The Minister might indicate what course he proposes to take with regard to the amendments?
Intoxicating Liquor Bill, 1942—Recommittal.
I think it would be advisable to recommit all the amendments.
As the Bill is being recommitted in respect of all the amendments, I am prepared to allow to be moved some eight amendments that would otherwise be ruled out. Amendment No. 41 is of such a sweeping character that the Chair could not admit it at this stage or, for that matter, at any stage of the Bill. It is the only amendment that may not be moved.
Mr. Boland
Will it be possible to have another Report Stage? There are some amendments here that will require re-drafting.
It would be possible again to report the Bill with amendments and have a formal Report Stage of short duration later. The Minister might now move amendment No. 1. Possibly the Deputies over whose names amendments Nos. 2 and 3 appear will be in attendance before the discussion on amendment No. 1 has concluded. Amendments Nos. 2 and 3 must be disposed of before a decision is taken on No. 1.
Mr. Boland
I move amendment No. 1:—
In page 2, line 29, Section 4, to delete all words from the word "by" to the end of the section, line 35, and substitute the following:—
(A) by the deletion of paragraphs (a), (b), and (c) of sub-section (1) and the substitution in lieu thereof of the following paragraphs, that is to say:—
(a) on any weekday, before the hour of half-past ten o'clock in the morning, or after the hour of half-past ten o'clock in the evening, or (subject to the exceptions hereinafter mentioned) between the hours of half-past two o'clock and half-past three o'clock in the afternoon, or
(b) on any Sunday—
(i) in the case of the County Borough of Dublin or the Dublin Metropolitan area, before the hour of two o'clock in the afternoon, or between the hours of three o'clock and half-past four o'clock in the afternoon, or after the hour of seven o'clock in the evening, and
(ii) in the case of any other county borough, before the hour of one o'clock in the afternoon or between the hours of three o'clock and five o'clock in the afternoon, or after the hour of seven o'clock in the evening, or,
(B) by the deletion of sub-sections (2) and (3) and the substitution in lieu thereof of the following sub-section, that is to say:—
(2) Save as is otherwise provided by this Act, it shall not be lawful for any person in any place not being a county borough to sell or expose for sale or to open or keep open any premises for the sale of intoxicating liquor or to permit any intoxicating liquor to be consumed on licensed premises—
(a) on any weekday, before the hour of half-past ten o'clock in the morning or after the hour of half-past ten o'clock in the evening, or
(b) at any time on any Sunday or on Christmas Day, Good Friday, or Saint Patrick's Day.
As the House is aware, we came to a compromise with regard to weekdays. I was anxious to leave things as they were, but, in view of the pressure from all sides of the House, I agreed to compromise. I thought that that was accepted, but I find that there is an amendment down to have a 10 o'clock closing hour in the county boroughs. According to the agreement, I put down 10.30 o'clock. I understood that there was no objection to 10.30 in the morning. I thought that was agreed to, but apparently it is not. As regards Sunday, I have arranged in the case of the county boroughs other than Dublin for an opening from 1 o'clock to 3 o'clock and 5 o'clock to 7 o'clock. I made the inquiries that I said I would make about the opening hours on Sunday in Dublin. So far as I could gather, anything earlier than 2 o'clock would not meet the objections raised. A one-hour break on Sunday was scarcely sufficient. It is suitable, I understand, on weekdays, because there is not very much business done up to the closing time on those days, but it is anticipated that for the hour on Sunday there would be rather a rush, and it would probably be a quarter of an hour after the closing hour before assistants could get out and the proprietor have the place ready to start again.
I am satisfied that one and a half hours are necessary, and that means knocking off half an hour from the time originally proposed, giving a three and a half hours' opening instead of four hours. The times now suggested are from 2 to 3, and from 4.30 to 7 o'clock. I, personally, would have preferred to have the time uniform in all the county boroughs, but as there was a special problem to be dealt with in Dublin, I have made a distinction in the case of Dublin.
There will be general acceptance of the Minister's amendment, and so far as I am personally concerned I do not see the slightest objection to letting the half-hour go in the morning. The Minister says he wants to have a uniform time, and that is quite reasonable. I do not think that in the rural areas, with the provision which exists in respect of exemption orders for fairs and markets, anybody bothers about whether the opening is 10 o'clock or 10.30 in the morning. So far as the county boroughs outside Dublin are concerned, the Minister has accepted the suggestion made on the first Committee Stage and has adopted the hours we suggested in respect of which we intended to put amendments down. There was a misunderstanding on that point, but the Minister has met us very fairly on it.
I want to draw the Minister's attention to one matter in order to show how things may be misinterpreted. When the Minister circulated this amendment, the first thing which struck many Deputies was paragraph (b) which refers to "any time on Sunday, Christmas Day, Good Friday or St. Patrick's Day". There was a wave of indignation through the country for the past few days because people felt that the Minister was closing public houses completely on Sundays. The paragraph gave that impression, and for the last two days most Deputies in the country have been bombarded by people who seemed to think that this amendment meant that there would not be even a bona fide traffic on Sundays. Of course it does not mean that, and I make the point merely to show that Sunday in the country is not affected by the amendment at all, as the Minister may not be aware that that construction was put on his amendment.
On the first Committee Stage, a case apparently was made in regard to a particular situation in Waterford and Limerick in relation to the split hours, and I understand that an amendment dealing with that situation was to be moved. I do not know whether the Minister proposes to do anything about it.
Mr. Boland
I am not accepting any amendments to do away with the split hours, but I am allowing a continuation of the status quo in which bona fide traffic can be carried on during the hour. The deputation which met me asked me to see that that was done, and I have arranged for it, but I do not propose to agree to abolish the split hours provision because I think it very necessary.
We are perfectly willing to accept the Minister's amendment so far as the position in this city is concerned and I think it meets very fairly all the points we made on the first Committee Stage. I am quite satisfied, even though the Minister felt that he was on a slippery slope, that he has succeeded in making a very forcible approach to what I think is a very much better licensing Bill than the original, for the reason that nothing will ever convince me that more and more restrictions will improve the situation, but when you have a reasonable job done, you can enforce what you have. The Minister, I am sure, will have the support of everybody, now that certain concessions have been granted, in seeing that the licensing laws are carried out.
I am glad the Minister does not propose to interfere with bona fide trade in the country on Sundays under this amendment. Many people in the country were under the impression that the amendment affected that trade. I am sorry, however, that the Minister could not see his way to allow some few hours of opening on Sundays in country districts. It would be much better and the law would be observed more fully if hours of trading on Sundays were granted to the people in the country as well as in the cities.
Amendment No. 2?
You are not leaving amendment No. 1?
Amendment No. 1 cannot be decided until two amendments thereto have been disposed of.
I move amendment No. 2:—
In paragraph (A) of amendment No. 1 to delete sub-paragraph (a) and substitute therefor the following:—
(a) in the County Borough of Dublin and in the County Borough of Cork—
(i) on any ordinary week-day, before the hour of ten o'clock in the morning, or after the hour of ten o'clock in the evening, or (subject to the exceptions hereinafter mentioned) between the hours of half-past two o'clock and half-past three o'clock in the afternoon, or
(ii) on any Saturday, before the hour of ten o'clock in the morning, or after the hour of half-past nine o'clock in the evening or (subject to the exceptions hereinafter mentioned) between the hours of half-past two o'clock and half-past three o'clock in the afternoon, or
(b) in the county Borough of Limerick and in the County Borough of Waterford—
(i) on any ordinary week-day, before the hour of ten o'clock in the morning, or after the hour of ten o'clock in the evening, or
(ii) on any Saturday, before the hour of ten o'clock in the morning, or after the hour of half-past nine o'clock in the evening, or,
With the consent of Deputy Keyes?
Yes.
So far as it affects the County Borough of Cork, I am in complete opposition to anybody who asks the Minister to go backwards. I thought the Minister's forward movement a very good thing and I am very much surprised, in view of the general agreement in the House on the last occasion—and I think the Minister must have been completely surprised— that anybody should now ask the Minister to go back to the position from which he so wisely went away. I have at the back of my mind the idea that the reason behind this amendment has something to do with a situation with which this House should not concern itself at all. So far as I can gather, the reason for the amendment has to do with the question of assistants and licensed traders, and I submit with all respect that if the Ministerial hours will give rise to an awkward situation as between the licensed traders and their assistants, that is a domestic matter for the licensed trade to get over, and not one for this House. So far as I am concerned and, I am sure, so far as the other members of this Party are concerned, we will oppose any attempt to force back the hours which the Minister has given.
The purpose of the amendment, as I have already explained to the Minister, is to exempt the southern cities from this closing hour in the middle of the day. It may serve some useful purpose in the City of Dublin—I am not going to argue whether it does or not—but it is senseless in a place like Limerick. Limerick is really an over-grown provincial town, which is dependent on the hinterland from which the people come with horses and traps to do their marketing. They park their horses and traps in the livery yard behind the public house, and particularly a public house which belongs to a friend or relation, and do their shopping, sending their goods back to the public house. When they come back to the public house, they find a queue of messenger boys waiting for the end of the split-hour period. There is no useful purpose that we can see served by it. It is an unnecessary and vexatious intrusion. I think I mentioned on the last occasion that a particular anomaly arises in this connection and the Minister agreed to look into it. I pointed out that if a man went into the public house during that particular period on a bona fide basis, he could buy drink and nothing else as a bona fide traveller, and that it would be an offence for him to buy a sack of flour or any other goods. I hope the Minister has looked into the point.
Mr. Boland
I understand that is not so. He could buy anything he wished.
He could buy anything?
Mr. Boland
Anything.
I am glad to know that there would not be a prosecution for buying foodstuffs. I ask the Minister favourably to consider the proposal regarding the hours in places outside Dublin. The 1927 Act was specifically related to Dublin. The present position has created what amounts to a growing nuisance, and I ask the Minister to take advantage of the alteration to bring this Bill more into conformity with common sense, and to make it easier for the Civic Guards to discharge their duties. We do not respect the present position in Limerick. It is not thought to be any breach of the law to disrespect it. No evil is likely to arise from the change, while business will be facilitated. There cannot be any consequences in the way of intemperance.
The reason that members of the licensed trade have looked for a change of hours is that they have to compete with theatre bars and clubs and in that way are at a disadvantage under the present time-table. The Minister would have met the situation much better by making the hours uniform for licensed premises, clubs and theatres.
On a point of order, I should like to know how the Deputy's remarks relate to the amendment now under discussion.
The amendment before the House is No. 2, which deals with Cork and Limerick.
With county boroughs outside Dublin.
There has been a misunderstanding. I understood Deputy Keyes' point was about Limerick, Waterford, and even Cork. Is the Labour Party serious about it for the County Borough of Cork and the County Borough of Dublin, in going back on the half-hour that the Minister gave? That appears to be the real point. The Minister gave until 10.30 at night, and now do Deputies want to go back to 10 o'clock?
The hours of closing on ordinary week nights are 10 p.m., and on Saturdays, 9.30 p.m. The point I want to make is that the only demand for the later hour, which the Minister has seen fit to incorporate, was made by the licensed trade. That demand is based on the fact that they have to compete with theatres and clubs, which are able to keep open longer, under existing circumstances, than they can, and at the best hours. That change has been made at the expense of the workers in licensed premises. I suggest to the Minister that the proper way to deal with the difficulty is by having uniform hours for clubs, theatres and licensed premises.
Mr. Brennan
I think the last Deputy is misinformed. I have very little interest in this Bill, but I did appeal to the Minister to give a later closing hour in the summer than 10 o'clock. There was agreement that that should apply all round. It was not given because the licensed trade asked for extended hours so that they might compete, but was really a concession to the rural community.
Mr. Boland
That was my idea. I did not consider the licensed trade or any other interest but acted on what I found to be the general wish. I thought I was agreeing to the general wish expressed in the House.
There was a second reason to link up the closing time with the statutory bona fide time, so that people would not be running from one part of the country to another.
Mr. Boland
I had that in mind when I gave way.
Is the amendment being pressed?
Under the Bill as amended it would extend the closing period to 10.30 p.m., but the Minister is meeting that by a later opening hour in the morning. The assistants have a point of view there which is of some importance. The half hour they work extra at night is not going to be compensated for by giving them half an hour in the morning. From their point of view they would much prefer if the existing opening hour would continue, even though the licensed premises might remain open until 10.30. at night, because the additional half hour they work if aggregated over a week, could be utilised to confer on the assistants a period of relief from duty to compensate them in some measure for the fact that they worked from 10 a.m. to 10.30 p.m. There is no particular advantage in keeping the houses closed until 10.30 in the morning if the assistants have to work until 10.30 at night. They would prefer to be allowed to aggregate the additional half hour over the week, and then be allowed to get some substantial advantage for working the extra half hour than by going on duty half an hour later in the morning. Did the Minister consider that question?
Mr. Boland
I did. My attitude when I brought in the Bill was rather to have restrictions instead of giving concessions. I was frank about that. The Dáil forced me to extend the hour. I am not going to be forced, if I can help it, by anyone to give extra time for drinking. As far as I can avoid that I will. I cut off half an hour. I know plenty of people, even healthy people, who, if they spend a few hours out at night, do not mind lying on in the morning. I have enough trouble. People come to me—not in this House —about that. I was surprised at one case. Deputy F. Lynch told me of people whose duty it was to look after our souls. Even in the House some opinions have been expressed in that respect. If I can help it I am not going to be responsible for increasing the hours permitted for drinking from 10.30 in the morning to 10.30 at night —12 hours.
Does the Minister realise that he is not increasing the hours but increasing the facilities, by adding a half an hour at night? The half-hour in the morning does not matter.
Mr. Boland
I understand when people take longer to take a drink it does not do any harm. That is what I was informed by people who take drink.
Does the Deputy wish to press the amendment to a division?
Mr. Boland
Deputy Keyes was not in the House when I was dealing with the position in Limerick. I considered the position there, and I am surprised that Deputy Keyes has such a pessimistic view about Limerick. I think Limerick is going to be a very big city in the near future. It may not be a university city but, as far as I can see into the future, Limerick is not going to remain like a large provincial town. At any rate, these were the four county boroughs and the split hour was introduced to do away principally with the long sitter. I am pretty certain there are plenty of them in Limerick, and in Cork too, as well as in Dublin. I did meet the point made by the deputation of traders from Limerick that people from the hinterland who were in the habit of coming in the middle of the day would be placed under a disadvantage by the proposal to close for an hour in the middle of the day. Under my proposal, anybody who comes from districts three miles beyond the city can still be treated as bona fide travellers and they can get goods, and drink if necessary, during that hour. I have met them to that extent and I think that is quite satisfactory.
I accept the Minister's assurance on that point. That apparently is all he is able to do. I am not worried at all about the hours of closing. I agree that the hour of 10.30 would be a desirable step forward, and since the Minister has definitely improved the situation by making the bona fide position clear, I shall not press the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 3, which is an amendment to amendment No. 1:—
To delete paragraph (A) (b) (i) and substitute the following:—
(i) In the case of the County Borough of Dublin or in the Dublin Metropolitan area before the hour of two o'clock in the afternoon or after the hour of six o'clock in the evening, and,
This amendment has its roots in the Committee Stage discussion, in the course of which we endeavoured to have the hours on Sundays in the county borough from 2 o'clock until 6 o'clock. The Minister's proposal at that time was that the hours should be 1 to 2 and 4 to 7. I made the case then that there were many objections to opening for one hour during the day on the ground that it was extremely difficult to induce people to leave licensed premises within an hour of the opening of the premises. Many large licensed traders in Dublin have frankly confessed that where a public house opens at 1 o'clock and people come in, say, at 1.10 or 1.15, in groups of four or five, in order to close the premises at 2 o'clock it would be necessary to get these people moving at 1.40. It has been represented to me that it would be a physical impossibility to get such licensed premises cleared at 2 o'clock. I think if the Minister consults any of the large licensed traders in the city he will get confirmation of that view. If the Gárda are to do their duty with the alacrity recommended by Deputy Dillon, I should imagine that it will not be long before a considerable number of licensed traders in the city are before the District Justice explaining why it was not possible for them to close their premises at 2 o'clock. I think many of them would be able to put up the argument that it would be a physical impossibility to open their premises at 1 o'clock and have them cleared again by 2 o'clock. I think the Minister is opening up the possibility that there will be widespread disregard of the licensing laws in the city in this respect.
I suggested on the Committee Stage that it would be much better for the object which the Minister has in view if the hours were made from 2 to 6. That period is not too extensive. It meets the demands of anybody who wants refreshments on Sundays and, at the same time, it would make bearable the conditions of assistants who have arduous hours of work and who are compelled to work when most other folk can enjoy themselves. I thought the Minister would have seen fit to accept these hours, but instead he has put in an amendment which really worsens the position of the assistants. The Minister now proposes that the hours should be 2 to 3 and 4.30 to 7. There would be still, under this proposal, the objectionable split hour from the point of view of the assistants. The proposal still perpetuates the difficulties which, I think, will arise as a result of the short opening period from 2 to 3. It gives a total opening on Sunday of 3½ hours. Again, from the point of view of the assistants it would have been much better if the Minister had a four-hour opening on Sunday.
