Intoxicating Liquor Bill, 1942—From the Seanad.

The Dáil went into Committee to consider amendments by the Seanad to the Intoxicating Liquor Bill, 1942.

Minister for Justice (Mr. Boland)

I move that the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment No. 1:—

Section 4. In pages 2 and 3, paragraphs (A) and (B) deleted, and the following substituted:—

"by the deletion of sub-sections (1), (2), and (3) thereof and the insertion therein of the following two sub-sections in lieu of the said sub-sections so deleted, and the said Act and in particular sub-sections (4) and (5) of the said Section 2 shall be construed and have effect accordingly, that is to say:—

‘(1) Save as is otherwise provided by this Act, it shall not be lawful for any person in any county borough to sell or expose for sale any intoxicating liquor or to open or keep open any premises for the sale of intoxicating liquor or to permit any intoxicating liquor to be consumed on licensed premises:—

(a) on any weekday, 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

(b) on any Sunday:—

(i) in the case of the county borough of Dublin or the Dublin Metropolitan Area, before the hour of half-past 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

(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

The exceptions referred to in the foregoing paragraph (a) of this sub-section are:—

(i) that between the hours of half-past two o'clock and half-past three o'clock in the afternoon on any weekday the holder of an on-licence attached to premises situate in a county borough may receive on such premises orders (accompanied or not accompanied by payment) by post, telegraph, or telephone but not otherwise for intoxicating liquor to be consumed off the premises and to be delivered by such holder at the residence of the person so ordering the same or at a railway station but not otherwise and may so deliver the intoxicating liquor so ordered, but the person so ordering such intoxicating liquor shall not for the purposes of any other section of this Act be a person to whom intoxicating liquor may be lawfully sold or supplied on such premises between the said hours on the said days, and

(ii) that between the hours of half-past two o'clock and half-past three o'clock in the afternoon on any weekday the holder of an off-licence attached to premises situate in a county borough may receive verbally or otherwise on such premises orders (accompanied or not accompanied by payment) for intoxicating liquor to be consumed off the premises and to be delivered by such holder at the residence of the person ordering the same or at a railway station but not otherwise and may so deliver the intoxicating liquor so ordered and may open and keep open the said premises for the purpose of receiving such orders and may expose on such premises intoxicating liquor for sale on such orders.

(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—

(i) during a period of summer time, 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

(ii) during any period which is not a period of summer time, before the hour of ten o'clock in the morning or after the hour of ten o'clock in the evening, or

(b) at any time on any Sunday or on Christmas Day, Good Friday, or Saint Patrick's Day.' "

There were two changes inserted by the Seanad. When the Bill left the Dáil, the position was that on weekdays licensed premises could open from 10.30 a.m. until 10.30 p.m., with a split hour from 2.30 until 3.30 in the county boroughs. The opening hours on Sundays were 2 to 3 and 4 to 7 in the County Borough of Dublin and, in the other county boroughs, the hours were 1 to 3 and 5 to 7. In the Seanad this Bill was debated at considerable length. I do not know whether the debate there was quite as long as the debate we had in this House, but the Bill was recommitted in the Seanad and they made some changes. They went back to the 10 o'clock opening in the cities and made the opening hours 10 a.m. until 10 p.m., with the split hour in the middle of the day. I did my best to stick to the 10.30 arrangement, although my original proposal here was 10 o'clock; I made the best case I could for what was decided in the Dáil, but the Seanad were determined not to have that and they brought the position back to what it was originally—that is, from 10 a.m. to 10 p.m., with the split hour.

With regard to places outside the county boroughs, the position is the same as when the Bill left the Dáil, except that in winter the hour goes back to 10 o'clock. I made a special case in that connection in the Seanad. I said that the decision arrived at in the Dáil was influenced mostly by country Deputies who pointed out that in the cities the people were accustomed to new time, while in the country only old time was observed. The case made here was that the country people would be just leaving their work at the time the public houses would be closing. The Seanad decided on 10.30 for the country areas in the summer time and 10 o'clock in the winter. That means that the country public houses would have an advantage of half an hour over the boroughs on weekdays in the summer months. Following the decision of the Seanad, the position in the county boroughs is that the opening hours are from 10 a.m. to 10 p.m., with a split hour from 2.30 to 3.30. Outside the county boroughs the public houses will open at 10.30 a.m. and close at 10.30 p.m. in the summer time and at 10 o'clock in the winter.

As regards Sunday opening, the decision arrived at here was as I have already indicated, but in the Seanad, after a great deal of debate, and some divisions, they finally decided to have the opening at 1.30 p.m. and a closing at 3 p.m. and, following a two-hour gap, a further opening from 5 to 7. There is a difference between the Dublin Borough and the other boroughs of half an hour later opening for the first portion of the day. After hearing the arguments from all sides, and taking everything into consideration, I do not think there is much chance of improving the Bill, and perhaps it is just as well to leave it as it is. I would like to have uniformity if it could be got, but I am still satisfied that there are circumstances existing in the City of Dublin which justify a difference in the first portion of the day. There was a compromise in the Seanad, and there was a fair amount of agreement there. I do not think it would be fair to ask me, after all the trouble I have taken with this Bill, to go back again to the Seanad.

Mr. Byrne

I think the Minister should get back to the 2 to 5 arrangement on Sunday.

Mr. Linehan

I move, on behalf of Deputy McGilligan, amendment No. 1 to which the names of Deputy Cooney and Deputy Mrs. Redmond are also attached:—

In amendment No. 1, to delete paragraph (a) of the proposed new sub-section (1) and substitute therefor the following:—

(a) on any weekday—

(i) during a period of summer time, 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

(ii) during any period which is not a period of summer time, before the hour of ten o'clock in the morning or after the hour of ten o'clock in the evening, or (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.

I am rather surprised at the attitude the Minister is adopting. He says the Bill has come from the Seanad in fairly good form and that there was general agreement on it and he would not like anything to happen that would oblige him to take it back to the Seanad. Did not the Seanad do the very thing that the Minister brought in this Bill to stop—make a discrimination in the hours between two different areas? Is this not the actual position now, that you will have one public house 100 yards away from another and it will be entitled to remain open for a half an hour longer? If you fix the hours indicated by the Minister for a county borough, the public house at the end of the county borough will have to shut at 10 p.m., but the public house a short distance away, outside the borough boundary, will be entitled to remain open until 10.30 p.m. The Seanad, by their uncalled for meddling with the very good job that was done here, have brought the position back to what the Minister did not want at the start. The one thing on which there was absolute agreement was the closing at 10.30 p.m. There was no criticism from any side of the House in that connection.

Mr. Kennedy

Not everyone agreed.

Mr. Linehan

Deputy Kennedy was a bit vocal about hotels, but I do not recollect his voting against the 10.30 proposal. There were proposals to fix the closing hour at 11 p.m. and the Minister suggested that we should split the difference and the 10.30 closing hour was generally agreed upon. Now the Seanad have taken off a half hour in the cities and allowed it to remain for the country areas. Of course, that is a thing for which Deputies representing rural areas are thankful, but does the Minister not agree that it is a pity that there should be any alteration in the closing hour—that there should be any difference between any two areas so far as the closing hour is concerned?

Does the Minister really think there was a genuine demand for altering the 10.30 arrangement in Dublin? Will he not admit that the Deputies here who dealt with that particular section of the Bill are more entitled to have their views considered than are most of the members of the Seanad? I suggest they are, for the reason that the people who were dealing with the Bill in this House have more contact with the realities of the situation than members of the Seanad have. I am satisfied that Deputies on the opposite benches, on the Labour Benches and on these benches have a far more commonsense idea of what would be a better licensing code than the people in the Seanad who took away the half hour. I suggest it is perfectly obvious that the Senators who decided to take away the half hour in the county boroughs are people who lead quiet and more secluded lives possibly than the average Deputy here. I am quite sure that they felt they were doing the best thing possible, but I doubt very much if their outlook on this matter is anything as realistic as that of members of the Dáil.

