffic, and have described people going from one village to another in order to get drink. Does not everybody know that that is not bona fide traffic? It is merely a method by which the law is evaded, and, even though a learned judge has said that it is, when the legislature was enacting that law, it was never the intention that by simply walking, riding or driving three miles, you became entitled to a drink. I maintain that when a man with a horse and cart with animals or goods, travels from one point to another, and at some stage requires refreshment, he should be entitled to get it. I go further and say that not only should he be entitled to get it, but the law should be such that he would be entitled to demand it, and it would be a breach of the licensing laws for a licensed merchant to fail to supply him.

Many things have been said in the debate which I think would have been better left unsaid, and I want at this stage to protest against any member of the House, even by implication, giving the impression that it is quite a common practice to leave a church before the ceremony is over for the purpose of getting a drink. That is untrue. If one or two people walk out of a church with 1,000 people in it, to say that they have gone out for a drink and that they place more importance on the drink than on the ceremonies which they were attending is, I think, a terrible statement to make in this House. I object to it. I think it should be withdrawn, and that it should be admitted to have been merely a debating point. It was properly said that on holidays, when the public houses are open, there is no running out at all, and if one person leaves a church in such circumstances, there is always some valid reason for his doing so.

It would be unreasonable, and the law would be unenforceable as a result, to do away with the bona fide traffic altogether. It would be a physical impossibility to enforce the law, human nature being human nature. If people cannot get drink in a public house they will carry it with them. If they cannot carry it with them, it will be available along the road, and there will be shebeens growing up, so that the damage will be far greater. I assert that the bona fide traffic should be permitted, but that it should be clearly of such a type that, when a person reached his destination, he would not be entitled to a drink.

If, at the end of your journey, you are going to see friends or do some business, it will be tea or a meal you will want, and one should not be expecting drink and, in fact, drink should not be served. As Deputy O'Donovan said, in these days of horse travel, when people may have to go long distances by road, there is no reason why the traveller should not be entitled to demand at any hour whatever refreshment he requires for both himself and his beast. He should be entitled to go to a Gárda barracks and insist on a Gárda accompanying him, if necessary, and insisting on his being supplied with the necessary refreshment. If bona fide traffic were defined in that way and the law were enforced, you would cut out the “bottle pary” that drives from one place to another for the purpose of obtaining drink. That is not bona fide traffic; it is only a means of evading the law.

As regards Sunday opening, it is only reasonable that the same law should extend to the whole country. There should be some period on Sunday in which trading would be legalised in the country. Everybody knows that there is a certain amount of illegitimate trading in every village in which the publican resides on the premises. The only place where that does not occur is where the publican is non-resident and, when he closes down on Saturday night, does not open until 10 o'clock on Sunday morning. The cases in which that happens are very few. This illegitimate trading is sometimes due to the fact that the farmer is busy up to the hour the premises are closed on Saturday evening — 9 o'clock, new time, which is only 7.30, sun time. The getting of the groceries is, in these circumstances, left over until Sunday morning. The parcels are then made up, and may contain a bottle or a naggin of whiskey. This business is, of course, illegal. What you are really doing is forcing the Guard to walk the other way — to walk up the street when he should be walking down the street to enforce the law.

I heard a publican complain that a sergeant of the Gárda was persecuting him — not prosecuting him. I knew the sergeant to be a reliable, steady officer. I thought that it would be no harm, if I met him accidentally, to mention the complaint to him, which I did. He said:

"Everybody knows that, on Sunday, I enforce the licensing law until 1 o'clock. While the bona fide traffic is on from 1 o'clock to 8 o'clock, I do not run into every pub to see who is in it because I know that Paddy and Johnnie, who have been working hard all the week, are getting a pint. I am not going to follow those people. When the dance hall opens at 8 o'clock and when a bunch of brats come, armed with poteen, take a few glasses, distribute the rest, and then go down to a pub and get a couple of pints to throw on top of it, which sets them mad — these people I will prosecute and persecute so far as lies in my power.”

I said: "Good luck to you." That is a situation in which a Gárda sergeant was himself legislating. I have reason to believe that, in the south, a similar legislature was established in a certain area. It is reasonable administration but we should not have that situation created. Therefore, I think that, all over the country, there should be an opening period on Sundays in the middle of the day. However, there should be one opening period only. I am not at all impressed with the idea of split-opening periods.

I shall not argue whether the opening period should be 1 o'clock to 3 o'clock or 3 o'clock to 5 o'clock. Whatever period is chosen, there should be a close-down after that, except for the bona fide traffic of the type to which I have referred. I suggest to the Minister that the bona fide limit should be ten miles, with horse traffic, and 20 or 25 miles, with motor traffic. A person should also have to establish to the Guards that he was going at least five or six miles further. I question whether this Bill was necessary or not. I think it would have been better to leave the matter as it was and enforce the law. There were, however, so many difficulties that it was very hard to enforce it, and I am glad the Minister is taking some steps to make it enforceable. To do that, he will have to allow provision to remain for legitimate traffic of the bona fide type. He should legalise opening until 11 o'clock at night instead of 10, including Saturday nights. Then there should be a close down except for bona fide travellers who, I assert, should be entitled to demand refreshment.

At what hour?

Any time. I heard somebody refer to the removal of a patient in an ambulance from the West of Ireland to Dublin. He said that it was not drink they were worrying about and that there was no necessity to get something between 12 o'clock and 6 o'clock. I know of several cases in which patients had to travel by car because there was no ambulance. The doctor administered morphia to the patient when leaving, but there were several delays, due to punctures and other trouble and, when half a glass of brandy was required, it could not be got. In a case of that kind, a person should be entitled to go to any public house and insist on being supplied. It is a necessity. I admit that it is very hard to legislate for that.

Surely a definition of the bona fide traffic is not as has been described, namely, two fellows meeting on the one road, one going to one point and the other to another for the purpose of getting drink. That is sheer nonsense. I would leave it optional with a publican to engage in the bona fide trade, or not, as he likes, but where it is carried on some kind of food should also be available, such as sandwiches, chipped potatoes, or anything like that. That food should be available all the time.

At all hours of the night?

Yes. There should be a hot meal provided.

Who would be on the roads at that time of the night?

If the licensed trade undertake that kind of business, I would make it a condition that they should provide the facilities for which that trade is intended. I have had representations from temperance societies and others and the general view is that it is better to legalise certain things that are required and then enforce the law vigorously. If you do that, I think you will have done a good day's work and will create a situation in which the law can be observed and will be observed. You should punish every Gárda who does not enforce the law and every citizen who does not obey the law.

There are just a few observations which I wish to make on the Bill and I propose to follow those observations by some suggestions to the Minister which, in my judgment, would clothe the administration with power to deal with the evils complained of without imposing the restrictions on the community or the trade that this Bill imposes. I am satisfied that the Minister has not introduced this Bill for the purpose that Deputy Cogan suggested last night — for the purpose of doing any political play-acting.

I am satisfied that the Minister has introduced the Bill because there are grave evils observable in certain parts of the country and the Minister wants to have power to grapple with these evils. Since that is the purpose for which the Minister introduced the Bill. I am also satisfied that the Bill will not be hung up, as Deputy Cogan said. There should be no hanging up of the Bill because it has been admitted on all sides that the evils are there. These evils have to be grappled with and, because the Minister has not power under existing legislation to do that, he needs the authority that a Bill such as this gives him to do it. Some Deputies allege that he has power under the existing law to do it and that he failed to make use of it. I am sure that if the Minister had that power he would not occupy the time of the House with a measure of this kind. Deputies admitted that the evils exist. Then Deputy Hannigan asserted that the Bill was discreditable and deplorable, notwithstanding that it is necessary to grapple with the evils which he admits exist.

This Bill has within it certain admirable provisions; for instance, the section which permits a licensed trader to obtain a new licence for improved premises. Many men are compelled to remain in occupation of premises at present which are highly unsuitable, notwithstanding that they are prepared to provide suitable premises where a better standard of accommodation could be provided. This Bill removes an anomaly in the Licensing Act of 1902, and it permits a new licence to be granted in a case of that kind. That is a very welcome provision, because it enables licensed persons, so disposed, to acquire new premises and thus cause unsightly licensed premises to disappear.

There are 21 sections in the Bill and I have heard criticism directed only against one section of it. Certainly, the Minister must have performed his task reasonably well when the whole controversy centres round, and the whole criticism, both inside and outside the House, is directed towards this one section of the Bill, namely, Section 7. Criticism, and I believe reasonable criticism, has been directed towards that section, by the trade, by the community outside, and by Deputies within the House.