Was that not the original proposal?
I think the Minister might have looked at this matter from the point of view of the assistants. If Deputy Cooney wants any information in regard to it, he knows where to go to for that information and he will find that what I say will not be challenged. The position is that the assistant who works four hours on Sunday——
The Deputy does not deny that that was the Minister's original proposal.
Will the Deputy address himself to the point at issue?
That is the point at issue.
As the Deputy sees it. The Minister's original proposal was 1 to 2 and 4 to 7.
Four hours.
Quite so. My proposal in this amendment is also for an opening of four hours, but I want the hours to be different from those originally proposed by the Minister.
A time to suit the clubs.
I am not personally concerned if every club in the country is closed down. I am putting this matter from the point of view of the assistants. Frankly, the purpose of my amendment is to get a period of opening which will suit the assistants. I am not concerned with the interests of the traders; I am not putting a tooth in that at all. Deputy Cooney can look after the interests of other people if he likes. I am not concerned with the interests of the licensed trader, but with the interests of the assistants. The Minister's proposal as it stood originally was really better than the amendment he has now put in because if the hours of opening on Sunday were four, the assistant, under the Conditions of Employment Act, would be entitled to compensation if he works for four hours on Sundays. Now by making the period 3½ hours, the assistant will not get the compensatory time he would receive if the licensed premises were open for four hours. Frankly, I would prefer the original proposition in the Bill—2 to 3 and 4 to 7—than 2 to 3 and 4.30 to 7, because the Minister's new proposal reduces the opening period from four hours to 3½ hours. That small reduction of half an hour deprives the assistant of some compensation which he would get.
Mr. Boland
I gave my reason for bringing in that proposal when the Deputy was not here.
As I understand it, the Minister said that he wanted a longer meal interval for the assistants.
Mr. Boland
Yes, and for the traders too.
The assistants would much prefer to put up with the inconvenience of an interval of one hour for meals and have a four-hour opening than to get 1½ hours for meals and have only a 3½ hour opening. All they would be doing would be sacrificing half an hour of the meal interval, and the advantages which they would get for a four-hour opening would more than compensate them for the sacrifices they made in that connection. If the Minister's purpose in moving that the second period of opening should commence at 4.30 instead of 4, is to facilitate the assistants, I should be glad if he would look into the matter again and see if it is not possible to accept the hours 2 to 6. At least he should not introduce a 3½-hour opening which is calculated to deny the assistants the bargaining power which they will get if there is a four-hour opening on Sunday. In any case, it seems to me that you have all the disadvantages of the short opening period of one hour, the broken day, and the long spread-over for the assistants. Most reasonable people will agree that a 2-6 opening has many advantages over a 2-3 and 4-7 or a 2-3 and 4.30-7.
I understand that a meeting of the licensed trade in Dublin was held on Sunday last and that, out of approximately 155 people present, 83 voted for the new hours proposed in the Bill and 72 against them. I understand there are approximately 500 licensed traders in Dublin, of whom 300 are members of the Licensed Traders' Association. There is no terrific demand there for these proposed new opening hours. If the Minister consults the trade, on the assistants' side and the employers' side, he will find probably that he is putting into this Bill provisions for which there is no great demand by the citizens, by the assistants or by the employers. I would appeal to him to accept the amendment providing for a 2-6 opening in the City of Dublin. If he cannot accept it, he should not deprive assistants of the bargaining position they would get by a four-hour opening on Sunday instead of a 3½-hour opening.
Mr. Byrne
I deeply deplore the fact that the Minister is interfering with the Sunday hours for the City of Dublin at all. I say that 2-5 was quite sufficient for any man who wanted a drink. Opposed to that, however, there were elements in the city who said that, on the occasion of big Gaelic and Soccer matches, when there was a crowd rushing to the stations, by the time they would leave the football field the licensed houses would be closed. If the Minister would agree with me to leave the hours 2-5 as they are, it would give the workers of the city an opportunity to leave the licensed house at 5 o'clock and go home to celebrate the Sunday cup of tea with the family. That is something we all would like to see. Under the new proposal, while the Minister breaks the hour, to let them go home to lunch—better known as "dinner" amongst people in the city—he is encouraging them to go back and remain out of their homes for the tea hour. I strongly object to that.
The split hour also means an extra cleaning up. People talk about the assistants and say they finish at certain hours, but the cleaning-up process takes at least a quarter of an hour or half an hour each time. If they close at one on a Sunday, it will take a quarter of an hour to clean-up. At least, in the old days, when I was in in the business, that was so, and I do not think there has been any change. I would not take second place to any man in the House regarding my knowledge as to how hard the assistants have to work. The official hours are not the hours he has to work— generally he has to work an hour more. The hours 2-5 are sufficient for the City of Dublin. I appeal to the Minister to accept that. If that effort fails, perhaps he would agree to do the next best thing and make the hours 2-6. That would empty the house at 6 o'clock and let the men go home to tea. The Gaelic and Soccer football crowds would have an hour, from 5-6, to get refreshments before getting their trains home.
I appeal to the Minister to have some regard for the assistants and for the conditions under which they work, and for the licensed traders and their families, too. I have been told by very many licensed traders that they do not want any alteration in the Sunday hours in Dublin. They are glad to have their early evening off, just as much as the assistants. The 7 o'clock hour would spoil the assistant's tea. He may want to go to the pictures or to a concert, or may wish to enjoy the open air. This would spoil his whole evening. Is it proper or right that we should talk always about this giving of extended hours for drinking, for a few who, as the Minister says, go out to the outskirts of the city on buses? We should not be legislating for them at all, but should tell them to act as reasonable citizens, like the other 99 per cent., and stay at home, having had reasonably sufficient. It should not be a holiday at all, to send them out on buses five or ten miles to enjoy the evening according to their lights. It is not enjoyment. In the City of Dublin and in the licensed houses on the outskirts, those people are considered a nuisance by the licensed traders. The man who takes too much is a danger to the trade— both to the trader's profit and his business. We have been talking here a lot about the man who drinks to excess. The traders do not want that type and there should not be further encouragement to him.
I again appeal to the Minister to consider the assistants and to have regard to the fact they are human beings, who, like every other type of worker, want their Sunday evening off. If he cannot see his way to accept my view that the hours 2-5 are long enough, he should consider 2-6, so as to give the assistants an opportunity to bargain for additional time off on another occasion.
The Minister has changed his mind two or three times already in regard to the hours of opening and closing on Sundays. On one occasion, when speaking on the Bill, he clearly indicated that he did not know anything about the trade.
Mr. Boland
I never said any such thing. There is a great difference between knowing nothing about the trade and not going in front of the bar. I know as much as most people.
He means he was never a good customer.
In any case, the Minister meant that he does not rightly understand the position, as to what the hours should be.
Mr. Boland
Indeed I do.
I would strongly advise the Minister not to be taken away too much by Deputy Cooney's confidence. In the first instance, the Minister's proposal was calculated to meet the objections of some licensed traders in the city who found themselves at a great disadvantage. When the Minister realised the difficulties in that position he changed the hours, or indicated that he was prepared to accept a change in the hours, that would meet the objection of the G.A.A. We now find, in this amendment, a further change which, I think, the Minister was prompted to introduce in order to meet the difficulties of the assistants with regard to the very short interval for luncheon. Deputy Norton has explained that, instead of conferring any benefit on the assistants by the changes the Minister proposes to make now—namely, to reduce the hours from four to three and a half— he is putting them at a disadvantage as, by taking away the half hour, he is also taking a half day a week off them. I am sure that is very far from the Minister's intention.
He would be well advised to drop the idea of splitting the hours on Sundays and revert to the position of granting the hours 2-6, which would meet the views of those in the trade and be best calculated to meet the requirements of the general public. Over and over again it has been emphasised that there is no demand on the part of the general public for a change in hours. The Minister's efforts are calculated to please this person or that person, this body or that body, and he will find himself soon in a very difficult position. To get out of the difficulty, he should adopt the hours 2-6.
I am more than surprised at the attitude of Deputy Alfred Byrne in relation to this Bill. He must be aware of the fact that, for the last 15 years, the licensed trade have made an annual request to the Government in office, asking for legislative proposals dealing with certain matters in relation to the trade.
Mr. Byrne
I was not speaking for them.
Deputy Byrne must be aware of that fact. In addition, Deputy Byrne, as we all know, was a potential candidate some years ago for the Presidency of the State.
That bears no relation to this Bill.
Admittedly, it does not, but I want to ask Deputy Byrne: Is he in favour of closing down the houses of the licensed traders outside the city? The Minister made one specific statement when he introduced this Bill—his original proposals were revolutionary, the complete abolition of the bona fide traffic, a complete close-down from 10 p.m. Thanks to the good sense of Deputies from all benches, the Minister changed his mind and allowed the bona fide traffic to be maintained up to midnight. That is why we have the proposal to close at 10.30 on week nights, and that is why we have the split-hour proposal in respect of Sundays. That is very fair. I have been in this House for a number of years. I have been here when the Ministry of Justice was occupied by different persons, and no Minister in that Ministry ever faced up to a critical position, such as this Licensing Bill created, more honestly or more courageously than the present Minister did. It is untrue to say that there is no demand for amending legislation in respect of hours. It is in the interest of the community, as a whole, that there should be a one o'clock opening in the capital of this State.
Mr. Byrne
Nonsense.
What is the position we are to have now? The other three boroughs are to have precedence over the capital, with 500,000 of a population. The capital is to remain a sleepy valley until 2 o'clock on Sunday. The other three boroughs are to open at 1 o'clock. Although this is the Report Stage of the Bill, I hope that the Minister will again change his attitude and that we shall get a 1 o'clock opening. The Minister has said, time and again, that it is immaterial whether you have three or four hours, provided you establish the principle of split hours. On that he is determined to stand, and on that I am with him 100 per cent. I regret and deplore that the licensed traders and their employees did not come together and formulate proposals to enable the Minister to have this 1 o'clock opening and 7 o'clock closing, the split hours being arranged to suit their mutual interests. It could and should have been done.
It is very interesting to hear Deputy Norton tell us that his sole interest is that of the assistants. I am glad to hear that from Deputy Norton, particularly in view of the fact that it is only a few months since a very intimate colleague of his took advantage of an occasion in Bundoran to slander and ridicule the assistants' organisation. I have not heard that any member of Deputy Norton's Party stood up at that Trades Congress to repudiate the abusive methods used by that gentleman in respect of that particular organisation. Adversity makes strange bed-fellows.
It made them in your case.
Now, we have Deputy Norton oozing sympathy for the assistants and their organisation. The reasons are quite obvious——
I know not what the reasons may be, but, obviously, the same reasons inspire both Deputies in exchanges which have nothing to do with this amendment.
I am merely replying to remarks made by Deputy Norton when he said that his sole concern was with the assistants. I have sufficient confidence in the intelligence of the rank and file of the assistants to know that they will realise that the attitude I have taken on this Bill is in their interest and that it will lead to increased employment and increased wages. Did the Labour Party take up an attitude in opposition to that on Committee Stage? Not at all. I asked Deputy Norton or any member of his Party to say if it was contrary to trade union principles to advocate extension of hours in any trade or industry where the workers had a guaranteed working week. The workers in this trade have a guaranteed week. It is guaranteed by law—I emphasise that—and that is due to this Government. They have a 48-hour working week and, if the original proposals of the Minister had been accepted by both Parties, what would have been the position? Increased wages and increased employment would have been inevitable.
The Deputy might deal with the amendment before the House.
I hope I am relevant.
The Chair does not think so. The original proposals contained in the Bill are not now before the House. What is before the House is a Ministerial amendment.
It is very seldom I inflict myself on the House. I was accused on Committee Stage of having shrouded myself in a cloak of silence for a few years and Deputy Norton vehemently objected to my shedding that cloak of silence——
I wish you would don it again.
I have broken the silence because of the poison gas poured forth from the Labour Benches —the poison gas of political hypocrisy and sham. I urge on the Minister to stand fast for the principle of the split hours. I hope that, before this Bill becomes an Act, we shall get the 1 o'clock opening and 7 o'clock closing. It can be arranged whether the hours will be 1 to 2 and 5 to 7 or 1 to 3 and 5 to 7. I think that there is an open door there, if the Minister gets agreement. The people of this city and the people who come here are entitled to that. They should not be told that the houses in the other boroughs can open at 1 o'clock, but that the houses in the capital of the State must remain closed until 2 o'clock.
Mr. Boland
One of the purposes of the Sunday closing was to stop the rush, not of a few people, but of a multitude from the city to the surrounding districts. To do that, I brought in the 7 o'clock closing. I would much prefer to have left it at 5 o'clock. The licensed trade may have appealed to me, but I did not listen to them. I was concerned only with the report I had got both from the Guards and from decent people— mostly in County Dublin—who had to travel on Sunday evenings or who live in the districts concerned. These disgraceful scenes were increasing in those districts. The only way I could see of dealing with the matter, unless we were to cut the bona fide hours, was that which I proposed. If we made the hour 7 o'clock for the bona fide traffic, instead of 8, then I would be inclined to have a 6 o'clock closing in the city. But two hours would leave it as bad as ever. If you had 2 o'clock and 6 o'clock, you would have it as bad as ever.
We discussed the break on Sunday on the Committee Stage. I think it was Deputy Linehan quoted the report of the commission which sat in England. They referred to the good effect that the closing for the dinner hour had from the point of view of stopping the long-sitter. I said on the Committee Stage, and I think I was right in saying, that four hours on a Sunday, when there is nothing else to be done, would be a temptation to people to stay drinking for the whole four hours; whereas, if you have the break, they will go home and there is a chance that they may not come back; but if they do, at least they will have the break. The reason I put in 1 o'clock in the beginning was because I was given to understand and I was satisfied that it was the most suitable time. Clubs open at 1 o'clock and hotel restaurants open at 1 o'clock. Therefore, I thought that was a reasonable time to open. I admit that an hour is a short time. But when people know there is only an hour, they can be got out in time if the owners wish to get them out. I had provided for a two hours' interval, namely, from 1 o'clock to 2 o'clock and from 4 o'clock to 7 o'clock. I thought that was all right, because the Sunday would be different from a week day. When it comes to closing for the dinner hour on a week day, there are very few people in the public houses and it is easy to get them out. There is no trouble and the assistants and the owners can get a break of a full hour for their meals. I do not think it would be the same on Sunday. Deputy Byrne told us that from his experience it would take at least a quarter of an hour to clear the house.
Mr. Byrne
For the assistants to clean up.
Mr. Boland
But on Sunday there would be rather a big crowd and, if they were to get a meal at all, I think one and a half hours would be the minimum. Two hours was provided for before.
Take an ordinary day when there would be a rush.
Mr. Boland
You have not the same rush at all. There will be practically nobody in the house at all on an ordinary day. I would prefer, as Deputy Cooney has said, that all the county boroughs would have the same hours, but apparently it does not suit Dublin. It was in order to deal with the Dublin problem that I brought in 2 o'clock. I think the amendment is a reasonable one. I tried to adopt a reasonable attitude in connection with this Bill. There were, however, certain things to which I would not agree, for instance, the general opening on Sunday. On the whole, I think it will be admitted that I have been reasonable in this matter. I will not agree to a longer gap than one hour on Sunday. That is my main trouble. If the closing hour were 6 o'clock in the cities and 8 o'clock in the outside places, I think the unholy rush would still continue. I want to avoid that. Then, if there were a four hours' continuous opening on Sunday when people have not got work to do, I am afraid it would lead to a continuous sitting. That is why I would not agree to make it from 2 o'clock to 6 o'clock.
A Deputy
The assistants do not want it.
Mr. Boland
I do not care whether they do or not, or whether the licensed trade want it. As Deputy Cooney pointed out, the assistants have a guaranteed maximum working week, and let them settle that. As Deputy Linehan said, it is a domestic question. I am concerned with the general problem. Clubs have been mentioned. If I had the same continuous complaints from the police about abuses in clubs that I have had about the public houses, I would have dealt with the clubs, too. But I have not had these complaints. That is why I have not dealt with them. There may be some foundation for them, but I do not think there is. I think there is a certain amount of propaganda in this. We all know that there is a certain amount of lobbying going on and a case being made. They have not got any evidence that the abuses in clubs are anything like what has been said here. I am sure the police would have been in possession of the facts if there had been. I am sticking to the amendment. If Deputies would agree to knock an hour off the bona fide hours, it would be a different matter. But I object to four hours' continuous opening on Sunday. I admit I have changed my mind, because I was open to reason and I wanted to get the views of Deputies.
A Deputy
Keep it open a little longer.
Mr. Boland
It is open, except that the gap must not be widened between the closing hour in the city and the closing hour outside the city. I am sticking to that.
In regard to the Minister's statement about clubs, the Minister may not be aware, when he says that he has not had complaints in the same volume as he had in respect of public houses, that before the Gárda can enter a club they must procure a search warrant. That is the difficulty.