When the Bill left this House for the Seanad there was general satisfaction with it as far as ordinary opening hours were concerned. I am satisfied that publicans, the assistants, and the consuming public were quite satisfied with the hours in the Bill as it left this House. I think the Minister will agree that it would be far better to have a levelling of hours all round rather than to have any discrimination in that respect. That was the Minister's original idea. If we are going to have the position where one house will be open half an hour later than another, that means that something like the bona fide traffic will appear again. That is the black spot in the Bill. It is a silly idea. I do not think there would be any resentment if the half hour extra was given to the boroughs. As far as Dublin is concerned, it is the metropolis, and it is unreasonable to suggest that houses there and in the cities should not remain open as long as houses in rural districts. On the different stages we objected strongly to discrimination against rural dwellers as regards facilities for Sunday, and city people have an equally strong case in objecting to discrimination against them owing to the fact that the business hours are shorter. The Minister got a good Bill as it left this House. I am glad to be able to say that he made a good fight in the Seanad against the amendment that was inserted there. The Seanad did not improve the Bill that left this House but introduced a bad feature in arranging different hours. Even at the expense of returning the Bill to the Seanad, the Minister would be well advised to stand by the original hours and to have 10.30 closing all round—in boroughs or outside them.

Mr. Kennedy

I want to remind the last speaker that when I spoke previously on this Bill the Minister had precedence and I could not continue. But I was vocal on every stage of the Bill. I agree with Deputy Linehan that there should be uniform closing. There is no demand from the consuming public for an extension of the hours. The whole atmosphere of the debate about this Bill has been a publican's atmosphere, and a Dublin publican's atmosphere, and they do not care a thraneen about the rest of the trade.

Mr. Cooney

That is not the atmosphere.

Mr. Kennedy

It is.

Mr. Cooney

It is not.

Mr. Kennedy

That is my opinion and I am entitled to express it. The whole atmosphere of the debate on this Bill has been a Dublin publicans' atmosphere. I was brought up in the trade, and I live by the trade. Since this Bill was debated in the Seanad, I have been in about a dozen rural shops where I was asked to go to the Minister requesting him to see the Minister for Supplies about issuing extra supplies of kerosene, so that they might keep open for the extra half hour.

Mr. Linehan

This is not emergency legislation; this is permanent legislation.

Mr. Kennedy

I do not know how permanent it is. Summer time is not permanent, and I do not think it is provided for in the Bill.

Mr. Linehan

It is.

Mr. Kennedy

There is provision for keeping open until 10 o'clock on Saturday nights. That is a retrograde step. I am glad to see that Deputy Davin is now in the House. I should like to hear his views.

Mr. Davin

I did not know you were speaking.

Mr. Kennedy

There must be some kind of telepathy. When I spoke about the rights of assistants under this Bill on a previous occasion Deputy Davin was surprised when I mentioned that assistants would be on their feet from early morning until all hours in the night. Without being controversial, I say that it is all right when speaking of towns, where assistants have trade union branches to see that they get their rights, but I should like to know from Deputy Davin what will happen to those who are serving an apprenticeship in shops 15 or 20 miles from a town. Parents are glad to get their boys to business in order to serve their time to the grocery trade and the bar trade, but in country districts, where there are no police barracks and no trade unions, what is going to be the position? I calculate that the extension of the hours by one half-hour means four or five extra hours' work for assistants in country districts. That is a retrograde step. It is not right, and the general public do not demand it. I was blackballed here when I spoke about one aspect of this Bill, I bowed to the decision of the Chair then.

Mr. Davin

Who blackballed you?

Mr. Kennedy

I was vocal on this Bill. Deputy Linehan is wrong in saying that I was not. I was interested in the whole Bill. I am interested in seeing that everybody gets his rights as far as drinking facilities are concerned. I am not a Pussyfoot or a teetotaller. The assistants have rights and the community have rights. I agree that it is right to have the same closing hour and not to have one public house closed while another one 100 yards away can remain open.

Mr. Linehan

I used the expression "opening hours".

Mr. Kennedy

If we are going to make the hours uniform, we should go back to 10 o'clock closing in rural areas as well as city areas. I will go this distance with Deputy Davin, that I would be in favour of 10.30 opening in Dublin and 10 o'clock closing, because we are dealing with the metropolis, with a population of over 500,000 people. Distances do not seem so great in the city as in the country. There are rights which the people in the metropolis should have. I differ from Deputy Corry on this Bill. The Deputy proclaimed himself a teetotaller. I am not a teetotaller. I am a man who takes a drink.

An Ceann Comhairle

The amendment before the House purports to have the same weekday hours in county boroughs as in the country. It would be better to dispose of that point first.

Mr. Byrne

We cannot discuss the closing hours now?

An Ceann Comhairle

Yes; that the same hours obtain in county boroughs as in the country.

Mr. Bennett

I am sorry that the Minister is asking the House to depart from the great unanimity that we had reached on this Bill before it left this House. I hope he will not force a division on this matter. When the Bill was originally before the Dáil, the Minister met the arguments of Deputies from all sides of the House very fairly. One of the most obnoxious sections in the Bill, as originally presented to the House, was, in my opinion, the one that created a difference in hours between the rural and city areas. I am as much opposed to that now as I was heretofore. I still think that we ought to adhere to a uniformity in hours. As Deputy Linehan has pointed out, everybody knows what the position will be if there is a difference in the closing hours as between the rural and city areas, which, in some places, may be separated by only a quarter or half a mile. If a position of that kind is to be created now it will, in my opinion, undo all the good which the Minister hopes to achieve by this measure. People in the country with whom I have discussed the matter are in favour of having uniformity of hours. They are of opinion that the opening and closing hours in, for example, the County Boroughs of Limerick and Cork should be the same as the opening and closing hours in the rural areas.

Deputy Kennedy suggested that, for the sake of uniformity, we should get back to the hour of 10 o'clock. I would be altogether against that. In my view, a 10 o'clock closing hour in the rural areas would be much too early, especially during the period of summer time. In reality, it would mean closing at 9 o'clock, old time. During this year the people engaged in the agricultural industry will be working in the fields, saving hay or gathering the harvest, almost to that hour. If we were to go back to 10 o'clock it would practically mean closing the public houses altogether, so far as the rural workers are concerned. I am in favour of the amendment which proposes to restore the position to that which existed in the Bill when it left this House. I hope the Minister will not be tempted by any arguments that were made in the Seanad to go back on the decision that was arrived at by the members of this House.

Mr. Corry

I am amazed at the acrobatic feats of my colleague, Deputy Kennedy, who now wants a levelling up of hours, but when the Bill was before the Dáil previously, he wanted so many hours allowed for this city on Sundays that a man could go from one public house to another in O'Connell Street for his pint, while the unfortunate farm labourer in the country would have to walk three miles before he could get one. That was the kind of levelling up the Deputy wanted for the country areas. The Deputy is very anxious about the assistants, but what about the unfortunate farm labourer who has no hours at all? He has to be up at a quarter to six in the morning, and is working in the fields until 9 o'clock at night. Deputy Kennedy wants to have the country public houses closed against him when he goes to get a pint in the evening. The Deputy is also in favour of making that man, who is tired on a Sunday after working all the week, walk three miles in order to be able to get a drink. In my view, there is no levelling up in that kind of game. I would like to see uniformity, but I am definitely opposed to the taking away of any little privilege that the órdinary worker in the country enjoys at present. As Deputy Bennett has pointed out, men will be working in the fields this year up to 8 or 9 o'clock at night saving hay and saving the harvest. If the proposals here were agreed to, they would find the country public houses closed against them at the end of their day's work. Many of us would like to see the boys, after working a couple of hours overtime, being able to go down to the local public house to get a drink. I think it would be very unfair to close the public houses against them. It is a small privilege they enjoy at present, and it should not be taken from them. Perhaps, after this year, Deputy Kennedy may change his mind on this. The Tillage Order is now going to be enforced in the County Meath, so that the boys there, who heretofore had all day to drink, will have a bit of work to do and will be very glad to have an hour in the evening in which to get a drink. My experience of the County Meath has been that the men there do not get up until about 11 o'clock or start the day's work until 12 o'clock. I suppose the day does not end too early with them either. They had not much to do anyway, but now, with the enforcement of the Tillage Order, the boys there will have to work and cannot afford to spend as much time lying in the ditches reading the papers.