There has been such a concentration of attack on that section for the last three days that, to use a modern term of war, Section 7 is now "scorched earth." I am sure these criticisms have made an impression on the Minister. Section 7 of the Bill, as I understand it, has for its object the removal of growing moral and social evils in connection with licensed premises within easy distance of Dublin City. The second main reason advanced by the Minister when introducing this Bill related to the happenings that succeeded the holding of dances on Sunday nights. I believe that these are the two main reasons for the introduction of Section 7 of the Bill.

But the provision in Section 7 goes further, and, while seeking to eradicate these evils, it imposes on the unoffending trade and on the unoffending community an unreasonable restriction. Of course, I recognise clearly that it is very difficult to introduce legislation to remove any evil or any difficulty or any trouble without creating others which you do not foresee at the time. It is immensely difficult in introducing a licensing law to deal with the whole of a country such as ours. That licensing law, to be uniformly applied, presupposes that the circumstances and conditions are similar all over the country. Circumstances and conditions are not the same and, therefore, the enforcement of a uniform law must cause hardship and difficulties in certain districts.

Section 7 amends or repeals Section 15 of the Act of 1927. That Act permitted bona fide travellers to be served at any hour of the day or night on week-days.

Section 7 of the Bill removes that entirely and compels licensed premises to shut down at 10 p.m., irrespective of whether people are travellers or not, and irrespective of where they came from. That is a sweeping piece of legislation. It is the most revolutionary piece of licensing law that has ever been introduced in this country. At present, a bona fide traveller is entitled to be served from the ordinary hours of 10 p.m. to 10 a.m. the following morning. In other words, there are 12 hours during which he is entitled to be served, and the Minister proposes wholly to remove those 12 hours. He removes entirely the bona fide trade, and that, obviously, must impose difficulties and hardships on the community, and, as I say, an unreasonable restriction on legitimate trade.

Let us examine what it means from one or two aspects. There are many aspects, of course, but let us take one or two. Take the case of health resorts in this country. A man may travel 50, 60, or 100 miles to one of these health resorts, and, after that journey, he reaches the health resort at 10 p.m., official time, and therefore cannot be served, although it is then only 8.30 by the sun — two hours or two and a half hours of the sun still to go — but yet that man cannot be served at any health resort in this country. Again, take the case of men returning from their work on the bog, the farm, or the meadow. They may be bona fide travellers passing through a town from their work at 10 o'clock, official time, although, according to their time, it is only 9 o'clock, and those men cannot be served. I am quite sure that the Minister did not intend that this section should operate in that manner. The complete abolition of the bona fide trade can only have results such as those which occurred in other countries. For instance, in 1921, the bona fide trade was abolished in England, and one of the immediate consequences that flowed from that was that while, in 1921, there were 10,663 clubs in England, there were, in 1938, 16,951 clubs—an increase of practically 7,000 clubs in the period from 1921 to 1938—all due entirely, in the opinion of people who examined the matter impartially, to the abolition of the bona fide.

Now, since I have criticised the Minister, he may ask me what have I to offer instead, and, of course, criticism is useless unless it is constructive. Well, I am prepared to offer an alternative. Let us take the two cases which the Minister has indicated to the House have been giving him the greatest trouble. One is the dance halls, and those who leave these halls and go outside to a neighbouring public house because they can get a drink at 1 o'clock in the morning. I would say to the Minister that in order to meet that case he should extend the bona fide hours to 12 midnight. Mind you, he is taking 12 hours from the legitimate trade that the trader has at the moment, and my suggestion would leave him two. I do not think it would be very much to extend the bona fide trade to 12 p.m., and then close down the licensed premises to everybody until 6 the following morning. That would meet the Minister's difficulty, because a man leaving the dance hall on a Sunday night could not be served with any drink between those hours, and I say that that would arm the Minister with power to challenge the evil that now exists. The Minister may say that that does not protect him against evils that are happening adjacent to Dublin City. I admit that it does not, but there again there is a difference of circumstances which compels you to introduce a different law, and my suggestion with regard to happenings in the neighbourhood of Dublin City — much as the Minister may dislike it — is that he must set down a boundary, and that licensed premises throughout Éire would be permitted to serve travellers up to midnight, save and except within a radius of 12 or 15 miles of the General Post Office in Dublin, and there the provision that the Minister has in the Bill would apply. That is the suggestion that I have to make with regard to the abuses that the Minister indicated existed, and with which he said he had no power to grapple at the present time.

It has been suggested by the Minister that violations of the law occur in local areas on Sundays. There is, I think, an obligation on most of us to admit that that is so, and if permission were given to serve persons on Sundays, locally, my idea is that the demand there arises more directly from persons who want to be served with ordinary groceries rather than from people who are looking for a drink. In the country, people attend Mass on Sundays, and the ordinary requirements of the home have to be served. That is why I am concerned that there should be a brief opening period — I should say for about an hour and a half — and only one opening period. I am inclined to agree with what Deputy MacEoin said, that when you permit people to have something they desire to have, the anxiety to have it tends to disappear. That is the psychological reaction. Remove the barrier and, in many instances, in the case of people who desire to have a drink, the desire disappears. Many people, on a church holiday, will pass a public house which is open. They do not go in, but, on a Sunday, because the public house is shut, they want a drink. That is a matter of practical experience, and I am putting it before the Minister. I suggest that the closing hour for the whole of Eire should be 12 midnight for licensed premises, and that refers to every kind of licensed premises, whether public houses, theatres, clubs, and so on.

And dance halls.

I am very doubtful if I would give a licence to a dance hall at all. I say that the sale of drink in any licensed premises or in any place where drink is sold should cease at 12 midnight, and I think that if the Minister would agree to some such provision in this Bill, he would strengthen his power to grapple with the evils which he has mentioned and which we know exist. I am satisfied that if the Minister finds it possible to adopt my suggestions, he will have sufficient power to deal with those evils, and also to remove some of the hardships and inconveniences that this Bill will impose on the people.

What would the Deputy do in the case of the traveller going a distance?

It is a very small item.

I think the numbers are so few that it is difficult to legislate for the people the Deputy refers to.

I believe that the Minister for Justice deserves every credit for bringing in a Bill to amend the present liquor laws. We all know that something was needed. Some Deputies have suggested that the Minister brought in an election Bill. I do not agree with that because, in my opinion, the Minister has introduced a Bill which will be very detrimental to him in the next election. I do not think he will get a vote for what he has done. That is why I give him every credit for introducing this Bill. There are certain clauses in the Bill that we expect he will amend and I believe he will do so. He is a reasonable man and has listened to all Parties in this House.

We all know that we require, not so much a tightening up of the liquor laws, as a development of a better public spirit. We all know that the drunken lout and the dissipated beauty are the star turns in our country to-day. Until we get a public spirit which will put these people in their proper place, liquor laws are very little use. I live within 20 miles of Dublin and I see many of the abuses which I know the Minister is trying to deal with. They are glaring abuses which we, in a Christian country, cannot tolerate. We know that many people are going down the slippery slope. We know that this craze for drinking, amongst men and women, started in Dublin about ten years ago. Even in my own county it has spread very rapidly in the last four or five years. Boys and girls of good breeding and intelligence have got in touch with many of these drunken louts at dances. They start by taking light drinks and in the course of a few years develop into drunkards.

I believe that the Minister's object will never be achieved if we have not a decent public spirit in the country. Decent young men and girls should not allow undesirable people into their dance halls and then they would be able to have their legitimate pleasure in comfort. At the present moment, the presence of undesirable people interferes with the pleasure of decent people who are trying to dance. I have seen scores of cases of that kind and I know the Minister is trying to deal with them. For that reason, I welcome some tightening up of the liquor laws.

We have plenty of drunkenness and indecency in this country at the present moment. I noticed that many Deputies mentioned very little of that. I do not know whether it is that they do not come in touch with it, but I certainly hear of it and see it for myself, and I am satisfied that we are allowing this country to go down the slippery slope. In the old days, when drink was very cheap, there was a good deal of drunkenness, but it was innocent drunkenness. A farmer and his workman, after getting a good price for a bullock at the fair, might get a bit drunk, but they got home and, after a sleep, recovered. The old aristocracy, the idle rich, had their tipsy parties and all those things, which were more or less a public scandal, but that has died out. There is a new aristocracy in the country — I shall not say the idle rich — it has come in, I think, more or less with the industrial development. Some of these fancy people are getting good wages and, not having very much money in the past, it has gone to their heads. It is a sad state of affairs that we cannot preserve the old original Irish character — that we must imitate foreign ways. We know what happened in France and other countries. They have been discredited and humiliated. We do not want to see our nation discredited and humiliated. I want to see our freedom creating for our people a better standard of living, a better Christian spirit and better public spirit but if we allow the things that I see going on now to continue, I say there is very little use in making any effort to make this country worth living in.