Mr. Boland
I am aware of that.
I want again to call the Minister's attention to the fact that he has made the Bill worse by the amendment on the Order Paper. I should like to ascertain from the Minister whether he would go back to the hours of 4 o'clock to 7 o'clock, instead of 4.30 to 7 o'clock, in order to give the assistants a bargaining position in connection with the new hours which are being forced upon them.
Mr. Boland
Does the Deputy think I would be justified in doing it for that purpose? I do not think I would be justified in doing it for that reason.
Deputy Cooney says that it does not matter to the assistants once they have the maximum working week.
Mr. Boland
Is not that so?
Of course it is not so. Surely the assistants are entitled to agitate reasonably for avoiding a long spread-over? That is a legitimate demand. Is it just the same for a person to have to work 48 hours at night as 48 hours during the day? Of course it is not. Many conventions have been ratified in Geneva and here prohibiting the employment of certain people at night and prohibiting the employment of people at certain work at night, all indicating that the hours of work are an important consideration, and often a more important consideration than the actual number of hours worked. For instance, it is much better for a person to work 48 hours during the week, say, from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. each day than to work 44 hours per week from 9 o'clock at night until 5 o'clock in the morning. The hours at which people work are important. The assistants have a long spell, inasmuch as their hours are to be 10.30 a.m. until 10.30 p.m. Of course it is not just 10.30 p.m., because when a person closes at 10.30 there is washing up to be done and the stuff has to be made ready for the next day. An assistant in Dublin will probably find himself in the future getting home about 12 o'clock at night after a 10.30 o'clock opening. Anybody who cares to inquire into the matter will find that to be a fact.
Would not that be better than to go home with a week's wages in lieu of notice and an intimation from his employer that he regrets that business would not permit him to retain his services any longer?
There is no question of discussing it on that basis. In present circumstances you could probably just open public houses for one day per week because of the limited quantities of stuff which they are getting in some places.
That is an argument against yourself.
I shall make my own argument. The Minister makes the case that on Sunday he wants to give the assistants——
Mr. Boland
And the owners.
——a break of one and a half hours. He forgets the fact that during the week he only gives one hour, namely, from 2.30 to 3.30 and in that period they have to have their meals. The Minister says, of course, that they have not so much to do when they come back. Take, for instance, a licensed premises in Dublin on a Saturday. I venture to say that when an assistant opens it again at 3.30 o'clock he will probably have a large number of customers to deal with, because a large number of people are in town on a Saturday afternoon. A large number of workers are off on a Saturday; crowds are coming from and going to football matches on a Saturday and, if an assistant manages to get a meal on Saturday from 2.30 to 3.30, why will not the Minister permit him to manage it between 3 o'clock and 4 o'clock on a Sunday? If it can be done on a Saturday, why cannot it be done on a Sunday? It would at least give the assistants four hours' attendance and, under the Conditions of Employment Act, they would be entitled to one day's compensatory leave. But they will not get a full day's leave for three and a half hours. They will get a half day's leave for three hours. If they have four hours on Sunday, they are entitled to one day's compensatory leave.
This Bill, so far as the assistant is concerned, is putting him in a certain disadvantageous position with regard to the present hours of duty. Why should the Minister deprive them of using whatever bargaining position they can get by a four-hour opening on Sunday instead of going back to a three and a half-hour opening? The Minister ought not to deprive them of that. Deputy Cooney indulges in some "ráiméis" about what happened in Bundoran during the year. I was not there, and I do not know what was said. I am sure Deputy Cooney was not there——
No.
——and in any case he would not be qualified to go there. He knows that, too, and yet he uses an incident—I do not know whether it took place at all or not—and tries to make some capital out of it against the Labour Party.
They have a lot to apologise for.
At any rate, anything that would provoke Deputy Cooney into talking in this House is worth introducing. Having regard to the mantle of silence that he wrapped around himself in this House for years past, it is good to hear his voice.
I am a good listener.
A good listener? He must be a good listener, seeing that he can hear all that happens outside the House.
Yes, and inside the House.
It requires some physical operation to produce that in Deputy Cooney. I appeal to the Minister to accept the hours of 2 to 6. As far as I am concerned, I would welcome the 2 to 6 hours, even if that meant restricting the bona fide traffic around Dublin to 7 o'clock in the evening, and if you do restrict it around Dublin to 7 o'clock in the evening. I do not think you will do very much harm. As far as I am personally concerned, whatever might be said about a black area for the purpose of this bona fide traffic, so called, on a Sunday evening, I think that any restriction is justified, but if the Minister, for various reasons, does not want to restrict it to 7 o'clock on a Sunday evening and prefers to go on to 8 o'clock, I venture to say that if the Gárdaí exercise vigilance in these places around Dublin which are the sources of trouble, so far as the Gárdaí and the Minister are concerned, I think that the Minister need not fear a continuance of that type of conduct; but even the fact that it should continue to a minor extent is not a reason for dividing up the day in the way the Minister proposes in his amendment. I still press him to agree to the 2 to 6 opening on Sunday.
As things stand now, I think there would be general agreement to revert, if there is to be a reversion, to the hours of 2 to 3 and 4 to 7 on Sunday. I think a case has been made on behalf of the assistants and, in my opinion, we should not go out of our way to try to facilitate one section more than another.
Ós rud é go bhfuil beartuighthe ag an Aire an t-am ólacháin i mBaile Átha Cliath do scoilt Dia Domhnaigh—agus aontuighim leis fé sin—molaim dó na h-uaireanta a 2-3 agus a 4-7. Tuigeann gach T.D. an fáth atá leis na tithe tabhairne do choimeád ar oscailt sa chathair agus sin é gan caoi thabhairt do dhaoine dul amach go dtí áiteanna lasmuich den chathair seo atá fé droch-cháil maidir le h-ólachán tráthnóintí Dia Domhnaigh.
Mr. Boland
I will agree to knock off the half-hour, although I think the other would be better. However, I will agree to have it 2 to 3 and 4 to 7.
Maith go leor.
Mr. Boland
I would prefer the two hours, as we had it originally.
Well, they would prefer the four-hour working period instead of the three-and-a-half-hour period.
Mr. Boland
I will accept that: from 2 to 3 and from 4 to 7.
I would urge the Minister to make it 1 to 2 and 4 to 7, or even 5 to 7. I think that the 2 o'clock opening is absolutely unjust and unfair to the community. As the Minister said —on an earlier stage of this Bill— Dublin, the Capital of Ireland, is the heart of the tourist traffic of this country. Into this city, in normal times, on Sundays, come thousands of people, and I would again remind the Minister of the terrible situation that existed in pre-war times when, on one occasion, something like 50,000 people came here to see an All-Ireland Final.
It was one of the wettest days that ever dawned, and these people were lined up at the railway stations and along O'Connell Street and the Quays, unable to get even sandwiches, not to mind liquid refreshments. Now, the majority of these people came in before 1 o'clock, and if—again adverting to the question of the national games— the games start, as they always do, at 3 o'clock, and if you do not open until 2 o'clock, the gates at these national games will suffer, because the people coming from the country want their stout and sandwiches before going to Croke Park. I think that no case can be made against a 1 o'clock opening, not alone on that ground but also from the point of view of the public houses and the people who have not money enough to become members of clubs. I think the ordinary consuming community should be given the same rights as those who can afford to become members of clubs, which open from 1 to 3 and from 6 to 9.
The Minister has agreed to the hours of 4 to 7?
Yes, and 2 to 3. He has agreed to 2 to 3 and 4 to 7.
Mr. Byrne
I wish to be recorded as dissonting from the 7 o'clock proposal. I think it is spoiling the assistants' evening off. I object to the extension to 7 o'clock from the existing 5 o'clock, because it spoils the evenings of everybody concerned in the industry.
I shall not press amendment No. 3.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 2 has already been withdrawn. The next question is that amendment No. 1, as amended, be agreed to.
Yes, it will be 4 o'clock instead of 4.30.
Amendment No. 1, as amended, agreed to.
Mr. Byrne
With my dissent.
Deputy Byrne recorded as dissenting.
Amendment No. 4 is an amended amendment, which has been circulated in typescript.
I move amendment No. 4:—
In page 2 to add at the end of Section 4 the following sub-section:—
Nothing contained in Section 2 of the Act of 1927 shall operate to prohibit the holder of an on-licence (not being a six-day licence) in respect of premises situate in an urban county district or town the population of which district or town according to the last census exceeds ten thousand from selling or from keeping open for the sale of intoxicating liquor on any Sunday between the hours of one o'clock and three o'clock and between the hours of five o'clock and seven o'clock in the afternoon and the said sub-section shall have effect accordingly.
The intention of the amendment is to extend to towns of the size indicated the privilege enjoyed by the boroughs, other than Dublin. The legislation we are dealing with, I understand, has in the main been dictated by the conditions obtaining in and around Dublin, and advantage is being taken by the Minister to adjust the existing code because of requests from the Dublin area. It is the view of some people in the House that when the Bill is being put through, the people of the country generally should be given an opportunity to have a drink on Sundays in their own localities. That, seemingly, has not been possible, but this amendment aims at extending to sections of the community who live their lives under exactly the same conditions as the citizens of Cork, Limerick and Waterford. Even though they happen to be something smaller in population, it cannot be said that there is any difference between the conditions obtaining in Galway, Dundalk, Drogheda, and towns of that size and type, and the conditions obtaining in cities like Waterford, Cork and Limerick. The inhabitants of these towns cannot be said to be rural in their habits. They are really citizens in their methods of life, and they are denied the right that citizens of these big towns have of getting a drink on Sunday. There is no question of there being any fear of the extravagances that have been the subject of so much comment in the House taking place in those districts. Instead of driving them to become bona fide travellers, the Minister should give the people in these districts an opportunity to get a drink on Sunday.
They ought to be entitled to have the same hours of opening, before and after dinner, as are enjoyed by the southern cities. That would put them on a plane of equality with the population of these towns, and I think nobody can suggest any argument, from the temperance point of view, that there would be likely to be any abuses in these districts. It would facilitate them also, of course, on the occasion of big events taking place in their towns, but I am rather speaking for the life of the people from one end of the year to another, rather than for catering for an influx of visitors to these towns, when I suggest that they are as much entitled to have an opening between 1 and 3 and 5 and 7 as are the citizens of my own City of Limerick or of Waterford or Cork. I am perfectly satisfied that the House would agree and that nobody would put forward any argument that there would be abuse of that privilege if it was extended by the Minister in this Bill to the towns I am speaking of.
As I am personally concerned, I would support this amendment. The fact that such an amendment has to be brought in at all shows where the real problem lies. Even though I support the amendment I am beginning to be very much afraid of what the people in the rural districts are going to do now. First of all, they were in a subordinate position only to Dublin, Cork, Limerick and Waterford, the four county boroughs. If this amendment is accepted they will be in a subordinate position to every small country town. There is no doubt there is a strong case for the amendment. There is an equally strong case for the rural areas, but, for the life of me, I cannot see why the Deputies suggest this amendment. I suppose they are suggesting it now because they know they will not get the other thing and they are hoping to get this. I think there is a very strong argument for it, and I am quite satisfied that in the towns such as Deputy Keyes mentioned—Drogheda and Dundalk—which are industrial towns, there is a very strong case for a Sunday opening. I shudder to think what Deputy Corry's reaction will be if this amendment goes through. He felt small enough in his position as country representative when the Bill was being brought in originally, but when he is put in a still more inferior position to the towns, I do not know what he will feel. I think the Minister ought to accept this amendment and I think the Minister, even at this late stage, could consider going the whole hog.
I want to put one very strong point to the Minister. I am glad that I have been reminded of it by Deputy Keyes' reference to temperance. There was a snowball resolution sent to every Deputy in this House from a certain society of which branches were revived all over the country for the purpose of sending that resolution, condemning the action of the House and of the Minister and condemning everybody having anything to do with the proposed relaxation of the licensing laws in the new licensing Bill. I do not know how many Deputies thought it worth their while to reply to that circular, but I thought it worth my while to reply to it. I wrote to the secretary of one of the branches that sent me that circular. I said: "I have got your letter. I do not see anything wrong with the licensing Bill, as amended. The Minister has given us concessions that I am satisfied with. If you see anything wrong with the licensing Bill, will you tell me what you see wrong with it and what your arguments for your opposition to it are?" I did not get any reply to that letter. I am very much afraid that, behind the general opposition to the Sunday opening in the country, there is a feeling that there would be intense opposition to it from certain quarters. There was a certain amount of that opposition in the House. There was quite sincere opposition, I believe, from Deputy Allen in his speech on the Committee Stage. I appreciate his viewpoint, although I totally disagree with it. The fact that it is necessary to ask that this amendment be accepted in the case of towns of over 10,000 population indicates the necessity for doing something like that for the whole country. As far as the amendment is concerned, it is something to be desired. The towns mentioned are surely entitled to have an opening. It will do this much, but it will not improve the situation because it will make a bad anomaly worse.
I have been a member of a temperance organisation all my life, and I have not received the abusive letter to which Deputy Linehan referred.
It was not abusive.
If this amendment is accepted, it will mean there will be less bona fide traffic. You will not have men coming from Dublin to outlying districts, especially to my constituency. I am supporting this amendment on account of representations made by the Bray Urban Council on behalf of the licensed trade in Bray. In the summer time there is a floating population of 20,000 in Bray. The Bray traders are prepared to meet the Minister's wishes if he wants to restrict bona fide traffic and to have similar hours of opening to those in Dublin and not to have any bona fide traffic in Bray. They are large ratepayers. They are large employers. They have represented that people can come by bus or rail from Bray to Dublin and get in Dublin the drink that is denied them in the Bray area. I am not one who would advocate intemperance. I pointed out to a temperance organisation many years ago that, with transport facilities, a three miles' or five miles' limit will not prevent a man from travelling in order to get a drink. I am satisfied that if you had the facilities in the district that I am speaking for that exist in Dublin there would be less drink consumed. I am sorry the Minister brought up the question of clubs. I could give him instances of clubs and I could give him the reasons why he does not receive reports in connection with them. It is because high officers are appointed committee members of the clubs before they are a week in the area. What I object to is the fact that the publican who is paying for his licence and paying his employees, is restricted by Guards, watched and persecuted in many ways, while people can leave the public house and go to a club on St. Patrick's Day, St. Stephen's Day or Sunday and get drink there.
If the Minister wants to restrict drinking, he would first of all have to tackle, not the decent public houses which are under everybody's observation, but the clubs in isolated places where there is intemperance. Even in my own constituency we are often surprised at the reports we receive from the clergy and others about the drink that is consumed in certain clubs. You have the licensed trader backing up the club because he happens to be the agent for supplying the beer to the clubs in the area. I appeal to the Minister to accept the amendment on behalf of Bray—it is not for all the rural areas. It is such a short distance from Bray to the city, a matter of a quarter of an hour in the bus, that the workers of Bray can come to Dublin for bona fide trade. The Bray traders are prepared to comply with the regulations. They recognise that under the present law they would be entitled, in the tourist season, to supply when the public houses are closed in Dublin. If there were a rush in the summer season in Bray, there might be a difficulty in meeting it. We will be satisfied if the Minister grants this concession. The effect of it will be to bring about the situation that he desires. We believe that its acceptance would help to abolish a lot of the abuses that occur in connection with the bona fide traffic.
I hope the Minister will not give way by accepting this amendment. This is the thin end of the wedge for a general opening on Sundays. There can be no doubt about that. Deputy Linehan was quite right when he said that the rest of the rural population would have a grievance if the Minister were to give way on this and allow Sunday opening in about a dozen towns in the country which have a population of over 10,000. There is one such town in the constituency that I represent. It has a population of about 12,500. I think I can speak, to a certain extent, on behalf of that town. Neither the members of the licensed trade there, nor any section of the people, want Sunday opening. It is very significant that a Deputy who resides in that town is not sitting beside Deputy Everett to support him.
I represent my own county, and I speak on behalf of Bray, which is pretty close to Dublin.
There is one thing that I am certain of, and it is that if Deputy Everett forces a division on this Deputy Corish will not support him.
I do not know. I did not ask him. One would not get a box of matches in Wexford on a holyday, not to speak of a Sunday.
It is all to the credit of the Wexford people that they keep the Sabbath. I hope the people in other parts of the country will follow their example. If, as I said on the Committee Stage, the Minister were to give way to the clamour of a few topers by allowing public houses to open on Sundays the effect would be to sap the morale of the people. If Sunday were allowed to be turned into a day for the carrying on of general trade, and for boozing, that would have the effect of sapping the whole moral foundation of the people in this State. We would soon have what they have on the Continent—no Sunday. The observance of the Sabbath has, unfortunately, been done away with in some countries. If we had a general opening of public houses in the rural areas on Sundays, then we would be on the high road to the position that, unfortunately, has been reached in many countries throughout the world. As I have said, I hope that the Minister will not give way to this clamour from a few topers for Sunday opening.