An Ceann Comhairle

What has that to do with the proposal before the Committee?

Mr. Corry

Deputy Kennedy has been advocating——

An Ceann Comhairle

The Committee was not summoned to discuss the alleged inconsistencies of Deputy Kennedy.

Mr. Corry

I am discussing the uniformity of hours. Deputy Kennedy's argument in favour of uniformity of hours was that the closing hour in the county boroughs should be 10 o'clock and that there should be the same closing hour in the country as well.

An Ceann Comhairle

The amendment does not propose to alter the hours for the country licensed trade.

Mr. Corry

I am supporting that.

An Ceann Comhairle

That was not evident to the Chair.

Mr. Corry

Despite the fact that we got a raw deal here as regards Dublin and Cork, as compared to the rest of the country, on Sundays, I would like to see equal treatment given to all citizens, and for that reason I am in favour of the amendment. I happened to be in the Seanad when this matter was being discussed there. The chief agitator for the shortening of hours on Sundays was a gentleman who lives in a public house in the County Kildare.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy had better leave personalities out of debate.

Mr. Corry

When we look around us we see that some of the people who are doing these queer things are themselves publicans.

Mr. McMenamin

There is more in this than the question of civic rights. As I understand it, this Bill was introduced mainly for the purpose of rectifying a position that was said to exist in certain country areas. In my contributions on the earlier stages of the Bill, I kept that in view. The obvious way to remedy the matters complained of was to link up the closing hours in the cities with the closing hours in the partly suburban areas by reducing the gap to such an extent that it would not be worth people's while to travel from one area to another for the purpose of getting drink. I think it is most unfortunate that the Minister should have consented to this amendment in the Seanad.

Mr. Boland

I would like to correct the Deputy on that. So far as this amendment is concerned and the discussion on it in the Seanad, it was not a question of my consent. There was a division on it there, and a big majority in favour of the change.

Mr. Davin

Against the Minister's wishes?

Mr. Boland

I said that I would prefer to leave it to the Dáil, and to that extent, the answer is, "yes."

Mr. McMenamin

This matter of remedying the abuses that were said to exist in certain areas outside the city was put forward, when the Bill was originally before us, as one of the keystones in the measure. If that is to go now, there is not much object in the Bill. It is really only a machinery Bill. That, of course, is by the way. It is quite obvious that, if this amendment is accepted, and a differentiation made in the times of closing the public houses in the urban as distinct from the rural areas, we will have a repetition of the incidents and complaints that were put before this House by the Minister when he introduced this Bill. If this amendment is accepted, the public houses in, say, Rathfarnham, or any of the other outlying parts of the city, will be closed at 10 o'clock. Let us assume that, at 10 o'clock, there are 100 people in three public houses in that area. The whole lot leave and go a couple of hundred yards outside the city boundary, arriving at a licensed premises there. They have the right to go in there for half an hour, and they rush in for three or four more drinks. They will be put out at 10.30 and then the Guards will have to deal with them. We will then have a repetition of the incidents which brought about this present Bill. There will be an outcry from clergymen and civilians as to the conduct of people in those areas, and the Guards will be blamed as they have already been blamed in this House.

We were told on the Second Reading and on the Committee Stage of this Bill that if the Guards did their duty there would be no trouble at all, and the incidents complained of would not take place. In my opinion, so long as that set of circumstances is permitted to obtain, the Guards cannot remedy the evil. It is utterly impossible for them to do so. We have to put the necessary machinery into the hands of the Guards. If we fail to do that, in my opinion it is unjust and improper to blame the Guards for being unable to put an end to the scenes that have been complained of. If this amendment from the Seanad is accepted, the evils complained of will be accentuated. The shorter space of time available will result in an accentuation of the evils. Those people will rush out of the public houses in the extreme suburbs of the city, go into the nearest public house outside the boundary, and rush three or four drinks in that half hour. Then they will come out, and we are asking the Guards to deal with the scenes that will arise. I think it is a monstrous suggestion. It is utterly unjust that the House should place such a burden on the Guards. I did not read the report of the speeches in the Seanad, so I do not know the grounds on which they based their arguments in support of putting in this amendment, but, if the Seanad further considered the evils which necessitated the introduction of this Bill by the Minister, I think they would be very slow in fixing different closing hours for public houses in the urban and rural areas. In my opinion, the Minister should boldly reject this amendment. I think he should have rejected it in the Seanad. We had complaints that men and women could not travel in buses or be out of doors anywhere in those suburban areas without being insulted, and in my opinion the amendment inserted by the Seanad would only lead to a repetition of those evils.

Mr. Cooney

In view of the fact that this amendment has been discussed at great length, I do not intend to delay the House for more than a minute or two. I resent what Deputy Kennedy said, when speaking here earlier, that the whole atmosphere of the debate in this House was the Dublin publicans' atmosphere. I think I am entitled to express resentment at that, in view of the fact that the majority of those who took part in the discussion on the Second Reading and on the Committee Stage of the Bill were not associated in any way with the Dublin publicans. The nearest approach to the Dublin publicans sits on the Independent Benches in the person of Deputy Alderman Byrne. Evidently he is still living in the age of Queen Anne, because he wants the hours to remain at 2 to 5 on Sundays. In view of the fact that the Minister put forward from his Department strong evidence showing the abuses which the bona fide traffic has caused, and brought in proposals to remedy that, one would have expected that Deputy Byrne would address himself to that question, but he did not do so.

I want to make one point in favour of the amendment proposed here. I want to make the point—Deputy Linehan made it, I think, on the Second Reading—that we have to make laws which can be enforced. We should not create an impossible situation for the Guards. In the suburbs on the border line of the city and county area the Guards would be in an impossible position if the amendment proposed here is not accepted. I listened attentively to the discussion in the Seanad, and I agree with Deputy Linehan who said that Deputies in this House did everything possible to help the Minister to make this a good Bill. In my opinion in regard to this particular section, it was a good Bill leaving this House. The people who brought in the amendment in the Seanad have not the same contact with public opinion as we have, and have not the same sense of responsibility, because we are directly elected by the people outside, and, therefore, we are more responsible to the community as a whole. In the interests of the community as a whole, I hope the amendment proposed here will be accepted.

Mr. Cogan

I think I was the only Deputy in the House who opposed the extension of half an hour so far as the city areas are concerned. I opposed on the grounds that there is a distinct difference between rural areas and city areas, inasmuch as in the country areas the people go by the sun's time, whereas in the urban areas the overwhelming majority of the people abide by summer time. Therefore, the extension of half an hour in the evening was unjustifiable as far as the city areas are concerned. Therefore, I should like to congratulate the Seanad on altering the Bill, and to congratulate the Minister on accepting this amendment. It has been repeatedly said that the Bill as it left this House was a good Bill. On the last occasion when it was before the House, I said it was a bad Bill, and as far as it has been amended by the Seanad I think it has been definitely improved.