The chief danger I see in this country is the hotel — not the public house. The abolition of the bona fide trade is a thing we could not stand over because we who took part in the national struggle, know that our struggle for independence would hardly have been a success if it were not for the public spirit, patriotism and nationalism of our publicans. I believe that, outside of the fighting men, they were the body of men who did most to give us the right to legislate in a free Parliament. They took grave risks and in many cases found themselves financially embarrassed as a result of the help they gave us. They hid our comrades, fed and clothed them and kept them very often from instant death. I think that to interfere with those people in the manner proposed in this Bill would be an injustice that should not be tolerated. They are honest people and hard-working. There is not a huge amount of money made by the ordinary publican. He has many ups and downs. I would like to see licensing laws introduced to deal with the new type of hotels, that have all the facilities — lounges, bedrooms, music. It is these hotels that I would ask the Minister to get after because I see flowing from them iniquity of all kinds. I know many fine young girls who were innocent and well-behaved who to-day are occupying an unfortunate place all because public spirit did not rise up to deal with those drunkards who are star-turns in our countryside to-day. Many parents do not know what to do with regard to dances. They want to keep their girls in touch with the ordinary community and want them to have legitimate pleasure, but it is almost dangerous to allow young girls out at all to a dance. The hotel, with its drink at the bar and its open lounges and bedrooms, should not be tolerated. It is terrible to see droves of people coming to hotels on hackney-cars, dancing for an hour or two, and then looking around to see what victims they can get. They will bring them out and set them tipsy.

What Deputies from the provinces want is to have the regulations dealing with the bona fide trade amended. I do not think the Minister would be doing a good thing by doing away with legitimate bona fide trade, which I consider is for the convenience of the people. If the hours were from 12 to 6, and not in between, they would be suitable. It is not people in rural districts who bring disgrace on the country. It happened in the past that there was too much interference with Guards, even with the higher authorities. I do not want to introduce politics into this discussion, but some people appeared to be able to pull strings against Guards who had detected breaches of the law by publicans or found drunken persons on premises. When the Guards were going to prosecute they found that some cases were settled and that they could not proceed. I met several Guards who asked me what was the use in taking proceedings in these cases. They said that they could catch some houses twice weekly, but that something happened over their heads and that they could not prosecute. I am not blaming the Minister. But that occurred.

That is unfair to publicans who obey the law. If a publican is caught breaking the law, a prosecution against him should proceed to its logical conclusion. If the law is there it should be enforced fearlessly. There is no use in trying to follow up small technical offences. Cases will happen every day where the premises may be open for a minute after closing time. Very often, if a publican had a stick in his hand he would not be able to get people out for five minutes after closing time. I have deliberately used strong language, but I know what is happening. I live in an area not far from Dublin, where a small minority are abusing the law. However, they are very vocal, and are what I would describe as "star turns". Until public spirit is aroused to exclude such people from places of amusement, licensing laws are of very little use. People may say that I have painted a terrible state of affairs. That is not the position generally, because there are areas in which the authorities have no trouble. The trouble is being caused by the new type of hotel which provides facilities for all kinds of people. If these places were made amenable to the law there would be very little cause for complaint. Licences have been given to dance halls. I am convinced that they should not be granted.

I saw people at these places who might be described as "the upper ten," and at hunt dances where the conduct was not what it should be. It was not at a dance hall that happened. The conduct was humiliating to many people and they left. They found it difficult to get out because it was like being in a Rugby crowd. There was no use in looking for supper there. I do not want that sort of thing to continue. I want publicans who do an honest trade to get a chance to carry on their business legitimately, but I do not want licenses to be given to dance halls because it is there the abuse occurs.

I feel that it is the duty of every Deputy to express an opinion on this Bill. I do not want to criticise it unduly at this stage. The principal question dealt with concerned the complete abolition of the bona fide trade. I object to that proposal very strongly, in the first place, because it is an interference with the rights of members of the licensed trade, and also with the value of their premises and, in the second place, because it is, in a general way, filching away the rights of the people. In my opinion, members of the licensed trade are as decent a body of people as any other section of the community. Very often they are maligned because there is not due consideration of the facts. I do not think it is fair to penalise a whole section of citizens because it may happen that a few do not conduct their business according to the law. I urge the Minister to reconsider that section and to bear in mind the points that were put forward by speakers on both sides of the House. Does the Minister understand the serious effect this measure will have on the licensed trade as a whole? Does he realise the ineffectiveness of the section to deal with the abuses which he says exist in certain places around the City of Dublin? In my opinion it will not remedy these abuses and later some other measure will have to be introduced. Let us consider the position of a farmer or labourer going to a fair in the early hours of the morning. Surely it is not contended that they are not entitled to refreshments. Nobody will deny their need for some refreshments before 10 o'clock. We all realise that farmers are doing good work in the national interest and that their attendance is essential at fairs, yet, according to a section in this Bill they are to be denied the privilege of getting refreshments. This provision will not only penalise them but will have the effect of penalising the rural population who are, in no way responsible for the abuses that occur in connection with the licensing laws.

What are we proposing to do to the licensed trade as a whole? We are really putting more restrictions on that trade than it is able to bear. Many people realise, as well as I do, that things in the towns are very bad at present, but when subscriptions are required for any object, publicans are the first people called upon to help. They try to be generous even though, in many cases, they can ill afford to be. Licensed holders have to earn their living just as doctors, lawyers, shoemakers or any other section of the community must earn a living. It just happens that that is their rôle in life. They have no intention whatever of trying to evade the law. There may be a few people who have very little regard for the law, but I consider that it would be much better to find some method for enforcing the law rather than penalise the great majority who comply with it. I strongly object to the section in the Bill dealing with the bona fide business. I think it is, a retrograde step and one more instance of filching away the rights of the citizens. In this House we pay much lip-service to liberty and freedom, but it is gradually becoming a habit to take away the rights of the people, without realising what is being done. I believe that too much interference with the rights of ordinary citizens is not good for the country. I ask the Minister to give favourable consideration to the points that I have put before him and to make the necessary amendments.

Liberty is necessary if we are to have a decent, upright lot of citizens. The privileges which citizens now enjoy under the existing law ought, in my opinion, to remain unimpaired. It is a great mistake, I think, to further curtail the liberty of the people. The proposal seems to be to pass a sweeping law which will affect the people generally, and to do that irrespective of whether you are punishing the right people or not. If the Bill goes through in its present form everybody will suffer. It will seriously affect the people at the seaside resorts. At the moment they find it very hard to carry on. Their business is confined to a few months of the year. They try to keep their doors open from one end of the year to the other, but as we know they have to live almost entirely on what they make during the holiday season. We know that owing to present conditions trains are not running to schedule. When this Bill is passed, if a train arrives at one of these places after 10 o'clock at night, even during the holiday season, it will not be possible for those people, no matter how much they wish to do so, to meet the requirements of visitors who arrive after that hour. That will not be good for the tourist trade or for a good many others whose means of making a living is directly bound up with it. I would ask the Minister to consider the points that have been put forward by Deputies on both sides of the House. I feel certain myself that he will deal fairly with them because he has been most patient during the whole of this debate.

The Bill proposes to make two main changes in the existing licensing laws. The first is the abolition of the bona fide traffic on week-days, and the other an extension of the opening hours for public houses in the cities on Sundays. A good deal of the debate has centred round the proposal to abolish the bona fide trade. It has been discussed from almost every angle. As a result of the views that have been expressed, I hope the Minister will modify that section drastically. Personally, I have no strong convictions on the matter. I have often thought that the abolition of the bona fide business might be a good thing for the reason that it might tend to lessen the amount of excessive drinking that goes on. Many Deputies seem to think that to restrict the opportunities for excessive drinking would be too high a price to pay for its abolition.

I am afraid that Deputy O'Loghlen's suggestion to abolish the bona fide trade within a radius of 12 or 15 miles of the General Post Office in Dublin would not work, for the reason that the abuses which the Minister, in this Bill, is endeavouring to do away with, are due in large part to parties who travel around through the country in cars. An extra half mile or an extra half gallon of petrol will not mean anything to them. In any event, the Minister has told the House that in this Bill he is not dealing with Dublin alone, nor has he said that all the abuses occur in and around Dublin. He has assured us that they are taking place all over the country. Therefore, I think the Deputy's suggestion would not work. Deputy MacEoin referred to the definition of a bona fide traveller. I do not know if there is any statutory definition.

There is.