I appeal to the Minister to resist this amendment. I rise to speak on it for the reason that the town I represent has been mentioned in the course of the debate. I want to say that no representations whatever have been made to me by the licensed trade in that town or by anybody else in regard to the granting of facilities for the opening of public houses on Sundays. Deputy Linehan rightly pointed out that the rural community would have a grievance if towns with a population of the one that I represent were to be allowed to have a Sunday opening for public houses. There are a few public houses situate outside the borough of Drogheda. Is it suggested that the owners of them must, of necessity, keep closed on a Sunday while the publicans in Drogheda, only a few hundred yards away, are to be allowed to open? I hope that, for the reasons I have stated, the Minister will refuse to accept the amendment.
I desire to join in the appeal to the Minister not to accept this amendment. On previous stages of the Bill we pointed out, when a general Sunday opening was advocated, that at present only a small number of "pubs" in the country engage in the bona fide trade on Sundays with the result that the owners of them and their assistants can go away and have a day's recreation. If the Minister were to agree to have a general opening on Sundays, the result would be to pin everybody down to a seven-day week. It would open the door for the carrying on of a general trade on Sundays. Deputy Davin, on the Second Reading and Committee Stages of the Bill, advocated that the carrying on of a general trade should be allowed on Sundays. This, he urged, would save the busy farmer and his wife from having to do their business on Saturday. If that state of things were permitted, it would mean a return to slave conditions both for the owners of public houses and their assistants.
I agree with Deputy Linehan that, in this amendment, we have the thin end of the wedge for a general opening on Sundays. If the Minister were to give way on the question of population, then at some future stage he, or some other Minister, would have to give way in the case of towns with a population of 5,000. Later on the figure would be brought down to 1,000, and, eventually, we would reach the position of having not only a Sunday opening for public houses but of other premises in which a general trade is carried on. I think it is a good thing for this nation and for its people to have a day of rest on Sunday.
I desire to support the amendment. I have not taken very much interest in this Bill, but, viewing this from a logical point of view, I cannot see why towns like Dundalk, Drogheda and Wexford and other towns with a population of over 10,000, should not enjoy the same facilities on Sundays as Waterford, Cork and Limerick. I should have greater admiration for the attitude that Deputy Allen is taking up if he, as a member of the Fianna Fáil Party, had voted against the Minister's section which gives those Sunday facilities to Waterford, Cork and Limerick.
Those cities had them already.
Deputy Allen's attitude is this: it is all right for the people in Waterford, Cork and Limerick to be able to get drink on a Sunday, but it would be all wrong for the people in Dundalk to have a drink on a Sunday.
I said no such thing.
They would lose their faith and all the rest of it. I cannot speak from experience of public houses on Sundays, but I suggest to the Minister that, in the case of people who want to have a drink on a Sunday, it would be much better to have an opening of public houses during certain hours so that they could walk boldly in and take their drink, instead of, as at present, ducking around and entering public houses through back yards.
I want to dissociate myself from some remarks that were made in the course of the debates on this Bill in regard to the manner in which the Civic Guards enforce the licensing laws. The statement was made that the public houses might as well be open on Sundays, the suggestion being that the Civic Guards were not enforcing the law. I want to repudiate those statements and suggestions. In my opinion, the Guards are doing their duty as best they can to see that the law is obeyed in regard to Sunday closing. If abuses do happen to occur in connection with the licensing laws, it is not fair to put the blame on the Guards. As I have said, I cannot for the life of me see why people in towns like Dundalk and Drogheda should not enjoy the same facilities in regard to being able to get a drink on a Sunday as the people in Cork, Limerick and Waterford enjoy. Take the case of the City of Dublin. Nowhere in the country is there a better observance of the Sabbath than in this city, where the public houses are allowed to open for a few hours in the afternoon. The people in Dublin, it can be said, are most exemplary in the observance of their religious duties.
Therefore the argument put forward by Deputy Allen does not, in my opinion, hold water. If he were prepared to go the whole hog and vote against Sunday opening generally, whether in the city or anywhere else, one might appreciate his point of view, but, with all respect, he cannot differentiate as between various sections of the community. A large number of people come into the town of Dundalk on Sundays, and I think it would be much better if they could get into a public house for a drink than that they should carry on as they have been doing for the past two or three years. I think the Minister would not be making a mistake in granting those facilities. Possibly, he may not think that the hours suggested are suitable; he may want to make certain changes in the hours. If he does, I am sure Deputy Keyes and the proposer of the amendment will only be too happy to fall in with any adjustments he may wish to make. I cannot see why those towns should not have the same facilities with regard to Sunday opening as are enjoyed by people in the other places to which the Act applies All those terrible things which we are told would happen if those facilities were granted simply would not take place. There is no use in throwing up our hands in despair. We have very little confidence in the people of this country if we think they cannot be trusted to pass by a public house on a Sunday even if it is open. The public houses are open every other day, and thousands of people do pass them by; they can do the same on a Sunday. I would ask the Minister to grant those facilities.
Mr. Boland
I thought we had settled this question with regard to the general opening hours. As Deputy Kennedy said, if those facilities are granted to towns with a population of 10,000, we would then be asked to go down to 5,000 and 4,000, and where are we to draw the line? Deputy O'Higgins said that I should justify the differentiation: he tried to put the onus on me. I found it there; there was some reason for it, and I do not propose to interfere with a differentiation that has been there for quite a long time. This is more than the thin end of the wedge; it is something I would not be prepared to do at all. I am not prepared to do what Deputy O'Higgins said I was bound to do, that is, to justify the differentiation. I found it there, and conditions have not changed so very much. One of the reasons, I think—I may be wrong— why facilities were given in the cities and not in the country is that it was easier to control the sale of drink in the cities. That may have been at the bottom of it.
There was another reason.
Mr. Boland
There may have been other reasons. There were rows that could not be controlled; the police could not be everywhere; and all the rest of it. As I say, if those facilities were granted to towns with a population of 10,000, then a case could be put forward for towns with a population of 5,000, until eventually a case could be made for the countryside. I do not propose to agree to this amendment.
Does the Minister know when the principle of differentiation was introduced?
Mr. Boland
In 1878, I believe.
Mr. Byrne
Things are a lot different now.
I suggest to the Minister that the reason for that differentiation is not a reason why it should be allowed to continue at all.
Mr. Boland
I am not prepared to go and recast the whole licensing code.
The reason for the differentiation was that the bona fide trade was no good to the city public-house, because the people would not come in three miles, and there would not be three miles from one point to another in the city.
I can understand to an extent the Minister's reluctance to depart too extensively from the provisions of the 1927 Act, but on the other hand I do not think that the acceptance of the proposed amendment would involve any very revolutionary departure. There is no question of stepping down to 9,000 or 6,000 or 5,000, at another time, by some other Minister. Personally, I am inclined to hope that, with the passing of the years, we will reach a stage of confidence in our people which will justify that further extension. At the moment, it ought to be possible for the Minister and the House to agree to what is suggested in the amendment— that we see no huge gulf between the conduct of people in the towns with a population of 10,000 and those with a population of 20,000 or 30,000.
If I anticipated for a moment the terrible calamities portrayed by Deputy Allen as the consequence of accepting this amendment, I would shudder to think of having my name associated with it, but I have not the least fear in the world that in his own town of Wexford—I am sorry Deputy Corish is not here—where we are told that one cannot buy a box of matches on a Sunday, the conduct of the people would be so shockingly revolutionised by having the public houses open on a Sunday. I do not think any abuses would take place if the people in those industrial towns with a population of 10,000 had the privilege of having the public houses open on Sundays for a certain limited number of hours, so that they can get a drink if they want it. We do not see any of those abuses taking place in towns where the public houses are open. If such abuses were taking place, neither the House nor the Minister would agree to a continuation of those opening hours. We would have a clamour from the temperance people, demanding the prevention of those abuses. There has been no such clamour. Where have we an example of the horrors that we are given to understand will take place in Ireland if Galway, Wexford, Dundalk, and those other places are granted those facilities? They are purely a figment of the imagination; there is no evidence to support it. It is a reflection on the conduct of the people to suggest that they would not behave themselves if this privilege were ex tended to them.
I think the Minister would not be doing anything revolutionary in extending the privileges of the 1927 Act from the four county boroughs to the industrial towns of our country. As has been pointed out, modern transport has revolutionised the condition of affairs in recent years, and you cannot prevent people from getting a drink if they want to get it. I heard Deputy Norton making the point on an earlier stage of this Bill that if the Minister had a commission for bicycle tyres there might be something to be said for this restriction, because it drives people further afield to get their drink. If they could get a drink close at hand, they would take it and go home to their dinner, but when they have to go out a few miles they will not stop at one drink. I would again ask the Minister to grant those facilities to towns with a population of 10,000, and not to be intimidated by the bogeys which have been raised.
Now, I might as well raise another bogey. As far as I am concerned, I am totally opposed to the amendment. I have never had any representation from anybody in my constituency asking for those facilities, and I will vote against the amendment.
I am speaking on behalf of traders in my constituency from whom I received representations. As I stated before, I would not advocate any excessive facilities for drink, but I would ask the Minister to consider the position in regard to places in close proximity to Dublin. The position will be that when the public houses close in Dublin the people will travel by bus to the public houses in Bray. It is only a matter of a quarter of an hour. We do not want bona fide traffic on Sundays; we are prepared to have in Bray the same opening hours as in Dublin, with no bona fide traffic.
How could one get from Dublin to Bray in a quarter of an hour?
In any of the buses.
I have been listening to the debate on this amendment and to the debate on the last amendment and I am beginning to wonder if this country is not made up of only two classes, the owners of licensed premises and their assistants, because I hear now, as a conclusive argument put forward by Deputy Allen and Deputy Corish, that this thing must, of course, be bad, as the publicans have not asked for it.
I never said one word about the publicans. I said one person in my constituency had asked for it, to my knowledge.
If I misunderstood the Deputy, I am very sorry, but that was the impression left on my mind. Let us ask ourselves, who else could have asked for it? So far as the temperance associations are concerned, I know they passed resolutions. Even the licensed trade may pass resolutions, but I do not yet know of any association of moderate drinkers, let us say, who would come together and pass resolutions and send them on to their Deputies. I have not come across that type of body, but possibly it is in existence in Wexford.
Let us get down to this amendment. Whether the licensed trade or the assistants are or are not asking for it, let us consider it on its merits. I am not at all impressed by the Minister's argument that a certain thing is there and it must remain. That is not at all, to my mind, a conclusive argument. If amendments are brought before the House, you must deal with them according as you think they are sound or unsound, and not because a differentiation was made 60 or 70 years ago and it must remain for all time. It does seem to me that there is a particular reason why large towns should be differentiated from strictly rural areas, and it is a pretty obvious one. If you have 10,000 people collected in one area and none of them can get alcohol on Sunday inside that area, they have to wander out in order to get the alcohol. Possibly friends may come in to meet them, and may want to have a friendly talk over their alcohol. The inhabitants of the town must be teetotal, while the visitors whom they are entertaining can take the stronger stuff, one set being bona fide and the others not.
If this amendment is carried it will mean that in the larger towns that problem will not arise to the extent to which it does now. In a small village or town where there are only 500 people they may have to move out if they want a drink on Sunday. It is quite a different problem, and I take it that is the reason why the differentiation between Dublin, the other county boroughs and the rest of the country took place. The legislature did not want a colossal exodus from a city with 500,000 of a population to the country public houses around in order hat persons might become bona fide. I would be absolutely absurd and impossible to prevent Sunday opening in Dublin unless you stopped the bona fide traffic altogether. So far as the argument is concerned that you may have to enlarge if you start with 10,000, that need not be taken seriously. How this legislation will work out will only be shown by experience. I do not think there are any statistics to show that there is more drinking in Waterford than in Galway or Clonmel on Sundays. I do not think there are any statistics that could be produced by the Minister to show that there is more drunkenness on Sundays. If the public houses are opened in accordance with this amendment, they will be opened for a shorter time so far as the bona fide traffic is concerned.
Has the Minister any statistics to show the number of prosecutions for drunkenness on Sundays as compared to week days?
Mr. Boland
I do not think I have.
The Minister must have been armed with a good deal of statistics before he came here to father the Bill. He talked about the principle involved in this amendment that Deputy Everett and Deputy Keyes have moved, and for that reason he declined to accept it. I do not think that is the real position. The Minister has agreed to the continuance, and even the extension, of the Sunday opening hours in the boroughs and by so doing he has given away what he calls the principle of Sunday opening. It is now only a question of whether he will extend what he has agreed to in the case of Dublin and the other county boroughs to places like Drogheda and Dundalk.
Mr. Boland
The facilities in the boroughs were always there. It is something new that is being asked in this amendment.
I have received resolutions from various organisations—I suppose they have been sent to every Deputy—requesting that in the consideration of this Bill we should not agree to any extension of existing facilities. The people who were party to the drafting and passing of the resolutions do not seem to be aware that there is an extension of drinking facilities being given by the Minister to the residents of the four boroughs. Is that not so?
Mr. Boland
They are well aware of it. I have heard enough about it, anyway.
The only argument the Minister makes against this amendment is, in effect, that he will not agree to change what has been the practice since 1878. Is it not time that we changed everything in the shape of legislation that was passed in whatever Parliament was responsible for the legislation of 1878? I think the Minister would be well advised to review everything affecting his own Department.
Mr. Boland
The Deputy must not forget the Intoxicating Liquor Act passed in 1927.
But this other legislation was passed in 1878.
Mr. Boland
It was re-enacted in 1927.
The living conditions of the people and the outward appearance of the country as a whole have changed since 1878.
Mr. Boland
Undoubtedly.
For that reason I think that the Minister should seriously consider the acceptance of this amendment. Deputy Brady seemed to suggest that there is no great rush to Bray, after the public houses close in Dublin, on the part of people anxious to avail of the existing drinking facilities. Does he seriously suggest that?
I seriously suggest that no man could possibly get from Dublin to Bray in a quarter of an hour, as was stated here.
If that is the point, then I agree with the Deputy; but a man could get there in 35 or 40 minutes. If he left Dublin at 5 o'clock, he would be able to arrive in Bray before 6 o'clock and be able to get another "fill-up".
I doubt it, and if I thought that was so I would be opposed to it.
That is what the Deputy would be voting for if he voted against the alternative suggested in Deputy Everett's amendment.
Did the Deputy ever try to get a bus from Dublin to Bray within the last 12 months? I did.
I wonder would the Deputy go down to the bus terminus at Dun Laoghaire at 5 o'clock on a summer evening and see the queue of people lined up waiting for buses to Bray in order to get another "fill up".
I was speaking of people going from Dublin City to Bray.
Yes, and from Dun Laoghaire as well. Anybody can see those queues there on a Sunday evening in summer time.
You certainly would be very lucky if you were able to go from Dublin to Bray in an hour in present conditions.
The conditions affecting transport from Dublin to Bray and everywhere else have considerably altered as a result of the emergency. I am telling the Deputy what I believe he ought to know regarding the people who are getting extended drinking facilities in Dublin and in Dun Laoghaire and who, under the legislation which is to be continued and for which he is voting, will be entitled to go to Bray and get further facilities there. Would the Minister consider the advisability, as against a general opening policy, of allowing people to have drinking facilities within three miles of their residence and cut out bona fide traffic everywhere?
That is not in the amendment.
No, but I suggest it is quite possible to offer a suggestion of this kind under the terms of the amendment. I put that suggestion, not as one manufactured in my own mind, but as one put forward by a responsible officer of the Gárda, that is, that there might be general opening in the country as a whole applicable to people within a radius of three miles of their places of residence.
I suggest that the Deputy is out of order. General opening has been decided already in a very definite way.
In view of the fact that no principle that I know of is involved in this amendment, will the Minister give us a better reason for opposing this amendment than the fact that it has been in existence since 1878, and that there is a big principle involved?
Mr. Boland
I give the Deputy the reason I have given already—it was decided in 1927 and has since worked satisfactorily, and I do not propose to recast the 1927 Act. That Act was passed in 1927 after a very long debate. The point originated in 1878, but it was fully considered here in 1927, and I am satisfied that it has worked satisfactorily. There has been no general demand for a change. I do admit that it would be a very bad principle to say that what was good enough for our grandfathers is good enough for us. I do not stand on that principle at all. I agree we ought to move with the times, but you must draw the line somewhere and not take on too big a job. If something has worked fairly well, it is as well to leave it alone, until there is a very big demand for a change; but where something has not worked and has become simply a farce, as in the case of the bona fide traffic, it is time to interfere. That is why the Bill was brought in.
Mr. Brodrick
I see the danger which the Minister sees, but he is looking a little further ahead than I. As has been said already, it will probably be 20 years before we have another licensing Bill. I hope that will be so, but the Minister is resting his whole case on four boroughs. The amendment in the name of Deputy Keyes suggests that towns or cities with a population of 10,000 or over should have the same concessions as those enjoyed by the people in the four boroughs. I do not know what the population of Waterford is, but let us take Galway which has a population of over 20,000. I think that a city with a population of 20,000 or over should have the same concessions as the boroughs, and I do not want to preach intemperance by any means.
