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.