Well, if there is I think it is being got round. What I mean is that the person who poses as one is not a bona fide traveller at all. He is not travelling, in most cases at any rate, from one place to another on legitimate business, but solely for the purpose of getting drink. It would be a good thing, in my opinion, if the Minister could devise some method whereby the genuine traveller such, for example, as men going to a fair or a market in the early morning, could get refreshment. I do not know whether that is possible or not, but I think we are all anxious to cut out the person who is simply travelling around for the purpose of getting drink, and for no other purpose. If something on the lines that I have suggested could be done it might help to solve the problem that the Minister is faced with in this section of the Bill.

As to our licensing laws in general, I could never understand why there should be any distinction made between town and country; why the countryman, if he feels thirsty, should not have the same facilities as the townsman has for satisfying his thirst. In fact, due to the nature of his work, he may be in far greater need of a drink than the townsman. I feel that the facilities for obtaining a drink which are available to the townsman should apply equally to the man living in the country. With regard to the proposal to extend the opening hours on Sundays in Dublin and the other cities, at present, as we know, the opening hours in Dublin on Sundays are from 2 p.m. to 5 p.m.

The proposal in the Bill is to have the new opening hours 1 p.m. to 2 p.m. and 4 p.m. to 7 p.m. I think that if there is to be an extension of the opening hours it should apply not in the afternoons but in the evenings. I do not think that any man should stick himself in a public house, or in a hotel between 2 and 5 on a Sunday afternoon. Instead, he ought to be out on the hills, in the Phoenix Park with his wife and children or perhaps at Killiney with his sweetheart. Deputies may smile at these suggestions.

It happens.

I mean this seriously. I think that if the opening hours were in the evening, instead of in the afternoon, it would be far better and that if men who take a drink were given the preference they would be in favour of the evening opening. Instead of being stuck in a public house during the afternoon, they could spend the time down at the Bull Wall, or elsewhere, enjoying themselves. He would be exercising himself playing football, or he would be watching a football match. Anybody to whom I have mentioned the point— I have mentioned it on several occasions — has said: "It must be the Church that is behind those objections." I missed some of the Minister's opening speech, and I do not know, whether or not he referred to that matter, but, if it is a fact that the Church objects to the opening of the licensed houses on Sunday nights between 7 and 10 o'clock, I think they are not looking at it from the correct angle, because they are still allowing the cinemas, theatres and dance halls to be open on Sunday nights. The man who is going to a religious service will go one way or the other, and the man who is not going will not go one way or the other — whether or not the licensed premises are open. I do not like the 1 to 2 hour either; I do not think it is necessary. If the public houses are open, a lot of men would like to have a drink at that time, but, if they are not open, they would just as soon do without it.

References have been made to the patronages and preferences and privileges which are given to clubs, dance halls, hotels and theatres. I think that now is the time for a select committee to examine those points. There is a lot to be said for the abolition of all kinds of preferences, patronages and privileges; if one person cannot get a drink in one place, another person should not be able to get it in another place. Of course, there is something to be said for the plea that a weary traveller arriving in Dublin from Galway or Limerick is entitled to have a drink with his meal, but at the same time those things could possibly be sacrificed for the sake of fair play all round. In regard to clubs, Deputy Fogarty very rightly asked why should the man with the plus-fours and the golf clubs be entitled to get a drink at a time when the working-man cannot get it? Of course, he forgot that the working-man has his clubs, too, at some of which the subscription is a nominal one. I do not know that it would be any great disadvantage to do away with the licences attached to those clubs, or at least to cut down the hours during which the clubs would be entitled to serve drink. The man who is a member of a club is walking down the street on Sunday after Mass, accompanied by some friend who is not a member; he may not really want a drink at all, but he has got into the habit of getting his little appetiser before dinner, so he brings his friend along with him. If he were not a member of a club, a drink would not cost him a second thought at that time. He would go off for a walk with his friend.

Therefore, he does not need a club?

I very much deplore the fact that the Leader of the Opposition, who graduated from the same college as myself, has deemed it fitting to absent himself from this discussion on what I consider the most important piece of social legislation ever introduced in this House. There is no man more qualified than he is to give assistance and advice to the Minister in trying to make this Bill what each and every responsible Deputy would like to make it. There is no man, I am sure, who would be more anxious to have a code of licensing laws which would win the respect of the people. No one will deny that the bona fide traffic, as we have known it in recent years, is an absolute farce. It has a bad effect, too, on the morale of the Gárdaí. A young Gárda who has been taught his elementary duties in the depôt goes out into a district — fortunately, I suppose, for all concerned, he is accompanied by an experienced man—and he proceeds to operate according to the letter of the law. Of course we know what happens. He becomes unpopular. Then he gets soured when he finds that things are not as he was taught—that they are not according to the book of words. Therefore, I think the Minister is genuinely entitled to be congratulated on making an effort to remedy what everybody knows is a farce and a glaring disgrace to our social laws at the present time. Like Deputy Fogarty, I hope that, since the discussion on this Bill started, he has learned more about the licensing laws than he ever knew before. Undoubtedly, there is a lot to be learned. In particular, I want to congratulate a member of the Front Bench Opposition, Deputy Linehan, on the contribution he made to this discussion. One would almost think he had practical experience of the licensed trade. I do not believe he has. At any rate, his speech was a constructive contribution to this problem.

There is only one idea motivating the mind of the Minister, so far as I know, and that is to get rid of the abuses which exist at present. In this discussion, I think every Deputy has done his or her best to make a helpful contribution as to the best method of dealing with the problem. I would endorse the views expressed by those who appealed to the Minister for the setting up of a Parliamentary committee, but, in the last analysis, that rests with the Minister; if he cannot see his way to give us that all-Party committee, and let those of us who have views and ideas in connection with this matter get round a table and discuss them, we cannot force him to do so.

I understand that there is an arrangement by which this debate will conclude at 2 o'clock, and I regret that very much. So far as the debate has gone, I do not believe there has been any waste of time on irrelevancies. I have listened to political speeches here time after time, but I think everyone will agree that every member who has spoken on this particular Bill has endeavoured so far as possible to keep to the matters contained in it. If that arrangement to which I have referred is to be adhered to, I must make way for the Minister, but I want to make one or two points first. First of all, in regard to dance licences, we all know the evil of the dance halls, but I would suggest to the Minister that a local publican, a reputable trader, should be given an occasional licence to carry on a bar in the dance hall, under the same restrictions as if he were a licence holder in a club.

That is a poor solution.

Restrictive legislation will not solve this problem. If you make legislation too harsh, it will accentuate the problem. I suggest there is a solution in giving an occasional licence to a reputable responsible licensed trader who will act in a responsible manner. We all know what is happening by giving it to the dance halls.

Suppose you have no licence at all?

That would be very harsh. By that means you are going to create the bottle party. I hope the Minister will bear in mind the evils which spring from the bottle party because, as some Deputy on the Opposition Benches pointed out, when you come down to the bottle party it is all whiskey drinking, whereas if you give reasonable facilities along the road for genuine travellers, the drinks consumed will principally be stout and beer with, occasionally of a cold night, a half one. The bottle party in the car is a terrible thing to encourage and may lead to disastrous results.

Coming to the provisions of Section 7, I am in thorough agreement with those who say that the section as it stands is entirely too harsh and impractical. The effect of the enactment of that section would be to create a greater evil than that which the Minister is anxious to abolish at the moment. I think that the Minister should continue the hours 10 a.m. to 10 p.m. and up to 12 midnight for bona fide travellers. So far as Sundays are concerned, I am also in agreement with Deputy O'Loghlen that there should be two hours allowed after Mass. I speak as a person of experience who has travelled up and down the country, as one who has worked behind a bar and who knows the psychology of the consumers. Again I want the Minister to bear in mind the desirability of inculcating respect for the law. Do not ask the Guards to enforce a law which we know they cannot enforce. Make the law in conformity with the people's requirements, and then see to it that the Guards will enforce it.

Coming to requirements in the city, I cannot understand the attitude of some Deputies who query the right of the capital of the State to have extra facilities in the matter of drinking hours in relation to other districts. There is no analogy between conditions in the capital of the State with 500,000 of a population and conditions in villages and towns with a few hundred or a few thousand people. You cannot have a flat rule for that situation. As to the proposed opening hours in the cities on Sundays — 1 to 2 and 4 to 7, there is one objection, I understand. As I understand the matter, the proposal to open from 1 to 2 is an honest effort to meet the genuine grievance of the honest trader who pays high taxes, licence duties and rates, to enable that trader to compete with clubs. The clubs, as we all know, open at 1 o'clock on Sundays. In connection with the proposed 4 to 7 opening, every member of the House is aware that the workers in the licensed trade take a very prominent part in G.A.A. games, the national games. The young men employed in the licensed trade in the city contend, I understand, that the split hour on Sunday will prevent their practising or carrying on these games. What I am about to say may not be a popular thing, but I had the honour to be prominently associated with the trade organisation some years ago and I always preached to the assistants that the concern of that organisation was to obtain a guaranteed 48 hour week. Thanks to this Government, that is now the law of the land, and it is no concern of the employees what time the licensed trader opens or closes his premises.