This amendment will not affect many towns in the Province of Connaught, but I appeal to the Minister to accept the amendment, with the proviso that the figure of 10,000 population might be raised somewhat. I should be quite agreeable. I cannot see why the same concessions should not be given to a city with a population of 20,000 or 22,000 as are given to the boroughs. I do not think it will lead to a spread of intemperance, and in fact I think it will bring about a lessening of intemperance, because if people want a few drinks, they will have to run into backyards, persecuting the Guards who are trying to keep law and order, in order to get them.
Mr. Lynch
If the Minister were disposed to accept the amendment I should be rather inclined to urge him to reduce the figure rather than to raise it as Deputy Brodrick suggested, so that towns in tourist areas, such as Killarney, might be brought in. If he were to consider it at all, he should consider it on the basis of towns which have town commissioners, urban councils or bodies of the kind; but in fact I object to any of this differentiation, as I pointed out at the Committee Stage. I see absolutely no reason for any differentiation between the residents of our towns and our rural population. I agree that it is an inheritance of the Minister's and I do not throw the blame for it on him. It has existed for 70 or 80 years. It was brought forward into the 1927 Act, but that does not make it right, and the Minister cannot adopt the attitude that everything we did was right, and therefore sacrosanct.
Mr. Boland
Only when it suits me.
Mr. Lynch
When the 1927 Act was under consideration here, we were all very much younger than we are now. We were all very young men and young men are inclined to be enthusiastic in adopting particular attitudes. There was undoubtedly a great wave of temperance enthusiasm behind the 1927 Act, even though there was a fair amount of strong opposition to some of its provisions. I do not want to go into it all, but I do want to stress that the principle of differentiation between the residents of the boroughs and the residents of the rural areas is wrong, and that the Minister should have taken his courage in his hands and made the same law for every citizen.
It would be a very nice question as to whether there is not a constitutional issue involved in this differentiation between different sections of our people. It has never been raised, but it is a point which may be raised, as to whether it is constitutional at all. If the Minister gives any consideration to the proposition in the amendment, I ask him to consider it on the basis of making it much more wide than the amendment proposes, while I still maintain that it is entirely wrong to make any such differentiation.
I should like to ask if the Minister would inform us in regard to the question of the amendment proposed by Deputy Everett. While I hope that he will not give way and extend these hours widely on an indiscriminate basis all over the country, and while I cordially approve of the principle of discriminating in respect of closing hours in the cities and in rural Ireland, for reasons into which I do not think it is necessary for me to go —Deputy Lynch and I had our say on the merits of that question on Committee Stage—I do think that this question arises: If we are going to emphasise the development of the tourist traffic industry post-war, does not the Minister think that in areas recognised as tourist areas, the amenities provided should not be identical with those in rural Ireland? I cannot find myself in agreement with Deputy Brodrick's views. There is something to be said for a middle course. Does the Minister not think that he should reserve to some one discretion to give limited hours in tourist areas by bringing them into line with city hours rather than with those in rural areas? If we are to be in competition with the Isle of Man and Blackpool and to build up a considerable business on that assumption, it seems absurd to say to persons whose co-operation we are seeking that there will be certain hours in those areas for that type of tourist. We will have to compete with Blackpool and the Isle of Man, but we are asking people in the licensed trade to conform to hours that are intended for a rural population or for remote parts of the country.
Mr. Boland
Perhaps the Deputy is not aware that in the Isle of Man there is complete closing on Sundays.
I do not profess to be an expert on the tourist question. I think the Minister for Justice will agree that if the Isle of Man has total Sunday closing that arrangement must be founded on some peculiar puritanical ordinance. I wonder if there is some difficulty in repealing it? However, I do not care what they do in the Isle of Man. What I am concerned about is to do what is reasonable here. If they want to do something daft in the Isle of Man let them, but if we go to people in this country and ask them to improve their premises, and to spend money on them, because they happen to be located in an area where there is a certain development of tourist traffic, we should tell them that we give money to the Tourist Development Board in order to second their efforts to improve their premises. Does the Minister not think that consequential on the private efforts of the individual, and the exertions of the Tourist Development Board, which are financed out of public money, the rational thing would be to reserve a discretion, if adequate representations were made to him to define an area, and to say that in that area the Sunday opening hours normally available in Dublin would be available for tourist traffic, and to justify that departure from the general rural rule by scheduling it as a tourist area? It seems to me that unless we do that, sooner or later we will be confronted with a new Licensing Bill, in which special facilities will be set out to create amenities of that kind.
Under the present law, people who go to hotels to get a meal on Sundays can have a drink with it. But remember that while a considerable body of tourists are in a position to go to hotels for meals, or for whatever refreshments they want, a different class of people who go there bring sandwiches in paper bags. While the children are picnicking on the strand the men in the party may adjourn to a public house to have a bottle of beer or a bottle of stout with which to moisten their lips. If we intend to do all we can to develop the tourist trade I urge that view on the House. Everybody seems to think that we are manoeuvring for positions in this debate, and that by our stand here we are going to be known hereafter as advocates of tee-totallers or of "drunks". I do not mind what is said. The important thing is that we should do the right thing now.
I do not think that at this stage or at any stage we could finally define every tourist area. What is a tourist area to-day may not be a tourist area to-morrow. There should be discretion in the Minister or in somebody to declare tourist areas scheduled areas. I can see that the Minister might be in misery if he were called upon to administer a discretion of that kind. I know that every Minister is reluctant to undertake that task. I cannot see why any serious doubt should arise as to whether an area is a tourist area or not. I imagine there will be some rule of thumb which the Minister will apply as to what he considers a tourist area. Will the Minister consider that suggestion?
Mr. Boland
I discussed this question at length on the Committee Stage. Perhaps the Deputy was not present then.
I was.
Mr. Boland
There is the difficulty of scheduling areas. I pointed out that, without doubt, Dublin is the biggest tourist area. How could Howth, which is now in Dublin, be excluded? We also discussed the extended hours. The whole problem of scheduling an area is there. I do not see how this could be done, seeing that the whole country, all round the coast, is concerned.
If the Minister takes discretion it need never be exercised.
Mr. Boland
If it is necessary let someone else do it. It is queer how other tourist centres attract enormous crowds—for instance, Wales and the Isle of Man.
And Northern Ireland.
Mr. Boland
Wales, Scotland and the Isle of Man get any amount of visitors, so that they are not affected by what obtains there.
Does the Minister know that the conservative clubs in these places are open on Sundays?
Mr. Boland
The tourist organisation urged to have this done and one of the arguments put up was that if extra facilities for drinking were given, we would be able to compete more successfully with places such as the Isle of Man and Llandudno. The fact is that these places attract crowds of tourists, and the public houses are not open on Sundays. It is not people who want drink we want to attract here. There are many people who would be glad to come and enjoy the amenities that we can offer without considering the drinking facilities.
They can go into a conservative club in any of the places you mention.
Could the Minister not give a discretion to the district justice on application made by traders in a licensed area? After Dublin, Bray is the largest tourist centre, and you have the position that residents in Bray who want these facilities can take a train and come up to Dublin. I might not have been correct in suggesting that the journey could be covered in a quarter of an hour, but I suggest that if the shops are closed in Bray, it would not take more than 30 minutes in normal times to get to Dublin.
I do not like the Minister's last equalisation, that if you open in these tourist areas you are offering facilities to "drunks". That, I think, represents a division of mind on the part of the Minister. There is the mind that seems people who come into an area to get refreshment to which human beings are reasonably entitled, and the mind that can only see "drunks" coming in. I would agree that so far as there are more facilities given, you are likely to have a greater proportion of people who are under the influence of drink, but I think there are other people who should also be considered.
Mr. Boland
I admit that perhaps I went too far in that.
I think that Deputy Davin's answer to the Minister with regard to those areas where there are no drinking facilities in England, is pertinent. I understand that the number of clubs in England went up by at least 50 per cent. in a very small period of years as a result of these restrictions in England. I think, however, the distinction made between a tourist area and the rest of the country is a bad one. It is very hard to see why there should be any logical discrimination between the countryside generally and these areas. It seems to be odd that the stranger who comes in here to look at our natural scenery is apparently going to be enervated to such an extent that he cannot recover unless he gets drink while the native who is looking at that scenery all the year round has to go without drink. I take it that this concession is sought merely for the purpose of catering for people generally. That is the net point, that public houses should be allowed to cater for the reasonable demands of the community. In this country, unfortunately, we have had a reputation in the past for intoxication. We have lived that down by slow degrees—partly as a result of the increased price of drink, and partly as the result of temperance crusades. I think it is largely because of that history of ours that Ministers are not inclined to interfere with laws made so far back as 1878, but I should like the Minister to make up his mind that while old liquor may be good, old liquor legislation is not necessarily good.
The whole objection, I understand, to extending the hours in the whole of rural Ireland is that by doing so we would probably turn Sunday into a market day. Public houses in rural Ireland are usually engaged in mixed business. If I am a draper and a person next door has a public house and also carries on a drapery business, if he is allowed to open his premises for the purpose of supplying drink on Sunday, he will also carry on his drapery business at the same time and I must, in order to compete with him, open my drapery establishment. The moment the premises are open, they will be open not alone for the sale of drink but for the sale of any commodity which the shop stocks. If my next door neighbour opens, then I must open in competition with him. If the whole town is going to open after last Mass, the idea will be that Sunday is the best market day. That surely would be an undesirable development in the rural life of this country. I do not think it is any exaggeration to say that tourists who go to a centre for relaxation will ordinarily and legitimately consume rather more liquor refreshment than a native who has to work six or seven days of the week. If Deputy McGilligan and I are in Waterville or Portnoo on holidays, shall we not consume more frequent glasses of sherry than in our respective homes? That is the ordinary practice. Why not face the fact that any one of us on holidays will consume more alcoholic liquor than when we are engaged on our daily jobs at home? If we are catering for the accommodation of persons so minded, who want to go and relax and to pursue a less ordered or less careful regime than ordinary men going about their daily work, why not make provisions for that purpose?
If, on the other hand, we do not want tourists, if we do not want people to relax and have a good time, then we should not have a Tourist Development Board. There are many rationally-minded people who think that we should be much better off if we did not encourage such people to come amongst us but if we reject that view and invite and urge tourists to visit this country, surely it is nonsense to suggest that if that class of person wants refreshments on Sundays we should not give them to him? There is nothing sinful in taking refreshments on Sunday. If the tourist wants it and thinks it will add to his comfort by all means let him get it, but that is no reason why we should revolutionise the whole social life of rural Ireland, by throwing open all the public houses in the country. In tourist parts, however, inasmuch as there is nothing intrinsically bad in consuming liquor on Sunday, facilities can be provided whereby liquor will be available for people visiting these places.
When the Deputy mentions tourist areas, will places doing a mixed trade in such areas not be open for all purposes?
Inevitably, and that is the feature about the tourist trade which rather repels me.
Supposing you insisted on a structural separation between the bar and other parts of the premises, and allowed the structurally-separated bar to open for the consumption of liquor only, would that meet the Deputy's objection?
And make it illegal to carry on any other form of business in that house on Sunday?
Yes.
If that were practicable, a great part of my objection to Sunday opening would disappear, but I do not think it would be practicable.
I suggest that Dublin is the biggest tourist area in the country. The district of Howth, which was formerly in the county, furnished one of the reasons for this Bill, but I think it has been forgotten that Howth is now part of Dublin City, so that any legislation that comes into force in future applying to the city, equally applies to Howth.
Question put.
The Committee divided: Tá, 28; Níl, 52.
Tá
- Bennett, George C.
- Brodrick, Seán.
- Byrne, Alfred.
- Byrne, Alfred (Junior).
- Coburn, James.
- Cole, John J.
- Cogan, Patrick.
- Daly, Patrick.
- Davin, William.
- Dockrell, Henry M.
- Esmonde, John L.
- Everett, James.
- Fagan, Charles.
- Fitzgerald-Kenney, James.
- Hannigan Joseph.
- Keating, John.
- Keyes, Michael.
- Linehan, Timothy.
- Lynch, Finian.
- McGilligan, Patrick.
- McMenamin, Daniel.
- Mongan, Joseph W.
- Murphy, Timothy J.
- Nally, Martin.
- O'Donovan, Timothy J.
- O'Higgins, Thomas F.
- O'Sullivan, John M.
- Pattison, James P.
Níl
- Aiken, Frank.
- Allen, Denis.
- Bartley, Gerald.
- Beegan, Patrick.
- Benson, Ernest E.
- Boland, Gerald.
- Bourke, Dan.
- Brady, Brian.
- Brady, Seán.
- Breathnach, Cormac.
- Breen, Daniel.
- Breslin, Cormac.
- Cooney, Eamonn.
- Corish, Richard.
- Corry, Martin J.
- Crowley, Fred Hugh.
- Derrig, Thomas.
- De Valera, Eamon.
- Flynn, John.
- Flynn, Stephen.
- Fogarty, Patrick J.
- Friel, John.
- Fuller, Stephen.
- Gorry, Patrick J.
- Harris, Thomas.
- Keane, John J.
- Kelly, James P.
- Kennedy, Michael J.
- Lemass, Seán F.
- Little, Patrick J.
- Loughman, Francis.
- Lynch, James B.
- McCann, John.
- McDevitt, Henry A.
- Maguire, Ben.
- Meaney, Cornelius.
- Moylan, Seán.
- Mullen, Thomas
- O Briain, Donnchadh.
- O Ceallaigh, Seán T.
- O'Grady, Seán.
- O'Loghlen, Peter J.
- O'Rourke, Daniel.
- O'Sullivan, Ted.
- Ryan, James.
- Ryan, Robert.
- Sheridan, Michael.
- Smith, Patrick.
- Traynor, Oscar.
- Victory, James.
- Walsh, Richard.
- Ward, Conn.
Tellers:—Tá: Deputies Everett and Coburn; Níl: Deputies Smith and Brady.
Amendment declared lost.
Mr. Boland
I move amendment No. 5:—
In page 2, line 36, Section 5, to delete all words from the word "by" to the end of the section, line 41, and substitute the following:—
(a) by the insertion in sub-section (1) of the word "half-past" before the words "ten o'clock",
(b) by the deletion in sub-section (2) of the words "in a county borough on week days between the hours of nine o'clock and ten o'clock in the morning and" and the substitution in lieu thereof of the words "on week days between the hours of nine o'clock and half-past ten o'clock in the morning and, in a county borough, on week days",
(c) by the insertion at the end of the section of the following sub-section, that is to say.—
(4) In sub-section (2) of this section, the expression "premises to which an off-licence is attached" does not include premises to which a wine retailer's off-licence within the meaning of the Finance (1909-10) Act, 1910 (and no other off-licence) is attached.
Amendment agreed to.
Mr. Boland
I move amendment No. 6:—
In page 2 to delete lines 46 to 53, Section 7, and substitute the following words:—
(a) by the deletion in sub-section (1) of the words "licensing area, be entitled to have the seven-day licence transferred at the annual licensing District Court" and the substitution in lieu thereof of the words "district or adjoining districts, be entitled, on application at any sitting of the justice of the District Court in whose district are situate the premises to which the six-day licence is attached, to have the seven-day licence transferred",
(b) by the deletion in sub-section (2) of the words "licensing area, be entitled to have the ordinary seven-day licence transferred at the annual licensing District Court" and the substitution in lieu thereof of the words "district or adjoining districts, be entitled, on application at any sitting of the justice of the District Court in whose district are situate the premises to which the early-closing licence is attached, to have the ordinary seven-day licence transferred",
(c) by the addition at the end of the section of a new sub-section as follows:—
(3) In this section, the word "district" means a district of the District Court prescribed under Section 68 of the Courts of Justice Act, 1924 (No. 10 of 1924).
This amendment is intended to meet the suggestion of Deputy McGilligan on the Committee Stage. Section 11 of the Intoxicating Liquor Act, 1927, entitled a person who is the holder of a seven-day licence and a six-day or an early-closing licence in respect of premises situated in the same licensing area, to obtain, at the annual licensing District Court, a transfer of the seven-day licence to the premises to which the six-day or early-closing licence is attached. Section 7 of the Bill provides that such transfer may be obtained at an ordinary sitting of the District Court as well as at the annual sitting. The purpose of the amendment is to enable a seven-day licence to be transferred to premises to which a six-day or early-closing licence is attached, where the seven-day licensed premises or the six-day licensed premises are situate in the same or adjoining districts of the District Court. I think that this meets Deputy McGilligan's proposal.
It does.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 7:—
In page 3, before Section 8, to insert a new section as follows:—
"Section 11 of the Act of 1927 is hereby amended by the insertion in sub-section (1) after the words ‘six-day licence' where they occur in the said sub-section of the words ‘or a beer-house licence (as defined in Section 52 of the Finance (1909-10) Act, 1910, for the purposes of Part II of that Act).'".