Mr. Byrne

Deputy Cooney has moved me to intervene. I thought I had said all that was necessary during the last debate on the Bill. The Deputy referred to me as having a knowledge of the licensed trade. I have a good knowledge of the licensed trade, and of the conditions of the workers generally in that trade. I may say that any one who is a member of the licensed trade must have a good character. The Guards investigate his character for years back to find whether he is a proper and suitable person to get a licence If he has done anything wrong that has drawn the attention of the Gárdaí to him, he will not get a licence. I, therefore, have nothing to apologise for in being associated at one time with the licensed trade. There are men in that trade who would do honour to this House, or to any other assembly, not alone in this country, but in any part of Great Britain. They are conducting a clean, honest trade. They despise the drunkard, and they do not want the drunkard's money.

Mr. Cooney

No one implied anything to the contrary.

Mr. Byrne

I want to say that I am proud to have been associated in the past with this trade. To this day, there are men in that trade who would do honour to their country and to their trade if it were more strongly represented in this House. On the last occasion on which the Bill was before this House, I strongly objected to interference with the existing hours for opening on Sunday. The licensed traders wanted no alteration whatever in these hours.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The question of Sunday hours is not being discussed on this amendment.

Mr. Byrne

It is an unfortunate feature of debates in this House that some Deputies sometimes succeed in getting away with a particular assertion whilst other Deputies, who would like to rebut it, get no opportunity of doing so. Deputy Cooney this evening got away with the assertion that I was the nearest approach in this House to the licensed trade.

Mr. Cooney

The Deputy should keep the reference in its proper context.

Mr. Byrne

I want to justify my attitude. I objected strongly to the extension of the opening hours on Sunday, and in doing so I complimented the Minister on the manner in which he had conducted the Bill through the House and on the improvements which he had made. I still object to the alteration in the hours, not alone on behalf of the assistants but also on behalf of members of the licensed trade who would like to have an hour or two after 12 o'clock Mass before opening their premises, and who would also like to have an opportunity in the evening to bring members of their family for a tram ride or a bus ride.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I must ask the Deputy to confine himself strictly to the amendment before the House.

Mr. Byrne

I shall not waste much of the time of the House. I think it is a most retrograde step to alter the hours 2 to 5. The period allowed by a 2 to 5 opening is quite long enough for any man who is a moderate drinker, and we should have some regard for the interests of hardworking men in the city and for those of their wives.

Mr. Moran

I should like to support the Dáil amendment now before the House. I think from the arguments that have been put forward, on the grounds of uniformity alone, that the Minister should accept the amendment. Taking this State as a whole, we are a small community and conditions do not vary very much, as far as the population is concerned, between one part of the country and another. I see no reason in the world why the city should be put in a different position from that of the country. As has been already pointed out, that would only give rise to difficulties in administration for the Gárdaí who will have to enforce this Act. I have always thought the different trading hours which exist in certain contiguous areas in England, Scotland and Wales, rather absurd. In these countries, I understand certain local councils or borough authorities have the right to fix the hours for certain areas and the fact that there is no uniformity as between one area and another, has given rise to great difficulties and grave abuses. That is recognised over there by everybody connected with the trade. I should like the Minister to accept this amendment as by doing so he will establish uniformity and every citizen will know the exact position. The amendment will also make it possible for the Guards to enforce the licensing laws with greater ease.

Mr. Dillon

Would anyone tell me what these amendments mean? Everybody is looking as if he understood them, but I do not believe that anybody in the House really knows what the amendments mean.

Mr. Cooney

Perhaps the Deputy would read the Seanad amendments.

Mr. Dillon

We have an amendment proposed by the Seanad which the Minister has asked the House to accept. To that amendment an amendment has been moved by Deputy McGilligan, Deputy Cooney and Deputy Mrs. Redmond. What will happen if we accept Deputy McGilligan's amendment? Will the procedure be that the Bill will have to go back to the Seanad?

Mr. Boland

Yes.

Mr. Dillon

And they will have to have another round. If the Seanad rejects our amendment will the Bill have to come back to us again? Perhaps the Minister at this stage would tell us what is the effect of Deputy McGilligan's amendment?

Mr. Boland

If passed?

Mr. Dillon

Yes.

Mr. Boland

The procedure is that if this amendment be passed, the Bill will have to go back to the Seanad and I shall have to tell them that the Dáil does not agree with their amendment. Then if they insist on their amendment, they can hold up the Bill for 90 days from the day on which the Bill first went to them.

Mr. Dillon

Suppose the Dáil and the Seanad agree to Deputy McGilligan's amendment what will happen?

Mr. Boland

In that case there would be no hold up and the position would be that in the summer time licensed houses in the country and in the city would close at 10.30 and in winter time at 10 o'clock.

Mr. Dillon

Has the Minister intervened to say what is his view?

Mr. Boland

I stated at the beginning that I said in the Seanad that I would prefer uniformity but there was a very strong feeling in the Seanad on this matter. I do not agree with Deputies who have said that Senators were out of touch with public opinion. I felt more in touch with public opinion in the Seanad than I did in this House and I had to express regret there that I did not get the same reception here as I got there because undoubtedly the point of view which I expressed on this Bill was shared by several members of the Seanad. I did point out, however, there that it would be very advisable to have uniformity in the hours. There was a very strong feeling, as I have stated, on this amendment and any division that existed there, as far as I could see, was not on Party lines. The amendment made by the Seanad was carried by 24 votes to 12 votes, the minority voting to leave the Bill as it came from the Dáil. At a later stage, the Seanad had another amendment dealing with the country, and I appealed to them to leave the country hours as they were adopted by the Dáil because I pointed out that the case made for the country licensed houses was that country workers worked by the sun. In the city, we all know that workers work according to the official summer time. I appealed to Senators to leave the country hours as the Dáil had fixed them, and the Seanad agreed to that course. As I was anxious for uniformity, I suggested that they might agree to make the closing hour 10 o'clock in the winter time and they also agreed to that course. Now the Dáil wants to change the hours so that we shall have a similar closing hour in the city and in the country—that is 10 o'clock in winter time and 10.30 in summer time.

I am inclined to accept the amendment which has now been put forward, but I do not like to have to go back to the Seanad to argue over the matter of half an hour. I am not, however, prepared to agree to the next amendment which is being brought forward here. The case for this amendment, however, has been made pretty well, and it happens to coincide with my own views. Another point which I mentioned in the Seanad was that the gap between the closing hour in the city and those during which bona fide traffic could be carried on outside was being enlarged by the Seanad amendment. I do not like that two-hour gap, and on the whole I am inclined to accept this amendment.

Mr. Norton

We have had a really lengthy discussion on this amendment already. I thoroughly agree with the amendment which the Seanad made. There is no demand in the city for an extension of the closing hour to 10.30 at night. Nobody ever demanded it. As good a case could be made for an 11 o'clock or a 11.30 closing as for a 10.30 closing. There has been no public demand for a 10.30 closing, and no worker is really inconvenienced by a closing hour of 10 o'clock. City workers who finish their work at 6 or 7 o'clock have a reasonable time afterwards to get refreshments up to 10 p.m. In the country the position is somewhat different because the workers there work by the sun, and very often after they finish their work they have to travel a considerable distance if they wish to visit a licensed premises. That is not the position in Dublin. The difficulty there is that licensed premises are sometimes found too easily.

There is another consideration in connection with the matter. A very large number of persons employed in the licensed trade in Dublin, because of the nature of the trade, are compelled to work late hours. Whenever the licensed premises are open up to 10 o'clock, the assistants are required to stay on until 10.30 in order to clean up the place. If the premises were open until 10.30, it would be well after 11 o'clock before they would be able to leave. The Dáil should have some advertence to the conditions under which these assistants work and should not capriciously impose on them an obligation to work until 10.30 when 10 p.m. would be adequate for everybody. The Minister knows that there is no public demand for the later hour and that the Seanad, when it inserted this amendment, was much more closely in touch with public opinion than this House was. I hope the Minister will resist this amendment.