The licensed trade is a catering trade and those employed in the licensing trade should be told definitely that they are catering for the people's needs. It is an essential business; it is something that should not, as some Deputy on the Opposition Benches said, be looked upon as a luxury. It is an essential adjunct to Irish life. The properly run Irish public house is one of the most ideal institutions in this country, where you meet all the finest types and hear some brilliant ideas. Many of our greatest writers and orators found inspiration in the local tap rooms. Everyone knows that. It may not be a popular thing for me to say to those young men who object to the split hour, but I do say this as one who played a little part in those games when I was fit and young and then I worked 16 hours a day, from 7 in the morning until 11 at night. I say to them: "If you get the hours 1 to 2 and 5 to 8 on Sundays, you will have three hours off. You will have the afternoon and you will have an opportunity of seeing All-Ireland finals which very few workers in that particular trade ever had an opportunity of seeing. You will have three hours' work in the afternoon, but you will not have to get up early on Sunday morning in order to practise these games." I put that to the Minister who I know has always been a Gael, and has been associated with the national pastimes. I know perfectly well that he is very sympathetic to the grievances voiced by the employees in the city in connection with that matter.

I should like to refer to many matters that are not dealt with in the Bill. That again brings me to the question of appealing to the Minister to allow this to go to an all-Party committee. As regards Saturday night closing, I should like to make one point which is not touched on in the Bill. Why is it that Saturday night closing has to take place at 9.30? No case could be made for that remaining as it is in view of the fact that all workers are paid on Friday night, particularly in and around the city. There is another matter not mentioned in the Bill which I should like the Minister to bear in mind with a view to bringing in some amendments later. I refer to the question of abuses. I think we should enact legislation to put more responsibility on the customer. In connection with the bona fide business, I would ask the Minister if he is going to allow a 12 o'clock opening in the county, that the public houses in the city should be allowed to open from 11 a.m. to 11 p.m. I want to point out that by that means you would discourage an undesirable type from travelling in buses or in their cars —if we ever live to see normal conditions restored — for the sole purpose of drinking.

If you keep these rough types at home in their own local districts in the city and give them reasonable drinking facilities, the local publican has a restraining influence over them that no one can understand. When they break loose from that atmosphere, some of them run amok. These are types well known to exist in every city and country and no law can deal with them. The best thing to do is to facilitate them in their own district and not to hold out an attraction five miles beyond it, where they may go, when they run into a few pounds, to "have a good night of it".

How many families would like to see public houses closed at 10 p.m. instead of 11 p.m.?

I would like to remind Deputy Hickey that he would not encourage men to remain at home if he knew the conditions in some areas of this City of Dublin.

Indeed I do.

He would appreciate that it is the poor man's only pleasant hour, particularly in slum areas. We are all trying to solve the problem of the slums and have not solved it yet, particularly in Dublin and Cork. The little well-lighted Dublin public house is an attraction and a convenience to men.

That is right, continue the evil; do not try to cut it out.

It is not an evil, it is a thing that keeps a man normal. He meets his fellow-workers there and they discuss their particular problems over a pint or two, and they get at least somewhat philosophical. Leave that man in that slum room, with crying children and a narking wife, and what is the result? There is a psychological factor there.

That is not a cure for the slums, surely.

This Bill is not touching on the slum problem. Let me refer to the Royal Commission on Licensing (England and Wales), 1929-31. The report, on page 9, states:—

"The Majority Report of the last Royal Commission (1896-1899), in recording a material decrease in drunkenness during the last quarter of the 19th century, cited a variety of contributing causes, among which were specially mentioned the labours of temperance workers, the spread of education, and the recent intensive development of the ‘passion for games and athletics'. This last, it was stated, ‘has served as a powerful rival to "boozing", which was at one time almost the only excitement open to working-men'.

The social developments which have contributed to the much more remarkable improvement during the present century have been still wider. In particular, there has been a marked growth of counter-attractions to drinking which were not, generally speaking, available to the previous generation — such as cinemas, wireless, allotments and gardens on new estates, playing fields, travel facilities and so, forth. Better housing conditions, and progressive development of education and of public health and other services, have also played their part.

A marked change in general social standards has come about, and this has been reflected in a very appreciable alteration in the public attitude towards drunkenness. Drunkenness has gone out of fashion, and a drunken person is not tolerated as he used to be. The vital importance of this change of outlook hardly needs emphasis."

I think Deputy Hickey will not quarrel with me when I say that, in that respect, we have to congratulate our ex-Minister for Local Government and Public Health, Mr. Seán T. O Ceallaigh, who has done much to bring about those conditions which discourage the drink traffic.

The Deputy left out an important item there.

I did not interrupt Deputy Hickey. I am sorry that we are limited to time in this debate. I would like to endorse what Deputy Giles said about the tradition of the licensed trade and those associated with it. Down through the generations in every national struggle, they have played an important part. This Bill must adversely affect some of them, but I hope it will beneficially affect the majority. There are approximately 11,000 public houses in Eire, and, at a round figure, I am told the amount of money invested there is approximately £12,000,000. I know perfectly well that the Minister has no desire or intention to do damage to that particular trade or the vested interests connected with it; but I am reliably informed that, since the introduction of this Bill, bank managers have been instructed to make a revaluation on the licensed premises which are likely to be affected under the bona fide clause introduced in Section 7 of the Bill. What is the outcome of that to be? It must be the restriction of credit. The publican is not alone a publican: he carries on a mixed trade, he lends or sells to the farmer implements, seeds, and so on. That restriction of credit inevitably must hit the farmer. At a time like this—even at any time —the farmer requires long-term loans from the local traders until his crops are in and he can market them. However, I need not develop that point any further.

As long as drink can be purchased during the opening hours and consumed somewhere else during the closed hours, it is obvious that the restriction of public house opening hours cannot reduce the consumption of drink but will, on the contrary, lead to its increase—and in surroundings likely to be more undesirable than those of public houses. The licensing laws up to the present and the proposed new Bill constitute a grave reflection on the people and a negation of democracy. In the final consideration of this matter, it would be safer to trust the opinion of the simple citizens who know what, where and how they should have refreshments. I appeal to the Minister again to refer this to an all-Party committee. If he cannot do that, I appeal to him, in respect of the City of Dublin, to give us the hours, 1-3 and 5-7 and 11 a.m. to 11 p.m., and to allow the county an extra hour. These are practical suggestions which will, I hope, receive sympathetic consideration.

Deputies Belton and Keating rose.

There was an agreement that the Minister should have reasonable time to conclude.

Leaders of Parties should not ask for an agreement unless they control their members and give everybody a reasonable time to deal with this matter. I represent a constituency more affected by this Bill than any other in Ireland. I have been briefed by a certain section to put their case, and I have not got the opportunity.

Would it be possible by agreement to go on to 2.30? That would give the Minister half an hour.

That is for the House to decide. The Minister was to get 20 minutes, and it is understood, of course, there cannot be a division after 2 o'clock.

Mr. Boland

I am sure every Deputy wants to hear what I have to say, I have been asked so many questions.

Could we not leave this over until the House meets again?

An agreement was arrived at this morning to conclude to-day.

Mr. Boland

I think it is fair to say, as some Deputies have remarked, that this is very largely a Bill which could be dealt with on the Committee Stage, when these controversial sections could be debated at length. We have been three days discussing it. I do not want to curtail the debate at all, but I think it is a Bill on which we could have a very wide debate in Committee.

While that is so, certain suggestions have been made here, in a rather important quarter, which may influence the Minister to embody amendments of his own which would have a very disastrous effect in the constituency I represent.

I suggest that the discussion should be allowed to continue until 2 o'clock and then the Minister would have a chance of concluding the debate before 2.30.

That would mean there could be no division.

It would mean the Second Reading being agreed to.

Is it agreed that the Minister will have an opportunity of speaking at 2.10 p.m. and that Deputies anxious to participate in the discussion will be as brief as possible in order to allow as many as possible to speak? Will ten minutes be sufficient for Deputy Belton?

I shall be satisfied with that.

I shall call on the Minister at 2.10 in virtue of the agreement made this morning.