The purpose of this amendment is to permit the transfer of a seven-day licence to a beer-house licensed premises. There are only a small number of beer-house licensed premises. The number licensed in the last licensing year was 153, while the total number of licensed premises in the State is 12,000 odd. The amendment would enable the holder of a beer-house licence to extinguish a seven-day licence and transfer it to his own premises if the courts had no objection.
Mr. Boland
The position regarding these beer-houses is that, if they have a six-day licence, they can do what is sought in this amendment, but if they have a seven-day licence they cannot. I think that that was an oversight in the 1927 Act, and I accept the principle of the amendment. The amendment will require to be redrafted.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 8:—
In page 3, before Section 8, to insert a new section as follows:—
"Section 11 of the Act of 1927 is hereby amended by the insertion in sub-section (1) after the words ‘six-day licence' where they occur in the said sub-section of the words' or an off licence.'".
The purpose of this amendment is to enable an off-licence to be extinguished and an on-licence substituted in the same or in an adjoining area. In certain towns, owing to the building programme which has gone on for a number of years, slum areas have been cleared and the town has assumed a new aspect. The population has shifted to a particular area, and there may be one or two licences in the former areas which have become redundant, the licence-duty being paid in the hope that something will turn up. This amendment would permit the owner of an off-licence to buy out the interest of an on-licensee in the slum area and to apply to the court to transfer the on-licence to the off-licensed premises.
Mr. Boland
I cannot accept this amendment. The effect of it might be to enable a person with an off-licence to get an on-licence in an area where there were existing on-licences, which might be seriously affected by the transfer.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Mr. Boland
I move amendment No. 9:—
In page 3, line 6, Section 8, to delete the words "annual licensing" and substitute the words "sitting of the justice of the".
This amendment is intended to enable a restaurant owner with a wine retailer's off-licence to apply for a restaurant certificate at any sitting of the District Court.
Amendment agreed to.
Mr. Boland
I move amendment No. 10:—
In page 3, to delete all words from the word "by", line 23, to the end of the section, line 36, and substitute the following:—
(a) by the insertion in paragraph (a) of sub-section (1) before the words "on any week day" of the words "after the hour of six o'clock in the morning",
(b) by the insertion in sub-paragraph (i) of paragraph (b) before the words "on any week day" of the words "after the hour of six o'clock in the morning",
(c) by the deletion of sub-section (2).
This amendment is designed to give effect to the closing between midnight and 6 o'clock.
I think that there is something wrong with the wording. It is proposed to amend the 1927 Act by inserting before the words "on any week day" the words "after the hour of six o'clock in the morning". That means that, after 6 o'clock in the morning, the premises can be used for the purpose of the bona fide traffic. Until when?
Mr. Boland
Until the end of the day—12 o'clock.
I think that it would be better to put in the hour.
Mr. Boland
I thought so myself but the draftsman assured me that it was all right. If the hour had been 11 o'clock, it would have been necessary to put it in but, as it happens to be midnight, that is the end of the day and it is unnecessary to insert it.
Does the Minister mean that on any week day bona fide traffic can be carried on from 6 o'clock in the morning until 12 midnight?
Mr. Boland
Yes.
This is a new form of drafting.
Assuming that I was acting for a publican who was prosecuted for a breach of the licensing laws, it would be an arguable submission that I could use my premises on any week day at any time after 6 a.m.
Mr. Boland
So you could, but not before 6 a.m.
There is nothing to suggest that "day" has a recognised specific meaning. It is a period of 24 hours for the purpose of the licensing Acts.
Mr. Boland
The Interpretation Act defines it clearly.
It would be a simple matter to put in "midnight".
Mr. Boland
I will examine it again, but I am told it is quite right.
Amendment agreed to.
Mr. Boland
I move amendment No. 11:—
In page 3, before Section 12, to insert a new section as follows:—
Sub-section (5) of Section 15 of the Act of 1927 is hereby amended by the deletion of the word "five" and the substitution in lieu thereof of the word "ten" and the deletion of the word "three" and the substitution in lieu thereof of the word "six".
Where did this come from?
Mr. Boland
This and the following amendment were put down by Deputy. Dockrell and Deputy Kennedy. They were not my amendments. I said I had no objection to them. I thought that Deputy Dockrell was speaking for his own Party, but apparently he was not. I think, however, that it is hard to call a man a traveller if he only travels five miles. I admit that with modern transport the difference between five miles and ten miles is not a lot. I said I would put it down for the purpose of debate to see what support it would have in the House. I am not committed to it, but I should like to see it done myself. Deputy Lynch reminded us that in the country they still travel by ass and cart. He did not care, he said, what we did about the county boroughs, but in the country areas we should stick to the three miles. I do not know if there is anything more I can say with regard to it. But, if you are to call a man a traveller at all, I think a distance of five miles is ridiculous.
I think the Minister would be well advised to adopt the attitude he took up on another section and leave well enough alone. Whether Deputy Dockrell was speaking for himself or anybody else, so far as I am concerned, and I think other Deputies, there would be the most violent opposition to this, whether it came from Deputy Dockrell or from the Minister or anybody else. I think we would be inflicting another shocking injustice on the rural community if we compel them to travel any longer distance than they have to travel at present.
Mr. Boland
That is with regard to the three miles. But what about the urban community? Suppose we leave the rural people as they are?
Anybody in a county borough at the moment has to travel five miles and in the rural districts three miles. The suggestion here is to double it in both cases. There may be something in the point about the county boroughs that the facilities for transport are different from those in the country districts. But in a country district there might be only two public houses within a radius of 12 miles, and there may not be any buses travelling on these roads. So far as the country is concerned, I am sure Deputy Lynch and every other rural Deputy will advise the Minister to leave well enough alone.
Mr. Lynch
So far as the rural areas are concerned, I would be strongly opposed to any suggestion to extend the present distance from three to six miles. It is all very well to talk about the improvement in travelling facilities; but actually in a great many parts of the country the travelling facilities now are the same as they were 50 years or 100 years ago. The ordinary vehicles by which small farmers in my constituency go to Mass are the same as they were when I was a child. They go on a horse and cart. Very few indeed have even risen to a pony and trap. Even bicycles are not anything like as common as you would find them in the neighbourhood of the cities and towns. Therefore, so far as rural areas are concerned, I would be very strongly opposed to the suggestion to increase the mileage from three to six miles.
I am not particularly interested in the boroughs, as it is undoubtedly a fact that the transport facilities in the neighbourhood of the boroughs are much greater than in the rural areas. You have a great service of buses plying from the boroughs, and perhaps a case could be made for extending the limit from five to ten miles.
However, I think the Minister would be well advised to leave well enough alone. After all, there are persons who presumably have invested sums of money in hotels within five, six, seven or eight miles of the boroughs on the basis that the existing mileage would stand. I am not speaking for any of these, but I can assume that there are such people. As a matter of fact, I can recall a case in the neighbourhood of Dublin where there was a hotel licence granted in recent years which I think would be cut out if the distance were extended to ten miles. I am not speaking for the hotel concerned because, as a matter of fact, when the application was before the courts I was briefed against it, but the hotel got its licence. I am referring to the new hotel at Portmarnock. It is a question of whether that would not be brought within this definition of ten miles. I think it would be hard lines on the proprietress if she found the money she had sunk in that concern very nearly gone owing to the loss of the bona fide trade from the city. However, I am not particularly concerned with the question of the distance from the boroughs. But I am very much concerned with the question of the distance in the rural areas. I am strongly opposed to the proposition that there should be an increase of the existing three miles. With regard to the boroughs, I think the Minister would be well-advised to leave the matter as it stands.
I think the Minister would be well-advised to leave the existing mileage as it is, both in the county boroughs and the rural areas. Does the Minister realise what the position will be in the County Dublin and within ten miles of the other county boroughs? It means that the public houses cannot open as they do in the city to supply the local people and that they will not be allowed to carry on the bona fide business. The Minister might as well insert an amendment to close 200 public houses in the County of Dublin and as many more within ten miles of the other county boroughs. That is what it would amount to. I think the Minister's intention was to grapple with the bona fide business. In the summer time he has only left a difference of one hour between the city and the county, and in the winter time he has not left any difference at all. Therefore he has dealt with the abuses which were said to exist. I understood that was what was in the Minister's mind when introducing the Bill. If the distance is increased from five miles to ten miles, it will mean that all those traders who sunk money in the business cannot sell to local people and will be too near the city to do a bona fide trade.
Public houses in Clondalkin, for instance, are only seven miles from the city. They cannot let in the local people from Clondalkin and they cannot let in people from Dublin City. Therefore, they might as well shut down. The same applies to places like Portmarnock. This would apply to places nearly as far as Bray, as well as places like Tallaght, Saggart, etc. Then if the distance of three miles outside the boroughs is doubled, farmers and farm workers who go to Skerries or Malahide on a Sunday in the summer time in order to enjoy the only day they have off, will also be affected. At present if they live more than three miles from these places they can go and have a drink while their families are playing on the strand. Therefore, I think the Minister would be well-advised to leave the mileage as it is. Otherwise he would be doing a great injustice to traders in the neighbourhood of the four county boroughs. Therefore, I would appeal to him to withdraw the amendment.
I am opposed to this, both with regard to the county boroughs and the rural areas. The case of the rural areas is obvious; nobody could defend this in my opinion. With regard to the urban areas, I do not think the authors of this realised the serious injury which it would inflict on people who have bought premises on the basis that the existing mileage would stand and paid a considerable amount of money for them, or, if the premises were not very good, spent an enormous amount of money on them for the purpose of that trade. You are striking at the rights of property and at the whole stability of property if you do a thing like that. I am putting it on that ground alone. It is not so much a question of whether the distance is five miles or ten miles; my serious objection is that people invested their hard-earned money, their savings or the savings of somebody else, and that by just changing a word in a sentence you are hitting at the stability of their property. It appears to me to be absolutely indefensible. You turn five into ten, and thereby you wipe out property worth tens of thousands of pounds. It is just the same as if you were to take a tin of petrol, put a match to it, and blow it up. It is from that aspect that I look upon the matter—that is, with regard to property around the county boroughs, the City of Dublin, and places like that.
With regard to the rural areas, I think that the people of rural Ireland are suffering enough at the moment without subjecting them to any more disabilities. These are the fellows who have to put hobnails on the soles of their shoes, and now you are adding another three miles on these people. Now, I hold that if a person goes that distance for a drink, he will make up his mind to make a perfect job of it and, having gone that distance, such people will simply sit there in the public house until they are sodden with drink, and if they have come on bicycles or have driven a horse and trap, they will not be fit to ride the bicycles or drive the horse when they leave. I do not hold with driving men to a point where they cannot readily get refreshments, and I say that, having had to travel such a distance for a drink, they will say to themselves: "Very well, we will get full now, and make a proper job of it." If they have to go six miles in a pony-cart or some such conveyance—there are no motor-cars now, of course—they will go into a hotel or public house, put up the pony and trap in the yard and say: "We will make an evening of it now and do this job right." We all know the dangers in the case of an intoxicated man driving a motorcar, but it is just as bad in the case of such a man driving a horse or a pony. If these people could get a drink conveniently, they would not get full of drink, and they would go back home. I think that if the distances were allowed to stand as at present, there would be no abuse.
So far as the county boroughs were concerned, I was trying to link up the closing time of the city public houses with the closing time in the county where these scenes were taking place, with a view to seeing that it would not be worth while for these people to go out there. My object was to cut that out by linking up the closing hours of the city public houses with the legal closing time for the bona fide traffic, so that it would not be worth their while to go out. This, however, is on quite a different plane, and while it is connected with the bona fide traffic, at the same time I think that this House would be doing a very serious injustice, and would be doing it unwillingly and unconsciously, if it were to agree to this. I think the Minister should not attempt to do it. I am really thinking of the value of property. I have no particular case in mind at all, but there must be plenty of such cases, and I hold that this would be committing a terrible injustice and would lead to the ruin of many people.
Mr. Boland
I am prepared to drop this. Deputy Dockrell is not here, but I shall drop the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 12 not moved.
Mr. Boland
I move amendment No. 13:—
In page 3, before Section 12, to insert a new section as follows:—
Section 16 of the Act of 1927 is hereby amended—
(a) by the insertion in sub-section (1) after the words "(not being or forming part of a county borough)" of the words "or by any holder of an on-licence (not being a six-day licence) attached to premises in such licensing area",
(b) by the deletion of the word "three" where that word occurs in the words "not exceeding in the whole three hours" and the substitution in lieu thereof of the word "four",
(c) by the addition at the end of the section of the following sub-section, that is to say:—
"(4) An area exemption order shall not be granted on the application of the holder of an on-licence unless—
(a) the applicant has, not less than 48 hours before making the application, served upon the officer in charge of the Gárda Síochána for the licensing area a notice of his intention to make the application, setting out his name and address and the area, day, and period or periods for which the order is required, and
(b) the justice of the District Court has heard such officer in relation to the application."
This is in accordance with a promise I made to arrange that a licence holder could apply for an exemption order. At present, the superintendent of the Garda Síochána must make the application, and this is to provide that a licence holder may make application. It also allows for an extension from three hours to four hours. I promised to bring this in, and I think it meets the case.
Yes, that is very reasonable.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 14 not moved.
Mr. Boland
I move amendment No. 15:—
In page 3, before Section 13, to insert a new section as follows:—
(1) Section 25 of the Act of 1927 is hereby amended by the insertion in sub-section (1) before the words "shall, if the person so convicted" of the words "if the court in its discretion so thinks proper."
(2) Every conviction which, immediately before the passing of this Act, stood recorded under Section 25 of the Act of 1927 on a licence then in force, shall, upon the passing of this Act, cease for all purposes to be so recorded.
This is the amendment giving full discretion to the justice in the matter of an endorsement. I think it meets the point. Of course, it will be understood that the justice's right of endorsement is still there, but he is given full discretion.
Yes, but I would draw the Minister's attention to one type of case. It is proposed to wipe out all endorsements existing at the passing of the Act, but there will be cases where an offence has been committed and a summons issued, but the case has not been determined at the date of the passing of the Act, and an endorsement could take place for an offence committed prior to the passing of the Act.
Mr. Boland
Well, I was asked to wipe the slate clean. I do not know how that would be interpreted. I daresay that this would apply only to existing endorsements, but perhaps the justice, in a case that was sub judice, would take the view that such a case would be on a par with an existing endorsement.
Even if the summons comes on afterwards, the justice will still have the discretion.
Mr. Boland
Yes, but I cannot go any further than that. I cannot have something wiped out that is not there.
As a matter of fact, if the Minister were to suggest that he would wipe out summonses that had been issued prior to the passing of the Act, there might be a terrible lot of summonses before the courts within the next three months.
Amendment No. 15 agreed to.
Mr. Boland
I move amendment No. 16:—
In page 3, to delete lines 40 to 49 (Section 13), and substitute the following section:—
No order shall be made after the passing of this Act under Section 26 of the Act of 1927.
This is a consequential amendment.
I take it that this means that Section 26 is now being left in, but that no order can be made under it. As far as I understand, you are deleting your old Section 13 of this Bill which we are discussing——
Mr. Boland
Yes.
——and instead of that, you are saying that after the passing of this Act no order shall be made under Section 26 of the 1927 Act.
Mr. Boland
That is right.
Amendment No. 16 agreed to.
Mr. Boland
I move amendment No. 17:—
In page 3, before Section 14, to insert a new section as follows:—
Section 27 of the Act of 1927 is hereby amended by the deletion of the words "if satisfied that by reason of extenuating circumstances (to be stated in the Order of the Court) such conviction ought not to be recorded on such licence make" and the substitution of the words "make, if in his discretion he so thinks proper".
This is also consequential. It gives discretion to the Circuit Court judges.
The net result is that the District Court has full discretion in the first instance and that the Circuit Court has full discretion in the case of an appeal.
Mr. Boland
Yes.
Amendment agreed to.
Deputy Dockrell to move amendment No. 18.
Yes, Sir. I move amendment No. 18:—
In page 5, before Section 17, to insert a new section as follows:—
(1) Where a person (in this section referred to as the applicant) duly gives notice of his intention to apply for a licence in respect of specified premises and, at the hearing before the Circuit Court the applicant shows to the satisfaction of the court—
(a) that he is the holder of a wine retailer's on-licence within the meaning of the Finance (1909-1910) Act, 1910, in respect of the said premises, and
(b) that the said premises are structurally adapted for use and are bona fide and mainly used as a restaurant, refreshment house, or other place for supplying substantial meals to the public, and
(c) that for a period of ten years at the least prior to the date of such application such a licence was attached to the said premises, or to premises substantially the same as the said premises, the court shall, notwithstanding anything contained in the Act of 1902, cause such certificate as is mentioned in Section 5 of the Act of 1833 to be given to the applicant declaring him to be duly entitled to receive a licence in respect of the said premises, unless the court, in consequence of an objection made under Section 4 of the Act of 1833 prohibits under that section the issuing of such licence on one or more of the following grounds, that is to say, the character, misconduct or unfitness of the applicant, or the unfitness or inconvenience of the said premises.