Question put: "That the words proposed to be deleted from the Seanad amendment stand."

The Committee divided: Tá, 8; Níl, 79.

Tá.

Byrne, Alfred.
Corish, Richard.
Davin, William.
Everett, James.
Hannigan, Joseph.
Murphy, Timothy J.
Norton, William.
Pattison, James P.

Níl.

Aiken, Frank.
Allen, Denis.
Beegan, Patrick.
Bennett, George C.
Benson, Ernest E.
Boland, Gerald.
Bourke, Dan.
Brady, Brian.
Brady, Seán.
Breathnach, Cormac.
Breen, Daniel.
Breslin, Cormac.
Briscoe, Robert.
Broderick, William J.
Brodrick, Seán.
Buckley, Seán.
Coburn, James.
Cooney, Eamonn.
Corry, Martin J.
Costello, John A.
Crowley, Fred Hugh.
Crowley, Tadhg.
Daly, Patrick.
De Valera, Eamon.
Dillon, James M.
Dockrell, Henry M.
Doyle, Peadar S.
Esmonde, John L.
Fagan, Charles.
Flynn, John.
Flynn, Stephen.
Fogarty, Patrick J.
Friel, John.
Giles, Patrick.
Hogan, Daniel.
Hughes, James.
Keane, John J.
Keating, John.
Kelly, James P.
Kennedy, Michael J.
Kissane, Eamon.
Lemass, Seán F.
Linehan, Timothy.
Loughman, Francis.
Lynch, Finian.
Lynch, James B.
McCann, John.
McDevitt, Henry A.
MacEntee, Seán.
McGilligan, Patrick.
McGovern, Patrick.
McMenamin, Dániel.
Meaney, Cornelius.
Moran, Michael.
Morrissey, Michael.
Mullen, Thomas.
O Briain, Donnchadh.
O Ceallaigh, Seán T.
O'Donovan, Timothy J.
O'Grady, Seán.
O'Higgins, Thomas F.
O'Loghlen, Peter J.
O'Reilly, Matthew.
O'Rourke, Daniel.
O'Sullivan, John M.
O'Sullivan, Ted.
Redmond, Bridget M.
Rice, Brigid M.
Ryan, James.
Ryan, Jeremiah.
Ryan, Martin.
Ryan, Robert.
Sheridan, Michael.
Smith, Patrick.
Traynor, Oscar.
Victory, James.
Walsh, Laurence J.
Walsh, Richard.
Ward, Conn.

Tellers:—Tá: Deputies Everett and Murphy; Níl: Deputies Smith and Seán Brady.

Question declared lost.

Question—"That the proposed words be inserted in lieu of the words deleted"—put and agreed to.

Mr. McGilligan

I move amendment No. 2:—

In amendment No. 1, in the proposed new sub-section (1) (b) (i) to delete the words "half-past one" and substitute the word "one".

As this amendment, and the following amendment, standing in my name, deal with a similar matter, I think that we might discuss them together. This amendment relates to Sunday opening in this city alone. When the Bill left this House for the Seanad, the hours which had then been arrived at were 1 to 3 o'clock and 5 to 7 o'clock. The original arrangement was from 2 to 5 o'clock, but, as a result of certain discussions, the hours of 1 to 3 o'clock and 5 to 7 o'clock were fixed.

Mr. Boland

For Dublin? From 2 to 3 o'clock and from 4 to 7 o'clock.

Mr. McGilligan

In any event, we got the Bill back from the Seanad with hours which were not the hours in the Bill when it left this House. The difficulty that arises in connection with the whole matter, as I understand it, arises not from the Intoxicating Liquor Act itself but from the interaction of the particular hours here stated and of the conditions of the Shops Act. The situation as it has been explained to me is that if the hours be kept as they are in the measure coming back from the Seanad, the assistants are entitled to a particular type of compensatory half-holiday. If that compensatory half-holiday is to be given, there does not seem to be any reason why the extra half-hour of opening should not be allowed and that extra half-hour of opening, during the mixed discussions we had here on a variety of hours, seemed to have the approval of the House.

The only objection made was in relation to the impact of the earlier opening upon Gaelic athletic games and the particular times required for these games. I understand that that objection was, to a certain extent, waived—it certainly was not made a great deal of in the Seanad—and the position then would appear to be that if anything over three hours in the way of opening on Sunday is granted, there has to be a compensatory half-holiday given to the assistants and it has to be given under such conditions, taking the whole effect of the two Acts together, that two evenings have to be given, which will mean a considerable extra cost to those in possession of licensed houses.

There are two alternatives here. One is to go back to the 2 to 5 o'clock period, in which case there will be no compensatory half-holiday. If it is necessary to take other hours than the old hours, move back from 1.30 p.m. to 1 o'clock, which will not disturb the conditions which will be necessitated by the impact of the Shops (Conditions of Employment) Act. The only thing that will happen will be that in return for giving a half-holiday, those in the licensed trade will get an extra half hour's work out of the assistants. Either of the two is a better arrangement than what is before the House.

Mr. Norton

I want to support this amendment on grounds somewhat similar to those advanced by Deputy McGilligan. When the Bill left this House, it provided a four-hour opening period on Sunday. The Minister was apparently quite satisfied to accept the Bill as it left this House, but the Seanad has seen fit to change it in such a way as to alter its provisions as compared with its provisions when we last saw it here. The effect of the Seanad amendment is that the assistant who works on Sunday is going to have his conditions of employment seriously worsened inasmuch as he is to be compelled in future to work until 10.30 at night, and, instead of having to work on Sunday from 2 to 5 o'clock, is to work from 1.30 to 3 o'clock and from 5 to 7 o'clock. That is a considerable extension of his spread-over on Sundays.

If we are going to do that deliberately to the assistants, in order to provide additional drinking facilities on Sundays, we ought frankly to acknowledge that we have some obligation to the assistants. Whether we accept this amendment or whether we leave the Bill as it stands, we are still imposing a hardship on them, inasmuch as we are spreading out the Sunday attendance, and we ought at least to provide some compensation for it and give the assistants some bargaining power with their employers by providing in the Bill for a four-hour attendance on Sundays. I would prefer to see the Sunday opening hours from 2 to 5 o'clock as formerly. I do not think there is any great demand for the opening hours proposed in the Bill when the Minister introduced it; I do not think there is any great demand for the hours proposed by the Seanad, or even for the hours suggested in this amendment; but if we are going to alter the hours on Sundays and to worsen the conditions of the assistants by increasing the spread-over, the least we ought to do is to give them some bargaining power with their employers in respect of their altered conditions.

As Deputy McGilligan points out, a three and a half hour attendance on Sundays will enable assistants to secure a half-holiday, but if the hours are extended to four hours, they will be able to get a whole day off in respect of working for those four hours. As we are definitely worsening their conditions, the least the Minister ought to do is to extend the hours and fix 1 to 3 o'clock and 5 to 7 o'clock for Sunday opening, instead of the three and a half hour period provided in the Bill. That extension will enable the assistants to bargain with their employers in relation to what compensation they are to get because of the alteration of their conditions under the Bill. I should imagine the Minister would be glad to accept this amendment, because it is in tune with the viewpoint he expressed when the Bill was last before the House, and, seeing that he has accepted the previous amendment, which he said was also in tune with his views, I hope he will have no hesitation in accepting this amendment.