I wish to congratulate the Minister on his courage in introducing this Bill. I know that some people regard this Bill from one angle —we can see their comments in the papers — and other people look at it from another angle, and I say that in a jam of that kind the Minister is to be congratulated on having the courage to introduce this Bill. Two distinct improvements in the licensing laws are embodied in the Bill, in my opinion and in the opinion of others who know more about this business than I do. One improvement is the proposal to give discretion to the district justices in certain cases. Another step forward is the proposal encouraging the improvement of public houses throughout the country by permitting a man, if he has a better site or a building close by, to leave the old hovel where he has been forced by law to carry on his business, and go to the better premises.

Criticism of the Bill has ranged mainly around Section 7. The last speaker, Deputy Cooney, raised a point that the Minister seems to forget. He referred to the hours of trading. People do not keep their houses open for sport, and, in the course of 12 hours, they must take in some money and carry on some business. In many cases publicans have reconstructed their houses to meet modern requirements. Deputy Cooney mentioned that the banks, which have a large interest in the licensed trade by way of mortgages, are revaluing their securities. That is a very serious matter. If the Minister is going to curtail the trading hours, he should make some provision for compensation. From what I have heard from traders, they are not averse to closing at midnight or at 1 o'clock in the morning and opening early next day. That may be all right, but what about the travelling public? If the publican is to consider only himself, I know he would not be averse, in certain circumstances, to compromise on the present hours, but will the travelling public be satisfied?

A suggestion was made by Deputy O'Loghlen that within 15 miles of some specified limit from Dublin the public houses should be closed altogether. Why Dublin? Why should he select a centre where there are more people to the square mile than in any other part of the country, and to which people travel from all over the country? It has been said that certain abuses have grown up around Dublin. The criticism boils down to this, that people come from clubs and dance halls to the bona fide houses. There is not a word in this Bill curbing the clubs and the dance halls. Why should the bona fide traders in Dublin and elsewhere have visited on them the sins of the dance halls and the clubs?

The Minister made a very curious case when introducing the Bill. He said that by abolishing the bona fide trade now there would not be much hardship, and he described this as an opportune moment. As an old civil servant, I can see the 100 per cent. Civil Service mind behind that statement. Because there is a shortage of drink, owing to the emergency, and these houses are closing automatically because of the shortage of supplies, this is considered an opportune time to shut them up, and the idea is that they will not observe the loss that they will suffer. I think that is unworthy of the Minister, and I hope he will not base his plans on that idea any further.

There is another aspect of the question. If the bona fide traffic is stopped, we must not overlook the fact that the bona fide houses have been valued by the Commissioners of Valuation on the basis of the bona fide trade, plus the ordinary trade. It is quite obvious that there will have to be a revaluation, or a devaluation, of those premises. That automatically brings with it a devaluation of the licence. The licence is based on 50 per cent. of the poor law valuation. That basis was taken in 1910. Since then successive British Chancellors have said that it was unfair to maintain that rule because the hours of trading have been curtailed, and that a good case was there for curtailing the licence paid and making it bear some relation to the curtailment of the working hours. Even the law recognises that there is a relationship between the working hours and the licence, inasmuch as the six-day licensed premises pays one-seventh less in licence duty than the seven-day licensed premises. There the Government recognises a full 100 per cent. relationship between the assessment of licence duty and the working hours of the public house. If there is going to be a reduction of 50 per cent. in the working hours in a bona fide public house, are we, first of all, going to have a devaluation of those premises for ordinary rating purposes and then a devaluation of the licence duty and a further 50 per cent. cut in the licence duty? The whole matter is not as simple as it looks.

I agree that abuses have grown up, and I think what is worrying social reformers and churches most is the growing evil of drinking among girls. There is nobody in this House, I am sure, who will stand in the way of the Minister in regard to any proposals that he thinks would be effective in stopping that evil; but the point has been made — I do not want to labour it here — that the dances and the clubs have been more responsible for that than the bona fide houses. From the moral aspect, I suggest that this should be approached from the angle of prescribing how bona fide houses should be constructed. There are many bona fide houses in which there are compartments which are not open to the gaze of those in the next compartment, or to the gaze of the general public in the premises, and I suggest that if it were prescribed that the premises should be such that there would be no seclusion or secluded compartments, it would go a long way towards remedying the moral problem which, I am sure, is agitating the Minister.

I agree with all that has been said about bottle parties in cars and so on, but the traveller on the road is deserving of consideration, and on no roads in Ireland are there more travellers than on the main roads leading to the City of Dublin. We all know that, on the night before the cattle market, if one does not get out of the city before a certain hour, one has difficulty in getting out at all. One must either start before or after the cattle are on the road. There is no such congestion of road traffic going to any fair or market in the country as there is going to the Dublin market. Hay comes to the Dublin hay market a distance of 40 or 50 miles. Owing to the transport position, it is now coming by horse traffic again and the carters are a couple of days on the road. On the main roads, the publicans are up early to give these men bread and butter and pints of porter. That is their refreshment. Is that all to be shut down?

I am not by any means a toper — I never took a drink until I was 48 years of age and I drink very little still, though some may think I am very little interested in it — but I am putting the views of my constituents and appealing to the Minister to consider this matter in a reasonable way and to bear in mind that if he takes away an asset, or portion of an asset, which a person holds, that person, apart from this problem altogether, is entitled to compensation. The precedent has been set by this Government and by its predecessor that where a person's rights are interfered with, the person affected is compensated.

I would remind the Deputy that he has spoken for a quarter of an hour.

It is difficult to deal with this matter in the time, but I am trying to condense it as much as possible. I urge the Minister to consider the suggestion made by Deputy Cooney and, I think, by others, as to the appointment of a committee. There is no political window-dressing about this at all. It is doubtful whether it will bring the Minister more or fewer votes, and I am sure he does not look at it from that angle. There are no kudos in it for anybody, and if people want a reform, throw a share of the responsibility on all, and distribute the hostility or the friendship of the various interested parties.

Most of the speeches during this debate were directed towards Section 7, the bona fide section of the Bill, and we have had suggestions that the bona fide traffic should not be interfered with. Another suggestion was that there should be Sunday opening of all licensed premises. On the question of bona fide traffic. I think the Minister should be congratulated on having taken this step of closing licensed premises during certain hours at night, because every Deputy knows quite well that there were grave abuses as a result of licensed premises being open from midnight until morning. We saw the growing evil mentioned by the last speaker of numbers of young girls taking strong drink and becoming intoxicated, and it would be a sorry day for this country if the Government responsible for order did not take some steps to remove that evil arising out of the long drinking hours allowed at present. This Dáil is bound to legislate for future citizens, and if we allow our future mothers and wives to become drunkards at the age of 17 and 18, God help the country of the future.

I think this section is unfortunately absolutely necessary. I only wish that there was no need at all for any licensing laws. It would be much simpler for everybody if licensed premises were allowed to open for the whole 24 hours. I am sure the Gárda authorities and the courts would welcome that, but while strong drink is brewed in this country and while the people demand it, it is only right that there should be restrictions on the sale of that drink during certain hours. We are all subject to restrictions and laws of some kind or another in our lives. Each of our lives is restricted in 101 ways, but for people to say that persons who travel at night need such a lot of drink is all nonsense. I travel the roads from Dublin to Wexford and in all parts of Ireland in the early hours of the morning and the number of people one sees at that time — the total in the whole Twenty-Six Counties —would not be 1,000. I doubt very much if there are so many and why should this House cater for 500 to 1,000 persons each night and agree to have every licensed premises in the country open to serve them with drink? There is no necessity whatever for it.

In the present age, when people are eating better food and wearing better clothes than was the case 50 or 60 years ago, they are much better fortified for travelling, if they have to travel, at night than were our fathers and grandfathers. The amount of horse traffic on the roads at night was very small before the emergency. There may be a certain amount of horse traffic since the emergency, but this legislation is not designed merely for the period of the emergency. It is to be hoped that it is permanent legislation, and if it is found to be harsh in any way, or wanting in any respect, the Dáil will be here to amend it in future, just as it is here to amend the existing legislation. Let nobody say there is not a need, and a serious need, for this amendment of the law.

There is one point which has not been discussed and which was not mentioned by the Minister, that is, the unlimited hours for the sale of drink in hotels and clubs. I hope the Minister will give that matter consideration. We know what the licensing laws are at present in respect of hotels, and everybody knows that this farce of bringing drink to hotel rooms and serving it after hours is the greatest humbug that ever was. Drink is served openly in these places, and in clubs also. I understand that clubs can keep open all night. I do not know whether that is true or not, but there is no reason why any section of the community should have privileges which are denied to another section. If 12 o'clock, 11 o'clock or 10 o'clock be the closing hour for public houses, let it be the closing hour for the sale of all intoxicating drink in the country.