(2) Where in a case to which the foregoing sub-section applies the certificate referred to in that sub-section is given to the applicant, nothing contained in the Act of 1902 shall operate to prevent the grant to the applicant of the licence which the said certificate declares him to be entitled to receive.
(3) This section shall continue in force until the 31st day of December, 1944, and no longer unless the Oireachtas otherwise determines.
This amendment is designed to foster the restaurant business, and I think the Minister will agree that that is a section of the business which really ought to be encouraged. With that object in view, I put down this amendment, and perhaps the Minister would see his way to accept it.
Mr. Boland
I cannot accept this amendment. These wine retailers' licences are not got from the courts, but by application to the Revenue Commissioners. It would mean increasing the number of licences, and I am not prepared to accept it.
There might be objections from another point of view.
Mr. Boland
Yes, there would be many objections. In this case, these people were never holders of a full licence, and I am sure there would be strenuous objections from those in the district who had full licences. It would be giving a full licence to people who do not have an ordinary licence. I know that it is not easy to get light wines now, but that is only a temporary matter, whereas this measure is designed to be permanent. That would be giving a full licence to people who would have only an ordinary licence and there would be a great deal of objection on the part of people who already have a full licence.
Does the Minister not think that that is a section that ought to be encouraged? The supply of alcoholic refreshment with a full meal in a restaurant ought to be encouraged, and certainly the larger restaurants ought to have a full licence. I do not know how the Minister feels about it, but there is a certain number of people who go to restaurants and find they cannot get the refreshment that they could get in a fully licensed house. It is a very serious handicap to restaurants placed in that position. If the Minister sees another way of doing it, but would adopt that principle, I would be perfectly satisfied. It is not a question of wishing to do it in that way if any other way can be found, but I certainly think the Minister ought to encourage the restaurant business as far as possible.
Might I put this point to the Minister—it is a thing we have not stressed at all, and I am glad he mentioned what he did about restaurants? I do not quite agree with Deputy Dockrell that because you have a big restaurant it should have a complete licence, but I think the public houses that already have the licences should be put into the position—as they are in other countries—that they would cater more for the ordinary needs of the people, that is, when a man would go in for a bottle of stout he could get sandwiches or something else to eat with it.
Or lunch.
I would not go as far as that at the moment. I think that is one thing we really lack in this country. But I imagine there would be an uproar if the Minister were to accept this amendment.
Deputy Dockrell is a very conservative man, who is interested in property and in the rights of property, but there is this objection about the amendment, that it would enhance the value of the property of the owner of the restaurant, and to the extent that he sells drink you are depreciating the value of the property that is owned by the publican in the surrounding neighbourhood. That is the point. The publican may have invested a very considerable sum— £12,000 or £14,000—in a public house in the neighbourhood. To the extent that the full licence will increase the value of the restaurant, it will depreciate the value of the premises that were already bought on the assumption that in that particular area or district there would be nobody else allowed to sell drink. I think that consideration should appeal to Deputy Dockrell as a very conservative man, a man interested in the rights of property.
Does the Deputy press the amendment?
I do not wish to press the amendment, but I would ask the Minister does he see any hope of offering a solution in another way?
Mr. Boland
I must say I do not.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Mr. Flynn
I move amendment No. 19:—
In page 5, before Section 17, to insert a new section as follows:—
Notwithstanding anything contained in the Licensing (Ireland) Act, 1902, the holder of a six-day licence may apply at any annual licensing District Court, that in lieu of a certificate for the renewal of the six-day licence there be granted to him in respect of the said premises a certificate for a seven-day licence and the justice of the District Court, if he is satisfied that a certificate for the renewal of the six-day licence might have been granted, may, if he so thinks fit, grant to such applicant the certificate so applied for.
This amendment is of importance to traders in towns situated in my constituency, and I would ask the Minister seriously to consider the possibility of accepting the amendment. In several towns in my constituency—Cahirciveen, Killorglin, Kenmare and other centres in South Kerry, fairs are held and considerable trade is carried on on Sunday evening. People come in but they are debarred from access to licensed premises where a six-day licence obtains. The holder of the licence is debarred from allowing even his relatives or friends from entering the premises on that particular day. People come ten, 15 and 20 miles on the preceding evening to do business in the fair and they return on the following day. I think something should be done by way of adjustment so as to allow these people to obtain, on application to the District Court, a seven-day licence where it can be shown that the premises and business carried on justify such a licence being granted. There is another matter. The holder of a six-day licence cannot allow a lodger or person residing in the premises to bring in people to the premises on a Sunday. In my opinion, and in the opinion of people in the district generally, it is a matter that calls for adjustment. It is an injustice to these people. I cannot see why the Minister should not consider it. We have been informed that the attitude of his Department is that it is really a big matter that entails the revaluation of the premises and property, and all that, and that it is too big a question. It is a matter that, as one Deputy described it this evening, has been there from the dim past. It has existed as a result of the Act of 1902. I do not understand why there was ever such a differentiation between six-day licence holders and seven-day licence holders, or what the origin of it was. Whatever it was, I think we have reached the stage in this country when these people should at least get a chance to carry on their business on equal terms with people who were more fortunate in a bygone period in obtaining facilities. I put down this amendment not knowing very much about the law in the matter, but simply at the request of the people in my district. I know Deputy Fionan Lynch was interested in this matter. Deputy Kennedy has a similar amendment, and I think the Minister, if he can at all see his way, should meet us in the matter. I earnestly request him to do so.
This amendment seeks certain concessions regarding holders of six-day licences. The next two amendments ask for somewhat similar concessions regarding holders of a six-day beer-house licence and off-licences. They might be discussed together, with separate decisions if desired.
I would like to support the amendment. About 11 years ago, in a midland town, a case came before the Circuit Court judge by way of application for a new licence. The gist of the application was to turn a six-day licence into a seven-day licence. The circuit judge gave the case a very patient hearing. He heard a considerable number of witnesses, and came to the conclusion, on the facts, that the holders of such licences in that town were entitled to a seven-day licence. He made two Orders to that effect. Subsequently, the two Orders made were brought, by way of certiorari, before the High Court and quashed, the High Court holding that they were made without jurisdiction. It seems to me that this is something which is out of date in our legal code. There is no reason why the holder of a six-day licence should not have it turned into a seven-day licence, if the appropriate court thinks it fit to so order. I understand that is the object of the section, and I support it.
Ba mhaith liomsa cuidiú leis an leasú seo. Níl aon chiall leis an dlí mar atá sé. Is féidir le duine go bhfuil ceadúnas teoranta aige cur isteach ar cheadúnas seacht lá fháil ar iarratas, ach tá cosc fén dlí ar dhuine go bhfuil ceadúnas sé lá aige ceadúnas seacht lá do lorg.
Ní thuigim sin. Ní doigh liom go bhfuil brí nó ciall leis sin, agus molaim don Aire glacadh leis an leasú. Níl san leasú ach go mbeidh cead—sin a bhfuil ann — ag duine go bhfuil ceadúnas sé lá aige cur isteach ar cheadúnas seacht lá. Sin rud beag im' thuairim-se agus molaim don Aire glacadh leis. Ní dlí é—ach ceart do thabhairt do dhuine.
In connection with amendment No. 20, there are 153 beer-house licences in the State. The object of my amendment is to put them on the same basis as the 10,000 publicans who have full licences. A number of holders of beer-house licences, before the establishment of this State and since, have gone into one court after another and have been precluded, by the law as it stands, from getting the spirit licence which would give them a full publican's licence. The proposal is to extend the spirit licence to 153 citizens who have a good business and are prevented by law from selling spirits. If a number of individuals in this State decide to start a club, let it be a sports club or any other kind of club, and there is in regard to it no licence in existence, they can go into court and, on satisfying the judge, get a licence for the sale of beer, wine and spirits. But here are 153 individuals, born into the trade and living by it, who are carrying on their trade under this severe handicap. The Minister has already given concessions in regard to some bigger things. We want him to grant this concession to the 153 owners of beer houses who, in some places, are doing the principal trade there.
Amendment No. 21 deals with off-licences. I want to be quite frank and to say that I had only one case in mind when I introduced the amendment. A town in the Midlands with a population of 5,000 is divided by a river. Approximately half the population lives on one side of the river, the other half living on the opposite side. It has about 50 public houses on one side of the river. On the opposite side, there is a house with an off-licence. Some of those 50 public houses on one side of the river are doing practically no trade. I think that the man on the opposite side with the off-licence, in a part of the town where the population has grown up around him, should be entitled to get an on-licence. That is the meaning of amendment No. 21. As regards the owners of the 153 beer houses, I ask the Department to examine their trade in detail and to take an unbiased view of their position. The case of a man in Howth who had a beer-house licence—he is doing the best business in Howth—was fought in the courts. He failed to get a full licence. In the end, he had to build a hotel beside his licensed premises and get a hotel licence in order to get over his particular difficulty. Tributes have been paid to the Minister and bouquets have been thrown at him. I want him to do the fair thing in regard to the 153 individuals I have referred to.
I want to put before the Minister, and those who are putting forward the amendments before the House, a suggestion which was made to me by a publican. It was this: that anybody with suitable premises who wanted a seven-day licence should be entitled to get it provided he was prepared to pay an extra licence duty. This man held that the present holders of seven-day licences might have a grievance if newcomers were given a seven-day licence freely, since that would mean increased competition for them. He said they would have no grievance if the newcomers were obliged to pay an extra licence duty. That might get over the present difficulty. The granting of the new seven-day licences might be left to the discretion of the district justices.
I think Deputy McGovern's point is already met, because I think the historical reason for the six-day and seven-day licence is not all those shocking anomalies at all; it is because certain people, when originally applying for a licence, took the cheapest licence.
Mr. Boland
That is right.
Under any circumstances, I do not think the Minister could agree to amendment No. 21. There may be a very hard case in a particular town, but has not the Minister already provided that, if a person across the river has a licence and is not doing any trade, and the bulk of the population has slipped over to the other side of the river, he can now go in there. In present circumstances, I do not think there is any case for giving on-licences to people who have off-licences. I do not know anything about beer houses. That is not a problem in the south, certainly not as far as Cork is concerned. There are one or two six-day licences there, and if those people were given seven-day licences I do not think it would hurt anybody; the Minister would not be giving away very much by giving the extra day. As I have said, I have no interest in, and no information on, the question of beer houses, but I think that, as far as the few six-day licence holders are concerned, it would not hurt anybody if they were given seven-day licences.
Mr. Boland
There are 1,758 six-day licence holders in the country, and I think I have heard the view expressed during the progress of this Bill that there were too many on-licences in the country. As Deputy Linehan has mentioned, we have already made it easier for people to transfer; we have en larged the district in which they car get the existing licence. I think that is good enough. I would not be prepared to go any further. Deputy Flynn did not know how those licences originated. It was quite voluntary, as Deputy Linehan said. Either at the time they got the licence or subsequently, they decided to go for the six-day licence and pay the smaller fee. Once they had done that, they could not get back to the seven-day licence. Everyone knows that there are too many licence already, and, as I say, the facilities are already there to change a six-day licence into a seven-day licence by transferring a seven-day licence to the premises.
I am afraid that what the Minister has suggested as an alter native would not meet the case raised by Deputy Flynn, that is, the power to extinguish the existing licences and get a new seven-day licence. Like Deputy Flynn, I have got a communi cation in connection with certain of those houses, and I immediately raised the point which I think was made by Deputy McGovern. I pointed out to my correspondent that there was an other side to the question; that the existing seven-day licence holders in the town of Cahirciveen might have something to say to it; that many of those people may have purchased their premises within the last 40 years, since the 1902 Act was passed, and undoubtedly they bought them having regard to the existing conditions of competition for the Sunday trade. At the same time, the proposal in Deputy Flynn's amendment does not give the six-day licence holder a seven-day licence on payment of the seven-day licence fee. It merely empowers him to apply to the district justice. Now, I do not think there can be any great case made against that. If the existing seven-day licence holders object, they can come before the district justice when the application is being heard and oppose the granting of any further seven-day licences in the area. Personally, I think this is a small matter; it affects very few, and they are mostly small people who would not be in a position to do what the Minister has suggested about extinguishing the licence and applying for another. They are not that type of person; financially, they are not in a position to do anything of that kind. I think the Minister might consider—if not now, between this and the time the Bill reaches the Seanad—the question as to whether or not they should not be given the right to make their case before the district justice, who would then refuse or grant the licence as he saw fit.
Mr. Boland
I think it is better to leave it as it is, and try if possible to reduce the number of on-licences rather than increase them. I would not reconsider the matter. In Cahirciveen, for instance, no one will say that there are not enough public houses. I do not think either Deputy Flynn or Deputy Lynch can say that.
There are other towns affected as well as Cahirciveen. Will not the Minister admit that there is an injustice, an inequality, as between those people and their competitors?
Mr. Boland
They opted for it in the beginning; it was their own choice. They opted for six-day licences.
I do not think we can accept that as being general. There were many cases where—perhaps because of a pussyfoot element on the bench of magistrates—the seven-day licence was refused, and the applicants had no alternative but to accept a six-day licence. As Deputy Linehan has said, a great many of them may have applied for a six-day licence originally in order to pay a smaller licence fee, but there is no doubt that a great many of the existing six-day licence holders are persons who applied for seven-day licences and did not get them.
Mr. Boland
I am told that the justice could not do that; he could not impose a six-day licence instead of a seven-day licence.
I want to point out to the Minister that those are not isolated cases; in every town in our district we have at least half-a-dozen of those people. A very reasonable suggestion has been put forward by Deputy Lynch —that those people should be allowed to make their case before the district justice, who would also hear any objections put forward by competitors in the trade. The Minister informs us that this opens up a very important matter, but I do not see why the Minister should not accede to our request, seeing that he has given way in regard to concessions as far as Dublin and other big centres are concerned. I think all sides of the House are agreed that a case has been made for those people.
Ba mhaith liom do chur in a luighe ar an Aire nach bhfuilim sásta. Iarraim go mbéadh cead do chur isteach ar cheadúnas seacht lá, agus rud beag é sin. Níl an cead sin fé láthair ag lucht cheadúnais sé lá. Táimíd ag iarradh san leasú seo go mbéadh cead ag duine le ceadúnas sé lá do chur isteach ar cheadúnas seacht lá.
If the Minister gave Sunday opening in rural Ireland, this would be a much more important question.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendments Nos. 20 and 21 not moved.
Mr. Boland
I move amendment No. 22:—
In page 5, lines 35 and 36, Section 17 (1), to delete the words "hearing before the Circuit Court of objections" and substitute the words "proceedings in the Circuit Court in relation".
This has relation to a point raised by Deputy Costello with regard to an objection being made, and we have altered the wording to "proceedings in the Circuit Court in relation" to any such application. The amendment will cover the point that was raised.
Amendment agreed to.
Mr. Boland
I move amendment No. 23:—
In page 5 to delete lines 42 to 44, Section 17 (1) (b), and substitute the following paragraph:—
(b) that, in respect of the licensing year including the 1st day of January, 1933, a renewal of a licence attached to the said premises or to premises substantially the same as the said premises was in fact issued, and".
This covers any point that might be raised about the validity of the licence that was granted.
Amendment agreed to.
Mr. Boland
I move amendment No. 24:—
In page 6, lines 14 and 15, Section 18 (1), to delete the words "hearing before the Circuit Court of objections" and substitute the words "proceedings in the Circuit Court in relation".
This is purely a drafting amendment, similar to amendment No. 22.
Amendment agreed to.
Mr. Boland
As regards amendments Nos. 25, 26, 27 and 28, I am not quite happy about the way in which they are drafted. I should like to have them redrafted, and they will be submitted again on the formal Report Stage.
Amendments Nos. 25, 26, 27 and 28 not moved.
Mr. Boland
I move amendment No. 29:—
In page 7, lines 19 and 20, Section 19 (1), to delete the words "hearing before the Circuit Court of objections" and substitute the words "proceedings in the Circuit Court in relation".
This is purely a drafting amendment.
Amendment agreed to.
Mr. Boland
I move amendment No. 30:—
In page 7, Section 19 (1), to insert before paragraph (d) a new paragraph as follows:—
(d) that no certificate under Section 5 of the Act of 1833 has already been given by virtue of this section by reference to the original premises having been so burnt down or otherwise destroyed or rendered uninhabitable, and,
This is also a drafting amendment.
Amendment agreed to.
Mr. Boland
I could not accept amendment No. 31, in the name of Deputy Costello. I told Deputy Costello so, and probably that is the reason why he is not moving it.
Amendment No. 31 not moved.
Amendment No. 32 not moved.