Mr. Cooney

It is said that there is more joy in heaven over the conversion of one sinner, etc., etc. I feel very happy this evening to hear Deputy Norton, the Leader of the Labour Party, delivering, in substance, the speeches I made on the Second and subsequent Stages. Notwithstanding the fact that I was then denounced as a renegade both in the House and outside it by some of the Deputy's new-found friends, I feel very happy, whether this amendment is accepted or not, although I hope it will be accepted for the very specific reasons I advocated then. I saw the position clearly. I was speaking, as I told the House, as one with an inside knowledge of the business. I knew the bargaining power was there in the hands of the operatives, and I knew further that it was in the best interest of the community that this county borough, the capital of the State, should have a 1 o'clock opening on Sunday.

This capital of the State is the Minister's native city, and I know that his strongest objection to the 1 o'clock opening on Sunday is his conviction that it would seriously hamper the progress of the national games. With your permission, Sir, I should like to read an extract from a speech delivered by Senator Foran in the Seanad in connection with that point:—

"With regard to the hours set out in the amendment for opening in Dublin on Sundays, we had a good deal of discussion on that matter on former stages of the Bill. The playing of hurling and football in Dublin entered largely into the discussion. The proposal in the amendment is that public houses in Dublin be permitted to open at 1.30 p.m. I would appeal to the Minister to go back to the 1 o'clock opening. I am reliably informed by people interested in the games that the opening of public houses at 1 o'clock on Sundays would not seriously interfere with the G.A.A. The 1 o'clock opening would also ensure that the assistants would get the benefit of the Shop Hours Act in the sense that they would get an extra half-day in consequence of having worked four hours. They will get no recompense for working three and a half hours. That is a very important consideration for the assistants generally and I appeal to the Minister to take it into consideration."

Again this is a repetition in substance of the case I made on the Second Reading and the Committee Stage. I do not think I have anything further to add, as Deputy Norton has taken up his stand and decided to follow me into the Lobby. If I am permitted to vote as a free lance, I shall vote for this amendment, but I do not know what the Minister is determined to do in the last analysis.

There is one further comment I should like to make. The Minister paid a tribute to the Senators which I think was overdone, if I might say so. I think that the Deputies on all sides in this House gave as generous and sincere help to the Minister as was within their power and knowledge. Again I repeat that they speak in this House with a greater sense of responsibility and knowledge of the consequences that may flow from their actions than Senators have to face.

It will be unfortunate if the Minister is determined to stand by the hour of 1.30, because otherwise we have what, in my opinion, is almost, as far as human ingenuity can go, a perfect Bill—that is, so far as it is possible to have a perfect Bill. The other three boroughs are given the hours of 1 to 3 and 5 to 7. One would almost imagine that the national games do not figure at all in any of the other boroughs. What about Cork? I am surprised that Cork Deputies have not taken up the cudgels and said that the hours of 1 to 3 would not injure the national games there. However, we may hear from them later. I do not know what proportion of the employees in Cork play the national games, but I have a fairly good knowledge of the number of those employed in the licensed trade in Dublin who play the national games. I have further knowledge that, so far as these are concerned, there would be no difficulty whatever in ensuring that those who play the national games would be facilitated in every respect. Therefore, I appeal to the Minister to put the Capital of this State on the same basis in regard to licensing facilities as the other three county boroughs, and I hope he will agree to this amendment.

Mr. Dillon

Inasmuch as the assistants and the licensed traders and everybody else seem to want the hours of 1 to 3 and 5 to 7, why not give them to them? However ill-founded the assistants' belief may be that this additional half-hour on Sundays will not give them certain rights under the Shops Act, and if they believe that they require to work this extra half-hour to acquire those rights, let them fall into the trap they made for themselves. It might be that this half-hour would not be necessary to qualify them for the benefits of the Shops Act. Whether it is or not, if they themselves want it and if the publicans want it, and if everybody wants it, why not give it to them? Nobody seems to be threatened with any serious danger in this connection.

Personally, I want it for a reason that nobody has mentioned. I want to get at the clubs, holy and unholy, that are operating in this city. There is a vast number of clubs functioning in this city, as I say, holy and unholy, whose principal function is the distribution of drink during the hours when the ordinary respectable public house cannot distribute it. One of their most profitable periods of activity is when people come out of Mass on Sunday. Holy clubs get a great run on that occasion, and the common or garden publican should have a licence to go into competition with the holy clubs, and let the porter be dished out across the publican's counter and the marble-topped tables of the holy clubs on an equal footing and let the best man win. If I know anything of the trade, the publicans will get the best of the trade in the heel of the hunt, given a fair run. I want a 1 o'clock opening for them, and I want fair competition between the holy clubs and the publicans, because they are both engaged in the same trade.

So far as the 5 to 7 o'clock opening is concerned, I understand these are good hours for the publican's trade. If the publican is to give the assistants a compensating holiday during the week under the Shops Act, I think he will have to give that no matter how the cat jumps under the amendment. If he has to give that, the assistants themselves will be anxious that the hours fixed for Sundays are those which will bring in their employer the best revenue that is available on that day and, as I understand it, the hours of 5 to 7 o'clock are the best hours in the evening for the publican's trade.

Now I am an unrepentant opponent of split hours. If a man is working behind the counter—I refer to the publican and to the assistant, and I have worked in both capacities as an assistant and as a publican—I think he has enough work on his hands at the end of the week without having split hours to work on Sunday. If you tie an assistant down to come in from 1 to 3 o'clock and 5 to 7 o'clock, you might as well tie him down altogether, because to require to be in from 1 to 3 o'clock and to be back at 5 o'clock means that he has no free time. Take a publican who has worked hard all the week. Sunday comes, which ought to be a day of leisure, and you tell him that he has to open his house from 1 to 3 o'clock and to reopen from 5 to 7 o'clock. That means that he has to be on duty, in effect, from 1 to 7 o'clock. I think that is wrong. I think it is no justification for the principle of split hours to say that there are a few people who will get drunk on Sunday.

Mr. Cooney

What about the hotels and restaurants? Are they not open all day?

Mr. Dillon

So far as I know there is only one argument put up in justification of the split hours, and that is that the Commissioner of the Gárdaí says that there are certain types of toper who will sit on the bar stool from the moment the public house opens until it shuts, and the only way to get them out, or to keep them sober, is to kick them out by law. I do not accept that as a justification for the principle of split hours. I think the split hours system is a bad one, and that we will have to have some other means of dealing with the chronic "drunks" besides imposing on those engaged in the trade in every city and borough the obligation of working, in effect, from 1 to 7 o'clock every Sunday. However, on the assumption that the principle of the split hours is accepted, I urge on the Minister to accept the hours set out in the amendment of 1 to 3 o'clock and 5 to 7 o'clock. They please everybody, they vex nobody, and they have the highly salutary additional benefit of bringing the holy clubs into competition with the bona fide publicans and providing these respectable business men with no advantage, but freedom from a handicap so that they can enter into competition with clubs, which are, in effect, public houses, but which are masquerading as centres of piety and religion in the midst of the community.