With regard to a Sunday opening outside the cities, this country has got along very well up to the present by having the public houses in the country closed on Sundays and by making provision for bona fides. I agree that the facilities in that connection have been abused in many directions within certain hours, but I want the House to consider this matter very carefully before they force the Minister to open public houses, by law, in the country even for a short time on Sundays. I know that there is a certain demand on the part of people coming in to Mass on Sunday to get into certain shops and that there is a certain abuse of the law at present. I have an open mind on the matter, but I should like to ask whether the abuses which exist at present would not be greater if the public houses were open on Sundays. If 1,000 or 5,000 persons got drunk on Sunday, would it not be a much greater abuse than that of some people getting in and contriving to get an illegal drink about midday on Sundays, as at present? We know that there is a certain abuse, but that abuse can be easily rectified. There are a number of small public houses in country districts that are not easily supervised by the Guards, and it is questionable whether it would be wise that they should get an opportunity of opening on Sundays. The Sunday opening is all right in large centres of population like Dublin and Cork. I urge the Minister, before agreeing to the opening of public houses in the country on Sunday, to consider the matter seriously because it is a new step, and it might be found to be a step in the wrong direction.

You do not see people getting drunk on Church holidays.

There are not many of these holidays.

I agree that the Minister has shown courage in introducing this Bill. There is one class of people whom the Bill would hit very hard, but I spoke to the Minister privately about this matter and he told me he would make it right. I refer to farmers and farm workers bringing cattle to fairs. Many farmers in my county have to drive cattle 14 miles to the fairs. They leave home at midnight and, in present circumstances, their tea allowance, before they leave, is very small. When they reach the fair green, these people feel like refreshments. It is only right that these men, when they arrive at 5 o'clock or 6 o'clock in the morning, should be allowed to go into a public house and get a bottle of stout or minerals and some bread and cheese. At that time, none of the restaurants is open. If they go to a private hotel, they will be told that they have not time to supply them as they were not staying there the previous night. I am sure the Minister will set that matter right.

An industry which is growing daily and bringing a lot of money to the country is greyhound breeding. If you have not a track on which to test the greyhounds you will have no sale of greyhounds. Through lack of petrol, people who have to travel to coursing meetings 20 or 30 miles will have to go back to the horse. Coursing will start at 8 o'clock and will not be finished until after 10 o'clock. If these people cannot then go into a public house and get a bottle of stout and some bread and cheese, they will not feel very warm by the time they get home at 1 o'clock or 2 o'clock in the morning. I ask the Minister to allow public houses to remain open on coursing nights, at any rate, up to midnight.

In the county I represent, country people who have to travel two or three miles to Mass buy their necessaries of life, in many cases, on Sunday morning. That is against the law now. These people will have to go in on Saturday afternoon, which will inconvenience them very much. In the part of the country I represent, farm labourers are not paid until Saturday night. That means that, when they reach home with their money, their wives have to travel in two or three miles to do the shopping. If the country shops were allowed to open after second Mass for an hour it would be of great advantage to the people and I am sure there would be no abuse.

I rise because I think that there may be a chance of getting the Minister to appreciate the utility of the public house service in the country as against the public house service within a short radius of the city. The Bill has been designed primarily to deal with abuses in respect of licensed houses within a short radius of the city. There is unanimity that it is a good thing to do that, if it can be done. As regards country public houses, I should like to point out that the public house in the country is not a public house in the sense that it merely sells drink or that it is a place in which people get drunk. That is a condition of things which has long passed away. The public house in the country is a meeting-place on the eve of fairs. Farmers and dealers meet there and very often make good bargains. As there are no facilities for carrying on these transactions except those provided by the public house, the legislation necessary for the city is probably not applicable to the town. In the same way, official time is not adopted in many parts of the country — even in the schools or churches. To the extent that opening hours are fixed by relation to one universal standard of time, it is not fair to the country districts.

The service of the publicans in the country to the community there is just part of the general scheme of organisation by which farmers meet their business friends, cattle buyers and pig buyers, and, by the medium of the shelter afforded by the public house, carry through necessary trading transactions. If the Minister could extend the opening hours to meet the time kept by farmers, it would be of substantial benefit to them. When certain closing hours are fixed for the towns, it means that farm workers have to stop work earlier than they would normally do. Many of the public houses are also groceries and special arrangements should be made for opening hours suitable to the localities in question. I merely desired, in rising, to impress on the Minister the usefulness of the public house in the country knowing, as I do, his woeful backwardness so far as knowledge of these institutions is concerned.

Mr. Boland

I have to admit what Deputy Maguire said, that that is one part of my education which has been badly neglected. But I never did feel at home standing at a public-house bar, although I have gone into public houses several times. Probably I have missed something, but it is rather late in the day now to start learning. I think, however, that I know something about the problem. In bringing in this Bill I certainly had misgivings. Some people said I was courageous in doing so. I wonder if I have not been foolhardy. Once I tackled this question of the licensing trade I knew I would be met by all sorts of demands such as those which have been put up. We all remember that the last Government —I do not blame them for what they did—allowed a Bill which they brought in to drop. They brought in a licensing Bill and there was such a barrage of criticism that they thought the best thing to do in the public interest was to drop it. I knew the danger of bringing in a Bill dealing with the licensed trade. I probably would not have brought in any Bill if it had not been for a promise I made to the Howth licensed traders. Their existing rights had been taken away and I did not consider that that was consistent with democratic government. Therefore, I undertook to examine the matter.

Then this problem arose which we have been discussing for the last few days, that is, the so-called bona fide traffic. I want to emphasise the word “so-called.” Everyone who knows a little bit of Latin knows that bona fide traveller means a traveller in good faith, a genuine traveller. Only a couple of Deputies adverted to that. The first that did so was Deputy MacEoin who said that these people that go from one village to another to get drink during prohibited hours were not entitled to it. That is so.

The same thing applies to people who go out from Dublin or Cork, or any other city or town, to public houses outside in order to get drink after prohibited hours. They are not entitled to get drink there. The people who supply them with drink are guilty of illegal conduct, and so are those who take the drink. The difficulty is that the Gárdaí are not able to prove that a man went out for the purpose of getting drink. Therefore, the thing was inoperative and could not be enforced.

When I am asked by Deputy McGilligan to produce statistics, I simply say to him that this particular law, which I believe is a very good one, provided for refreshment for genuine travellers, bona fide travellers, and nobody else, and that it is a great pity we had to interfere with that. But the greatest good of the greatest number must be the guiding principle in all these matters. Undoubtedly, the abuses which have occurred were of such a nature that they had to be tackled by any Minister for Justice who had any sense of responsibility. I have had complaints, and I know myself what is happening. It is not confined to Dublin. I have a letter here from a Cork publican. He did not ask me to keep his name private. I do not think I need read the whole letter, but he states:—

"As a businessman, closely connected with the business life of Dublin City, I am justified in stating that there is 50 per cent. more drink consumed in Cork during prohibited hours than in Dublin and its environs."

From what I heard of Cork, I believe that is true, and that it is true of other parts of the country. That is the difficulty I am up against.

I am most anxious to provide facilities for the bona fide traveller, that is the genuine traveller — that is what this law tried to do — but not for the people who want to get drink after hours. If there is any justification for prohibiting drinking in Dublin or Cork or anywhere else after 10 p.m., there is the same justification for preventing drinking three or four or ten or 20 miles outside these cities. There seems to be some justification. I did not start the licensing legislation. We all know that it has been found necessary. We have been told about the Continent. I think the people on the Continent have a different moral standard. If we followed the example of Continental countries, we would have a different standard of morals in this country. I think the drink we sell here is stronger and that our temperament is different. Therefore, it has been found necessary to put restrictions on the consumption of drink in this country. If the law, as it stands at present, could be enforced, I certainly would not interfere. I was very anxious and the Government were very anxious to relieve the licensed trade of some petty grievances — they did not amount to very much — which they found arose out of the last Act that was passed. I think that was a splendid Act. I think the Minister for Justice of the time did magnificent service to this country by the legislation which he brought in in 1927. He rationalised the whole thing and made it sensible. His memory should be respected for that. There are other reasons, but for that in particular he deserves that his memory should be respected. There would be very little necessity to amend that Act if it could be enforced but, as I say, it cannot be enforced.