On behalf of Deputy Costello, I move amendment No. 33:—
In page 8, before Section 20, but in Part III of the Bill, to insert a new section as follows:—
(1) Where—
(a) by reason of the discontinuance of the business carried on in any premises an off-licence attached to such premises is extinguished or surrendered, and
(b) the goodwill of the business formerly carried on in the said premises has for valuable consideration been acquired by or on behalf of any person who was in the employment of the owner of the said business prior to its discontinuance, and
(c) such person is carrying on a business similar or analogous to the same business in premises (hereinafter referred to as "the adjoining premises") adjoining or in the immediate vicinity of the premises to which the licence so extinguished or surrendered was attached,
the justice at any sitting of the District Court shall, notwithstanding anything contained in the Act of 1902 have power to grant an off-licence for the adjoining premises unless the justice refuses to issue such licence on one or more of the following grounds, namely, the character, misconduct or unfitness of the applicant or the unfitness or inconvenience of the premises.
(2) This section shall continue in force until the 31st day of December, 1944, and no longer unless the Oireachtas otherwise determines.
This amendment is meant to deal with an individual case, the case in Dame Street. Has the Minister any objection to it?
Mr. Boland
I have an objection. In the other case, the Clery case, there was a licence in existence and it was allowed to lapse. In this case, the premises were disposed of, the people actually in the business went out and people who were engaged there took over the premises next door, which never had a licence. If they sold the other premises as a going concern there would have been no objection and the incoming people could have got a renewal of the licence. This is an entirely new premises, and I see all sorts of objections to the granting of a licence.
It is for one case only.
Mr. Boland
There is really no merit that I can see in this proposal. I admit I have dealt with an individual case in this Bill, but there was much more merit in that case. In this case, the whole premises have gone and they are to be devoted to a different purpose altogether, a drapery establishment as distinct from a grocery establishment.
I understand the situation is that there was an old-established firm there who had an off-licence. They carried on other business as well. These people suddenly decided, without giving anybody a chance to arrange to take the whole premises, to sell out, and before these other people could get a group to buy over the whole premises, the sale was accomplished. Then some of the people employed in the previous business in Dame Street took over the place next door. They are not financially strong enough to go into the old line of business, but they propose to carry on as much of it as their resources will enable them to do. They ask for a transfer of the off-licence. If they were seeking an on-licence I can imagine it would be a much more serious proposition.
I might point out that these people are going to give employment to quite a big proportion of the folk who were previously employed in the main establishment and they want a transfer of the off-licence. The Minister will observe that the circumstances are very severely limited by the terms of Deputy Costello's amendment and the same situation will hardly ever arise again in the period specified in the amendment. It will also be noted that the goodwill of the business has to be taken over by some person in the employment of the previous business prior to its discontinuance.
At the moment such a person is carrying on a business similar or analogous to the original business. It would not affect a man opening the adjoining premises and carrying on a drapery business; he has to be in a business similar or analogous to the old business. The whole thing is very limited. If the licence transfer is not granted, there will be relatively great hardship arising. These people felt that they would get the transfer and now they are going to be faced with the usual difficulties.
Mr. Boland
Of course this would mean granting a new off-licence. I see a difficulty there and I am sorry I cannot consent to what is proposed. I do not see how I could. In the other case a restaurant business was being carried on and the licence lapsed for a number of years.
I am not saying that there is an analogy.
Mr. Boland
I am merely trying to justify myself in bringing in the other case. I would like to meet individual cases as far as I could and I have given this case sympathetic consideration, but I find it would be impossible to do what has been suggested.
As the Minister is no doubt aware, a new off-licence cannot be achieved. The objection based on the number of premises in the neighbourhood would prevent that.
Mr. Boland
I know that.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Mr. Byrne
I move amendment No. 34:—
In page 8, before Section 20, but in Part III, to insert a new section as follows:—
Section 3 of the Act of 1902 is hereby amended by the insertion after the words "for consumption on" of the words "or off".
Section 3 of the Act of 1902 says: "Where, by reason of the expiration of a lease, a licence for the sale of intoxicating liquors for consumption on the premises comprised in the lease is extinguished or surrendered, the licensing authority may, notwithstanding anything in this Act, grant a licence for a suitable premises in the immediate vicinity of the premises to which the licence so extinguished or surrendered was attached."
I do not intend to take up much time in advancing arguments in favour of the amendment. It speaks for itself. I am satisfied that had there been an organised body or association of off-licence holders in existence in 1902, no amendment would now be necessary. I should like to ask the Minister whether he intends at an early date to introduce legislation releasing certain family grocers from what many of them regard as penal clauses, and whether he will give the same concessions to off-licence holders as he has given to on-licence holders. An off-licence holder at present may find himself deprived of his licence and of his livelihood without any right of appeal and nothing has been brought into this Bill to safeguard him. It is not necessary to stress the matter. I urge the Minister to accept the amendment, but if he can suggest an alternative which would be acceptable to him, I am in his hands, provided it achieves my object, that is, full protection for the family grocer, and that if there are two convictions, they might be removed and the family grocer given a fresh start.
Mr. Boland
The Deputy is now on a different amendment.
Mr. Byrne
Sub-section (2) of Section 25 of the 1927 Act gave a life of five years to the first endorsement and——
Mr. Boland
Would the Deputy confine himself to one amendment? We can deal with the other afterwards. It is rather difficult to deal with the two together. I have no objection to the Deputy moving his previous amendment, but I should like to deal with one at a time.
We are dealing with amendment No. 34 and with no other.
Mr. Byrne
This is the first amendment which has come up for discussion in connection with off-licence holders, and I ask the Minister to consider the point I have made. I left the House for five minutes, during which time the Minister was allowed to rush seven amendments through, with the result that I was caught napping. If the Chair would give me the privilege of moving my previous amendment, which I failed to move in those circumstances, I should be very happy.
We cannot discuss that matter now.
Mr. Byrne
I quite agree, but the Minister very graciously said that, with the permission of the House, he had no objection to my dealing with it. On the general question of family grocers and endorsement of their licences, I merely ask that the same concessions be given to them as have very properly been given to licensed traders.
Mr. Boland
I do not think the amendment is necessary. Under the Landlord and Tenant Act, the holder would probably be entitled to a new lease, but, to make sure, I will accept the amendment. There is no reason why an off-licence holder should not get the same facilities as an on-licence holder.
Mr. Byrne
Might I ask if the Minister had anything special to say on my previous amendment?
We cannot discuss that amendment.
Mr. Byrne
The matter could arise on this section.
There was no discussion on it because it has been marked "not moved", and the House cannot go back on it.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendments Nos. 35, 36 and 37 not moved.
I move amendment No. 38:—
In page 11, before Section 26, but in Part V of the Bill, to insert a new section as follows:—
"Nothing in the Licensing (Ireland) Acts, 1833 to 1927, or in this Act, shall be deemed to prohibit any licensed person or his private friends from gaming by way of playing cards for stakes on licensed premises provided that such gaming is carried on in any part of such licensed premises other than the part in which the sale of intoxicating liquor generally takes place and the private friends of the licensed person are being bona fide entertained by him at his own expense.”
This is a matter to which I want to call attention. One of the Acts scheduled to the 1927 Act was the Licensing Act, 1872, Section 17, and the result of that section being scheduled is that if a person commits an offence against one of these enactments, there has to be an endorsement. Section 17 of the Licensing Act of 1872 simply says: "Permitting gaming on licensed premises" Gaming has been the subject of definition in quite a number of Acts, but it is not quite clear which of the definitions is strictly brought into the 1872 Act. There is a particular definition which means playing at any game where money passes, and the situation is that if a publican has friends on his premises and they are engaged in such an ordinary innocent matter as a game of bridge, so long as there are stakes on the game, the publican, if he is caught, may be prosecuted for permitting gaming on the premises. It is clearly not intended to cover any such thing as that. The amendment proposes to meet the position by tying it down very strictly and narrowly by saying that nothing in the earlier Acts shall be deemed to prevent a licensed person or his private friends from gaming by way of playing cards for stakes on licensed premises, provided that such gaming is carried on in what might be described as the private part of the establishment and that the private friends are being bona fide entertained by him at his own expense. I do not think there is anything wrong with the amendment, and I do not know whether the Minister feels that it is putting up a barrier against something which is not going to happen.
Mr. Boland
I am afraid it might be used as a sort of cloak. There has been no complaint of any hardship, so far as I know. The provision has not been carried out very strictly, and I have never got any complaints about it. There is the danger, however, that if we take the provision out of the licensing code, it may help people to evade the law.
Look at the situation that has to be met to get an exclusion. The publican must have people who are his private friends; they must be in the private part of the establishment; and if they are not playing an inhospitable game, the phrase is that they are being entertained bona fide at the publican's expense. All these provisos will cover the ordinary game of cards which a publican ought to be allowed to have.
Mr. Boland
That has never been interfered with.
No, but the difficulty is that I know cases of suspicious circumstances, so to speak, of people not adverting to the gaming aspect at all whose premises were entered and to whom the police have expressed themselves to the effect that "In the end, you were gaming on licensed premises". That was the threat held out. I can realise very well what the old Acts meant. These old Acts were drafted in a frame of mind which I think is not at all the modern frame of mind, that is, that a publican was a sort of outcast who was not to be allowed to do things which the ordinary person could do, with the result that they prevented a variety of things happening on licensed premises, one of them being gaming, because it was suggested that, if it were allowed, those taking part would make merry and there would be general debauchery. Look at the amendment: A publican entertaining his friends and having a game of cards in the private part of the establishment. I do not think that will ever make much of a gap in the Act.
Mr. Boland
Take the case of a bridge drive in the Gresham Hotel. Strictly speaking, that is not legal either because it is a licensed premises, and the bridge drive is gaming. I suppose that should be regularised just as much as this. My only objection is the one I have mentioned. I do not think people ought to be penalised in that fashion, but I should not like the amendment to be used as a cloak for evasion or that people should be able to put a deck of cards on the table and say they were friends of the publican. Suppose there was a raid on a premises, and the people there went up and got out a deck of cards, and evaded the law in that way?
The publican need not do that. If he is entertaining friends in a private part of the premises that is not an offence against the liquor laws. Why should he make an extra camouflage with a pack of cards?
Mr. Boland
I accept the amendment.
I would not agree to putting it into the Bill if it created any great gap in the licensing laws.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 39:—
In page 11, before Section 26, but in Part V of the Bill, to insert a new section as follows:—
Nothing in this Act shall operate to prohibit or render unlawful the serving of intoxicating liquor at any time in premises which are for the time being an hotel, to persons accompanying a person then lodging in such premises providing that such intoxicating liquor is ordered and paid for by the person so lodging in the hotel.
I put down this amendment having regard to the general attitude towards this question. At present if a person calls to see a friend at an hotel there is difficulty about asking him to have a drink. Of course the host may have a bottle in his room, or he may order a bottle to be brought there, but I am desperately opposed to bottles being brought into these rooms. I much prefer that they should openly have a drink where they are having dinner or lunch, whether the drink be a glass of wine or a glass of whiskey. I abhor the idea of driving people to bedrooms where they can drink out of bottles, whether it occurs in hotels or motor cars. That is a vicious practice. I do not see any reason why two respectable citizens, one of whom is staying in an hotel, cannot meet and, if necessary, transact some business and then have a drink. I do not think any abuse can arise from that. It may be said that it could by people with vicious minds who suspect everything. I am speaking of a well-conducted hotel, and I suggest that it would be better to authorise what I propose rather than have back-stairs methods and have bottles brought to bedrooms. I tried to put my proposal in such a way that nobody would be afraid of doing anything that was not within the licensing laws. As Deputy McGilligan pointed out, conditions have changed enormously in recent years.
There is a variety of other attractions besides drinking, such as picture houses, etc. Hotels are now subsidised by the State and they will have a direct interest in seeing that their character and reputation are raised. I put down the amendment to prevent abuse and the Minister would be wise to accept it.
The amendment is merely asking us to recognise what was generally thought to be the law for a number of years. As far as I am aware, everyone was under the impression up to the decision in the High Court by Mr. Justice Hanna, in the case of the Attorney-General v. Carroll, that a permanent resident in an hotel was entitled to invite in a friend. That was the generally accepted view up to that period. The decision in the case of the Attorney-General v. Carroll then upset the applecart and gave rise to a number of vexatious and silly prosecutions. The amendment asks us to assume what everyone recognised was the law of the land, not only in connection with hotels but ordinary public houses, into which a cattle dealer who stayed there the night before a fair could invite a friend. The amendment is a reasonable one and the Minister might accept it.
Mr. Lynch
Acceptance of the amendment would do a great deal to clarify the present position. There are people who believe that as the law stands they have the right to do this. It seems sensible to believe that if a man is resident in a hotel that is his dwelling for the time being. There is no reason why during his period of residence there he should not have the same rights as if he were in his own home. If a friend called he should be entitled to ask him to have a drink. That was accepted as the law until recent years. The Minister should clarify the position by accepting the amendment or, if the drafting is not satisfactory, bringing in one of a similar nature.
Mr. Boland
I think the licensing laws could not be enforced at all if the amendment were accepted in regard to hotels. There is no question about that. People could go into them and the bars would be open. Everybody in the town could be there. We know that there are parts of the country where that was done and where there was no such thing as a closing hour. I think Deputy Lynch is aware of that in one part of the country. The police would not be able to enforce the licensing laws in hotels if the amendment were agreed to. I could not accept it.
I agree with the Minister but I want to call his attention to another matter which was mentioned to me recently. Take the position of a licensed hotel in which there is a surplus of visitors who are sent to other premises where no food is cooked. These people sleep on one premises, say, on Saturday night, but they have to return to the hotel on Sunday for meals. It appears that they are not entitled to be on the hotel premises. That is a position that the Minister might look into. Some officers of the Gárda mentioned it to me. At seaside places there will be great difficulty in administering the law on Sundays if conditions of that kind are not provided for.
Mr. Boland
If it could be confined to genuine cases there would be no trouble about it. That is the difficulty. It could not be. We are aware of that. I admit that if this could be confined to friends genuinely living in a hotel it would be reasonable. I am well aware that it would not be confined to them.
Does the Minister not admit that, until the decision in the case of the Attorney-General v. Carroll, that position was accepted by the police and by everybody else as being the law of the land? Until then a number of Circuit judges on appeal held that if a person was resident on licensed premises, and wanted a drink, he could have it on paying for it.
Mr. Boland
When Deputies speak about a hotel being a man's home, I imagine that they have in mind the part in which he is living, or the room he is occupying. If he brought drink there and had it in his room there would not be much objection. That would be the law at present.
He cannot. That is the difficulty now.
Mr. Boland
In his own room?
Since the decision in the Carroll case he cannot do it. Would the Minister consider that point?
Mr. Boland
I would be prepared to go that far, if it is confined to the part of the house which he occupies, but that would not apply to general drinking in the bar. I shall see to that.
The Minister can hedge it round with as many regulations as he likes.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 40:—
In page 11, before Section 26, but in Part V of the Bill, to insert a new section as follows:—
"Paragraph E of the First Schedule to the Finance (1909-10) Act, 1910, is hereby amended by the deletion of Provision 2 and the substitution in lieu thereof of the following provision, that is to say:—
‘2. A railway restaurant car licence, granted in respect of a car in which passengers can be supplied with meals, authorises the sale by retail to passengers of any intoxicating liquor for consumption on the car and in any compartment of a train to which a car so licensed is attached'."
This is really a very small matter. It came to the notice of certain people that while the restaurant car attached to a train is licensed, it might be an offence for the waiter to bring a drink to a person sitting in a carriage attached to the restaurant car. Apparently the licence will not cover the whole train, and if a person sent up to the restaurant car for a drink, the waiter would be committing an offence if he brought it to him.
Mr. Boland
I think the Deputy should not press that amendment. If a person wants a drink on a train, it is not far to go down to the restaurant car. Passengers might object if drinking were carried on in other parts of the train.
As a matter of fact, the reason I move the amendment at all is to meet a very obvious case. In 90 per cent. of cases a person who wants a drink will go down to the restaurant car, because it is much more comfortable, but occasionally you find people travelling who are not in good health or who are very old. I think it is unreasonable that they should be obliged to go to the restaurant car.
Mr. Boland
I can see people occupying carriages where drink would be consumed objecting to that. I do not think it would be right to allow it.
It would make the whole train into a public house.
The railway company will take care of that. The railway company would have to face this difficulty, and they could not allow drink to be consumed generally in the carriages, because there would be objections to it. There is, however, the odd case of people whom the railway company would like to serve and they do not think that it will be very difficult to meet any objections that might be made. They feel that the legal impediment is there, that the restaurant car only is licensed. The Minister himself knows that scenes that occur on a train are not caused by people who get drink on the train, but by people who bring drink with them into the train.
Mr. Boland
I know that, but I could not agree to this amendment. In any case, it would mean an amendment of the Finance Act.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 41, in the name of Deputy Cogan, has been ruled out of order. The Deputy has been so informed.
I have not been informed. I am sorry I was not in the House when the matter was raised.
The Deputy cannot speak to the amendment when it is out of order.
Have any grounds been given for ruling it out of order?
I do not think it is any more drastic than any of the amendments that have been accepted.
Mr. Lynch
Is there any woman or girl who will admit she is over 25?
Will the Minister bring in an amendment to cover the point about hotels?
Mr. Boland
I shall.
Bill reported with amendments.
Report Stage ordered for Wednesday, 9th December.