Mr. Linehan

So far as these amendments are concerned, I would be in favour of the one which brings the hours into line with the other boroughs. Personally, I think the strongest argument in favour of making the hours 1 to 3 o'clock and 5 to 7 o'clock is the fact that since the Bill was brought in originally these hours have applied to Cork, Limerick, and Waterford, and nobody in these three cities had the slightest objection to them—the assistants, the publicans, the Guards or the public. As a matter of fact, when the Bill was introduced, and before the terms of the Bill were made known to the House or to the public, the people in Cork, Waterford and Limerick did, in fact, ask for these hours. So far as the G.A.A. is concerned, I do not know whether, proportionately to the size of the cities, there would be as many assistants in Cork, Waterford and Limerick playing these games on Sunday as in Dublin. There was one strong argument made in favour of this question of the national games. I am afraid that the people who used that argument are inclined to overlook what should be the basic principle behind legislation of this kind, and which is the basic principle that Deputy Kennedy overlooked when he made his attack on the people who, he said, were merely introducing the Dublin publican atmosphere into this House. These people completely overlook the fact that the licensed trade is as much a social service and a catering service for the community as buses, trains, or anything else like that. When the Bill was being debated in this House, I think that 90 per cent. of the Deputies who dealt with it dealt with it from that point of view. We were no more concerned with the Dublin publican than with the Cork assistant or with the consumer in Mayo. That is the attitude of people like Deputy Kennedy or Deputy Cooney, who comes in at the last minute and holds himself out as the only man who resisted the insidious efforts of Deputies on both sides of the House to make the liquor trade more easy. Deputy Cooney takes very good care to absent himself from the Division Lobby. It would not do for a man of Deputy Cooney's standing now to go down the country, or even to come to Dublin, and say he voted against an extension of half an hour for the Dublin borough, but it would be very nice for Deputy Cooney to be able to leave certain people under the impression that he took no action in it and to go and tell the other people— and I might describe them in Deputy Dillon's words—the holy and unholy people—who criticise everybody who advocates anything like a good licensing Bill in this House—that he stood out as the one archangel against Deputies on all sides of the House who were trying to make the Irish people a race of drunkards. That type of loose talking does more harm than anything else.

We are told there is no demand for these hours. What do they expect? Do they expect the people in the trade, the assistants, the consumers and everybody else to come up individually and collectively and parade outside Leinster House until they convince people that there is a demand? The strongest argument that the hours are correct is the fact that there was a demand for their preservation in the three boroughs where they were left and nobody for a moment has questioned them since, either when the Bill was going through the Seanad or through this House. I do not like pressing the Minister about anything in connection with this Bill, because, from beginning to end, he handled it very fairly. I disagree entirely with Deputy Dillon about the question of split hours. He is, he says, an unrepentant opponent of split hours. As far as I know, from studying the matter and reading reports of commissions in various parts of the world, the split-hours seem to have been adopted in a number of countries and have always been held to be one of the great causes in the reduction of insobriety in those countries. To my mind, that is a very strong argument but, in view of the fact that the assistants are in a good position if they get the four hours, in view of the fact that the trade are quite agreeable to have the four hours, in view of the fact that the other boroughs have it and are satisfied with it, I think the Minister ought to accept the amendment.

Cormac Breathnach

Cé go mbfhearr liom na huaireannta a dó go dtí a trí agus a ceathair go dtí a seacht cuidighim leis an leasú a thairg an Teachta Mac Giollagáin, sé sin, na huaireanta a haon go dtí a trí agus a cúig go dtí a seacht a bheith againn do réir dlí annso i mBaile Átha Cliath fé mar atá sna cathaireachaibh eile. Sé an fáth is mó gur chabhruigheas ar dtús len a dó a bheith mar uair oscailte d'fhonn is caoi a thabhairt do lucht leanúna Luith-Chleas Gaedheal atá ag obair i dtighthe tábhairne na cluichí d'imirt ar maidin Dia Domhnaigh, ach deirtear linn anois ná cuirfear isteach ró-mhór ar imirt na gcluichí má oscailtear na tighthe tábhairne ar a haon a chlog. Is dóigh liom leis go mba cheart go mbeadh an phríomh-chathair ar chódhul leis na cathaireachaibh eile. Ar an abhar san tá súil agam go nglacfaidh an tAire leis an leasú.

Mr. P.S. Doyle

I wish to say a few words in support of the amendment. First of all, I feel the public are entitled to some consideration in the matter of the Sunday hours. I know the difficulties with which the Minister has had to contend and, in fact, I feel every member of the House is in the same position, of trying to please everybody. That is impossible. The question of the hours has been a matter of considerable controversy and various points of view have been put forward. In regard to the City of Dublin, I feel that the city has been out of line with the country in connection with the Sunday hours of opening. I think it has been a disgrace to the State that on many occasions during the year there have been large crowds coming to Dublin in connection with national games and no opportunity was given them of getting refreshments although such opportunities are available in other centres. That led to a considerable amount of abuse. The Minister knows the difficulties the Gárdaí had in maintaining the law and, from that point of view, I think the adoption of this amendment would go a long way towards ending the abuse and would give the Gárdaí an opportunity of dealing with it if the hours that are decided upon are properly recognised by everybody. I can well appreciate the Minister's difficulties in the matter, but I think that these hours, that is, 1 to 3 and 5 to 7, would give general satisfaction. I think the public would be glad to have these facilities accorded to them.

Mr. Byrne

I suppose this is the last opportunity I will have to state that I am an unrepentant opponent of the split hours. Again I say I think it has been a retrograde step. We got on so well in Dublin for so many years with the 2 to 5 opening that I think the Minister should have kept to those hours. It was quite long enough time for anybody who wanted a drink. By breaking the hours; you are spoiling the assistants' day; you are spoiling the licensed traders' day. I am satisfied that if there had been a vote of assistants and licensed traders on the matter, not half a dozen licensed traders would ask for the extended and broken hours that are now being imposed upon them. The assistants fought for many years to get reasonable hours on Sunday. They succeeded in getting the hours fixed at 2 to 5.

I think it is a retrograde step to bring back the split hours. The day is completely spoiled for both assistants and licensed traders. By the time they get a cup of tea and clean up the shop, it will be 7.30 or 7.45 and it will be too late to go to Church, to the pictures, to the seaside or any place of amusement. From that point of view, I say the Minister has done wrong. There may be good points in other parts of the Bill, but I want to enter my final protest against the retrograde step of giving extended hours for drinking on Sunday and especially against the split hours. which will spoil the whole life of the assistant and the licensed trader. It is also giving extended opportunities for drinking to the Dublin worker who would otherwise go home at 5 o'clock in the evening to have his Sunday cup of tea with his family. You are now trying to break him away from that by extending the hours to 7 o'clock, and I oppose that proposal.

Mr. Cogan

Like Deputy Byrne, I am opposed to any increase of the opening hours in the city, apart altogether from the fact that no similar concession has been made for the rural districts. No real case has been made for an extension of the opening hours. Deputy Dillon put forward a very strong argument with regard to the hours for the sale of drink in clubs. That is an evil that ought to be dealt with. I think it could be dealt with more effectively by restricting the hours of opening in the clubs rather than extending the hours of drinking in the public houses.

An Ceann Comhairle

There is no possibility of doing so in this Bill at this stage.

Mr. Cogan

An extension of the hours of drinking in the public houses is not the most effective, the most reasonable or the common-sense method of dealing with this abuse. I think the Minister is wrong in so far as he is providing for a split period on Sundays. I think three hours is a reasonable period, and if the Minister stuck to three hours there would be no occasion for a split hour and there would be no occasion for the inconvenience and the embarrassment which are being caused to the licensed trade and the assistants through having to close licensed premises twice on the same day and in the course of a short period.

A Ceann Comhairle

Does not the amendment advocate split hours?

Mr. Cogan

I am unrepentantly opposed——

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy should address himself to the amendment.

Mr. Cogan

I am opposed to the amendment and to the hours fixed by the Seanad. I think that as the Minister has made so many changes in the Bill, he might consider making another and going back to the existing three hour period. If he thinks the existing hours 2 to 5 are not suitable, he could fix from 3 to 6, or any other period he thinks best. He should, however, adhere to the period which formerly obtained, and which was found satisfactory in every respect. I think the Minister has been too susceptible to pressure both here and in the Seanad. If he is introducing another Licensing Bill, I suggest he should take the precaution of providing himself with a Churchill tank.