I admit that I am proposing to take a very drastic step in seeking to abolish entirely the bona fide trade on week days. But my object was to stop people from getting drink who are not entitled to get drink. If that object can be attained — and I am satisfied from what I have heard here that it can be attained—by stopping the bona fide trade some time at night, I would be satisfied. I do not see how I could agree to 12 o'clock, because, if you have 12 o'clock closing, the same difficulty I see with regard to the rowdy elements going out from Dublin and Cork and other places for the two hours would continue. I would be inclined to consider 11 o'clock. Anyway, that is a matter of detail.

I would also be inclined to consider fixing 6 o'clock in the morning. That would mean prohibiting the sale of drink from, say, 11 p.m. until 6 a.m. I think that would achieve the object I have in view. I think there is general agreement about that in the House. Deputy Belton or some other Deputy suggested that the matter should be referred to a Committee of the House. I have no objection to that, and I will consider that matter, but I do not know that there is much to be gained by it. If there was a lot of lobbying and members happened to be canvassed, that might force a decision which I would not be able to stand over. On the whole, having thought over the matter for the last few days, I think the best way to face the whole problem is to take the Committee Stage in the House, and if any Deputy, no matter on what side of the House he sits, puts down a reasonable amendment I promise to give it fair consideration. If we are able to arrive at an agreed settlement I think we will have done a good day's work.

I have not attempted to revise the licensing laws generally. I had not any such intention. That is a matter which has been put up by the House and the House represents the people, I am sure. The views of Deputies represent those of the people. But Deputy Allen has sounded a note of warning and I thank him for reminding me of it, and that is that we ought not to embark lightly on any scheme for a general opening on Sundays in the country. I know there are other practices going on in this country. I should like to refer to betting. It is now legal to bet openly. I am satisfied that there are ten or more people making bets to-day in these betting offices for the one who made bets when it was illegal to do so. I know it was a nasty thing to have people running down a laneway in order to make a bet, but only one person would do that for 20 who would go into a betting office. I may be wrong, but that is my opinion. I think if we allowed the public houses to open on Sundays in country places where they are not now allowed to open, we would have people who are able to amuse themselves in other ways going into public houses and getting into the habit of drinking. That is my reaction to that question.

I do not think I ought to be asked to make any general revision of the licensing laws at present. I am not inclined to do it. The House can do it at any time Deputies wish. I have been wondering whether I was courageous or foolhardy in tackling this matter at all, because I knew the dangers. I knew I would be met by this demand. I ask Deputies not to ask me to go too far in this matter. As Deputy Allen said, I think the country has got on very well with the present licensing laws so far as opening on Sundays in country places is concerned. I do not want to discuss the matter much in detail because we can discuss it better on the Committee Stage, but the big thing in the debate was the bona fide, trade, and that is not confined to Dublin. That letter that I have just read is a genuine letter. It was not written to me, but to Deputy Flinn, by one of his constituents. There have been abuses everywhere. As Deputy MacEoin so well put it, a man who has only to get up on a bicycle and travel a few miles in order to get a drink is not entitled to it, whereas the man who is going to a football match or an aeridheacht would be entitled to a drink, and he has up to 8 o'clock in the evening in the summer or 7 o'clock in the evening in the winter.

Now, about the question of the Dublin extension on Sunday mornings, I was very much impressed by the deputation from the grocers' assistants who met me. They pointed out that it was bringing them back to the old days of slavery, and all the rest of it, and they also pointed out that Gaelic games, such as hurling — in which I myself was always very much interested — were going to suffer in Dublin. I hope that that is not so. Deputy Cooney pointed out that this was a catering trade and that the requirement of the public had to be met. I am not adamant on that, but I say that if the view put forward by the assistants had had much support, I am sure it would have been put forward more vigorously in this House, and I have not heard it put forward here. Therefore, so far as I know, the suggestion of opening up from 1 to 2 in Dublin has been accepted. With regard to the closing hour of 7 o'clock, I pointed out, when introducing the Bill, that I had two main purposes in view there.

My main purpose was to have a difference between the closing hour in the city and in the outlying districts as short as possible, so as not to encourage a rush out to the country. That was my first, or No. 1, object. My other object was to provide for people coming to Dublin for big Gaelic or hurling matches, or even Soccer matches. In Dublin City, there has been a very big increase, in recent years, in the number of Soccer matches that are played on Sundays. These matches generally start at 3 o'clock, and public houses are open only from 2 to 5, with the result that the people attending these matches cannot have a drink when they come out from the matches. I think that such people, even if they are not from the country, are entitled to discuss the match over a pint.

Is not the man in the country town entitled to do the same?

Mr. Boland

I am sure he is.

Well, that is the whole thing.

Mr. Boland

I admit this: I do not know why this was brought in in the beginning at all, but I found it there, and I think it has worked fairly well on the whole.

Mr. Boland

Well, I think it has. I am only trying to make the Act of 1927, which was a very good Act, in my opinion, effective. There were a few little things that might have been done there that were not done. There was, for instance, the matter of compulsory endorsement of licences. I think that that has not worked out as the then Minister intended, and I think that if he were here himself to-day, he would admit that there were a few things like that that could be remedied. Also there is the question of permission to change from bad, old premises to a better one. There were other things also, such as this matter that has been referred to as "the Guiney Clause." I do not know whether I am supposed to be getting the £50,000 or whether it is our organisation that is going to get it.

I think that what was meant was that it was worth £50,000.

Mr. Boland

Well, whatever about that, there were certain of these firms that had a grievance, I think. Three of them had asked the Department, through their solicitors, to consider their case, and I did so. These are really small things, but to go into such a large matter as opening generally throughout the country, I am afraid I have not the courage or the pluck to do so. So far as St. Patrick's Day is concerned, the Minister at that time made his decision on that, and succeeded in getting it put through this House; but when it got to the Seanad it was thrown out, or, at least, amended so as to permit licences at race courses and similar fixtures. Well, the Government of that day were at least as strong as we are, and I do not see why I should leave myself open to get the same sort of knock. There are all sorts of things going on outside that we are all aware of, and I shall not put myself up against them, and I will not give a reason for putting anything in this Bill except what I have said, and that is that, in my opinion, the Act of 1927 was a fairly good Act, and that it has been a failure in some respects because of the impossibility of the Gárdaí enforcing it in respect of abuses that have occurred.

I think that Deputy O'Higgins was most unfair in saying that there was a breakdown in both the Gárdaí and the courts — I do not know whether he said either or both, but I think he said both. As far as the Gárdaí are concerned, they have done their utmost around Dublin, and around Cork also. What may happen in country places is another matter, and in any case it would not be a serious problem in the country districts. For instance, I can quite understand a sensible sergeant seeing people going into a grocer's shop during prohibited hours, knowing that they do not want a drink, and, quite naturally, he does not want to get up against public opinion, although that may be a breach of the law; but I will say that in County Dublin the police have done their utmost to prevent abuses. I was asked why they did not oppose the granting of licences. They did. They put up cases which, in my opinion, were unanswerable, and yet the licences were given in spite of them. What is the use, then, of blaming the Gárdaí?

I am satisfied, and I am quite sure that the House, generally, is satisfied, that there is only one way to grapple with this problem, and that is to have a definite closing at certain times. As to what these times may be, I hope my suggestion will be accepted — that is, a definite closing down from 11 o'clock until 6, say, during which there will be no drink served to anybody, and where either the customer or the licence-holder who breaks the law will be very severely dealt with. If that is done, I think we will have achieved the object that I have in view and that, I think, we all have in view in this country, because everybody has expressed their dissatisfaction with these new and vicious conditions that have arisen in recent years. Honestly, I think that the fighting that used to take place at fairs in the old days was a wholesome thing compared with this rotten, vicious kind of thing that is happening nowadays. The kind of thing that is happening nowadays is a thing that we ought to be ashamed of. It results in the ruination of young lives, especially of the lives of young girls, that nothing can compensate for, and I think that every Deputy should remember that that is the big problem, and anything that would check that, in my opinion, ought to get the support of the House.

On Committee, I shall have an open mind. I think I shall bring in an amendment myself dealing with this matter of the opening hours, and I shall receive any other amendments that are put forward, from any side of the House, on their merits, and I am sure we will succeed eventually in coming to agreement on the Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

When will the Committee Stage be taken?

Mr. Boland

I suppose next Wednesday week or, if Deputies do not wish to take it then, I will be agreeable to Wednesday fortnight.

Wednesday week will be 28th October.

Why not leave it over for three weeks?

That would be next Wednesday fortnight?

That would be for putting in amendments?

No, the date when the Committee Stage will be taken — Wednesday fortnight, 4th November.

Committee Stage ordered for Wednesday, 4th November.
The Dáil adjourned at 2.30 p.m. until 3 p.m., Wednesday, 28th October.
Barr
Roinn