Mr. Cooney

I should like to mention that when Deputy Dillon was referring to clubs he pointed his finger specifically at one club—the Catholic Commercial Club of this city. I want to have it put on the records of the House that that club has a restaurant, and it serves approximately 200 lunches per day. It has not sufficient building space to acquire a residential club licence. I suggest that it should not be numbered among those clubs which are nothing better than drinking dens.

Mr. McGilligan

The Deputy did not mention that club.

Mr. Cooney

He did, on a previous occasion.

Mr. McGilligan

I am only talking about to-day's debate, and he was using the phrase in the plural.

Mr. Boland

My original proposal for Sunday opening was 1 to 2 and 4 to 7. A deputation of the assistants came to me, and they objected to the 7 p.m. closing. Subsequently, G.A.A. representatives, the representatives of the Co. Dublin Board, came with one of the officers of the assistants' organisation, and they appealed to me not to destroy the Gaelic games in Dublin. They reminded me of a thing I was aware of—that they were the bulwark of the G.A.A. in this city. I do not apologise for feeling very concerned about that. The position is not quite the same in Cork. I think it could be said that the core of every club in the city is formed by these assistants. Therefore, in view of the strong representations made, I changed the hour to 2 o'clock, because otherwise it would affect a very large and important section of the community—the G.A.A.

With regard to the position of the assistants or the publicans, I know that the assistants are protected by law; they have a 48-hour week and it is a matter of arrangement between themselves and their employers as to how those 48 hours will be worked. I am more concerned with the public interest, and that is what is involved here. I agree with Deputy Doyle that the public interest is served by having a later closing hour on Sunday. It was in order to meet the point made, that a lot of trade that would otherwise go to the publican would go to the club, that I agreed to a compromise between 1 and 2. That was how we arrived at the 1.30. That is the way the Bill left the Seanad and, so far as I can gather, there has been a change of attitude on the part of the traders. They seemed to be satisfied with that arrangement then, but now they have changed their minds, and apparently others have, too. At any rate, I had another deputation again this week—the Dublin County Board of the G.A.A.—and they told me they doubted if the half-hour was sufficient, but that they would try to carry on. I am sticking to that arrangement and I believe I am justified. If this matter goes to a division, I shall have to resist the amendment.

Question put: "That the words proposed to be deleted, stand."

The Committee divided: Tá, 53; Níl, 32.

Tá.

Aiken, Frank.
Allen, Denis.
Bartley, Gerald.
Brady, Brian.
Brady, Seán.
Breathnach, Cormac.
Breen, Daniel.
Breslin, Cormac.
Briscoe, Robert.
Buckley, Seán.
Cogan, Patrick.
Cooney, Eamonn.
Crowley, Fred Hugh.
Crowley, Tadhg.
De Valera, Eamon.
Flynn, John.
Flynn, Stephen.
Fogarty, Patrick J.
Friel, John.
Hogan, Daniel.
Keane, John J.
Kelly, James P.
Kennedy, Michael J.
Kissane, Eamon.
Lemass, Seán F.
Loughman, Francis.
Lynch, James B.
Beegan, Patrick.
Boland, Gerald.
Bourke, Dan.
McCann, John.
McDevitt, Henry A.
MacEntee, Seán.
Meaney, Cornelius.
Moran, Michael.
Morrissey, Michael.
Mullen, Thomas.
O Briain, Donnchadh.
O Ceallaigh, Seán T.
O'Grady, Seán.
O'Loghlen, Peter J.
O'Reilly, Matthew.
O'Rourke, Daniel.
O'Sullivan, Ted.
Rice, Brigid M.
Ruttledge, Patrick J.
Ryan, James.
Ryan, Robert.
Sheridan, Michael.
Smith, Patrick.
Victory, James.
Walsh, Richard.
Ward, Conn.

Níl.

Bennett, George C.
Benson, Ernest E.
Brennan, Michael.
Brodrick, Seán.
Coburn, James.
Corish, Richard.
Costello, John A.
Daly, Patrick.
Dillon, James M.
Dockrell, Henry M.
Doyle, Peadar S.
Everett, James.
Fagan, Charles.
Fitzgerald-Kenney, James.
Giles, Patrick.
Hannigan, Joseph.
Hughes, James.
Keating, John.
Linehan, Timothy.
Lynch, Finian.
McGilligarr, Patrick.
McGovern, Patrick.
McMenamin, Daniel.
Mongan, Joseph W.
Mulcahy, Richard.
Murphy, Timothy J.
Norton, William.
O'Donovan, Timothy J.
O'Sullivan, John M.
Pattison, James P.
Redmond, Bridget M.
Ryan, Jeremiah.

Tellers:—Tá: Deputies Smith and S. Brady; Níl: Deputies Doyle and Bennett.

Question declared carried.

Amendment No. 3 (Deputy McGilligan) not moved.

Amendment No. 2 by the Seanad was as follows:—

SECTION 5.

In page 3, paragraphs (a), (b), and (c) deleted, and three paragraphs as follow substituted:—

(a) by the deletion from sub-section (1) thereof of all words after the words "save and except," and the insertion in that sub-section of the following words in lieu of the said words so deleted, that is to say, "if such premises are situate in a county borough, between the hours of 9 o'clock and 10 o'clock in the morning on week days, or, if such premises are not situate in a county borough, between the hours of 9 o'clock and half-past 10 o'clock in the morning on week days during a period of summer time and between the hours of 9 o'clock and 10 o'clock in the morning on week days during any period which is not a period of summer time,

(b) by the insertion in sub-section (2) thereof, after the words "off-licence is attached", of the words and brackets "(other than 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)",

(c) by the deletion from sub-section (2) thereof of all words after the words "save and except" and the insertion in that sub-section of the following words in lieu of the said words so deleted, that is to say, "if such premises are situate in a county borough, between the hours of 9 o'clock and 10 o'clock in the morning on week days and between 2.30 and 3.30 o'clock in the afternoon on week days or, if such premises are not situate in a county borough, between the hours of 9 o'clock and 10.30 o'clock in the morning on week-days during a period of summer time and between the hours of 9 o'clock and 10 o'clock in the morning on week days during any period which is not a period of summer time."

Mr. Boland

This is a consequential amendment on No.1, and, as we have altered that by the amendment that was carried, I will have to ask permission to make a change. As drafted, this amendment assumes the passing of the other amendment from the Seanad. That has been changed and there will be a consequential change but, as I have not got the draft, I ask permission to deal with it on the Report Stage to-morrow. At this stage, I move that the Committee agree with the Seanad in the amendment on the Paper.

Question put and agreed to.

Mr. Boland

I move: That the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment No. 3:—

Section 31. In page 13, before sub-section (2), a new sub-section inserted as follows:—

(2) A person who is at the one time the holder of a six-day beerhouse licence and the holder of a seven-day beerhouse licence shall, on application at any sitting of the justice of the district court in whose district are situate the premises to which the six-day beerhouse licence is attached, be entitled to have the seven-day beerhouse licence transferred to the premises to which the six-day beerhouse licence is attached, but subject to the condition that, on such transfer being made, the six-day beerhouse licence shall not be renewed and the premises to which the seven-day beerhouse licence was attached before such transfer shall, for the purposes of the Licensing (Ireland) Act, 1902, be deemed never to have been licensed.

The purpose of this amendment is to enable the holder of a six-day beerhouse licence to transfer to his premises a seven-day beerhouse licence irrespective of where the premises are situate. Under the Bill as passed by the Dáil a seven-day licence could be transferred to premises to which a six-day licence is attached only if the situate in the same or in adjoining districts of the district court. There are only four six-day beerhouse licences in the whole of the country and the amendment will not, therefore, make much difference.

Question put and agreed to.

Amendments reported with amendment.

Report Stage ordered for Thursday, 4th March.

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht - Wednesday, 3 Mar 1943