I agree with other speakers who said that this is a Bill which would be considered most effectively on Committee Stage, but I do think that there is a very important principle involved when it falls for discussion on Second Reading. I think it rather illogical to start at this stage talking about amendments and improvements in the measure if the idea behind the measure is to be opposed at this stage.
The reasons so far given for opposition to this Bill range round the idea that an injustice is being perpetrated on the holders of six day licences. I sat here since the debate opened and I must honestly say that for a while I began to wonder whether it was a Bill to deal with injustices to the six day licence holders or a Bill to deal with the licensing laws in general.
I happen to have been a member of the commission which investigated the question of the licensing laws some time ago. Evidence was tendered to that commission by certain representatives of the six day licence holders. I must say that prior to the sitting of that commission a great deal of attention was given to the methods by which evidence would be obtained so that no section of the community would be without privilege or position to make its case before the commission.
Advertisements appeared in the papers at regular intervals notifying the community at large of the fact that this commission intended to take evidence and invited the public, the trading people, the trade unions and all sections of the community to come and give their evidence so that a reasonable recommendation in regard to the licensing laws could be put before the Government by the commission.
Let me say that to my knowledge the only group of the six day licence holders who deserve any commendation in this House are the members of the six day licence holders from the town of Ballinasloe. They thought it worth while to sit down, prepare their case and give evidence but I found very little enthusiasm on the part of the remaining six day licence holders to put the case which has been so ably put to-day in this House on their behalf.
Even though the commission may not have, shall we say, met the wishes of those who opposed this Bill in so far as the six day licence holders are concerned, there is nothing to prevent the Government, if they so desire, giving further consideration to the overall position of the six day licence holders if this legislation is carried through but the matter with which we are mainly concerned at the moment is to get the agreement of the House to a licensing code that will be respected by the community.
In my opinion the Bill before the House is the nearest approach to such a measure. I welcome it. I do not think for one moment that it is revolutionary. I think that to a large extent this Bill is merely an enabling measure to make legal a practice that is in operation all over this country at the present time. I refer specifically now to the main problem.
Evidence was given to the commission by circuit court judges, district justices, the Commissioner and various experienced officers of the Garda Síochána. They all had the one cry— that the licensing laws were being flagrantly abused; that not alone were they being abused but that the majority of the people had no respect for the laws that obtain at the moment. They argued that, if you had not the backing of the community in any legislation brought forward, such legislation was not worth the paper it was written on. It might even do harm because if that particular law is brought into contempt there will likely be other aspects of legislation which will be treated with contempt too, if certain elements of the public disapprove of it.
I listened to some speakers in this House. I read the reports in the daily papers recently to the effect that there is no demand for the hours proposed in this Bill. There is no demand for the change proposed in this Bill. It is fair to argue that on its merits. I am convinced that there is an overwhelming demand at the present time for the hours proposed in the Bill because those are the hours which are in operation. There are even more liberal hours in operation in many areas.
It may not be the case that there is a vocal demand by the general public to the Minister or the Government to legalise the hours that are at present in operation. The general public say to themselves, "We can drink up to 12 o'clock at night every night of the week except Sunday. We can have our drink on Sunday by having it illegally and we shall go on having it illegally unless the Government are prepared to change the law and make the present practices legal." The general public are not getting up on a soap box outside this House shouting for their present arrangements to be made legal. In a case like this the general public take the view that they are already in a position to obtain liquor at very liberal hours and no protest will be made unless there is an attempt by this House to restrict them.
Deputy Dillon made a very important statement, that, whatever happens, the law must be respected and that we must have the most rigorous enforcement of whatever law this House passes. I agree with him but I think Deputy Dillon is talking from the exclusive area of Leinster House. When you try to enforce the existing law, particularly in rural Ireland, you are up against a stone wall of either indifference or hostility on the part of the general public.
If this House decided to make no changes in the existing law but, in the words of Deputy Dillon, to administer that law rigorously, in my opinion the police force would have to be trebled if you were to hope in any way to administer that law. That brings us back to the point that the goodwill of the majority of the community is absolutely essential.
What is the overall objection by certain groups to the hours proposed in this measure? First, let us take the City of Dublin. Objections come from two main sources. First, from the publicans—I should say from a limited section of the publicans in the city—in addition to those on the city fringes who have a vested interest, namely, the owners of the bona fide public houses. They are the main opposition to this measure, together with a small section of the trade union. Is their opposition on the basis that it is bad for the general public, that there will be more drunkenness or that there will be broken homes? Is that the opposition that is put forward by any of these groups? Not to my knowledge.
The opposition on the part of that section of publicans in the city who oppose the measure is based on the belief that the overheads which will result in the extra hours of opening will be too heavy for them to bear. In other words, they do not believe that there will be such a great trade as to recompense them for the extra staff or, perhaps, the extra wages they will have to pay their staff. That is the argument of the publican. The argument of the barman, which, I suppose, is logical, is that they do not want to work extra hours at night. I appreciate their point of view but there are other sections of the community who have to work late at night on behalf of the general public and while I may have sympathy with members of the union on the basis that they may have to work later in the city, that is not a full argument why the Bill should be opposed, why the hours should not be allowed. Undoubtedly, they must get protection and an increase in remuneration for the later hours but again I must point out that there is no onus on any publican, under this Bill, to open his premises for the full hours suggested in the Bill. There is nothing to prevent any publican from saying, "I do not intend to open at 10.30 a.m. I will not open until 12 noon." There is nothing to prevent him from closing for two or three hours in the middle of the day if he so desires and thus shorten the working hours for himself and his staff.
The third objectors to the Bill are the owners of bona fide public houses around the fringe of the City. They are a special problem. Evidence was tendered before the Commission with regard to the losses that these publicans were likely to sustain as a result of the proposed change in legislation. Taking the overall picture, if we are to keep the principle of uniformity, I cannot see how we can in law make an exception of these public houses. If we admit here that, due to their special case, they must get special privileges, then we must forget all about the question of uniformity. I think the entire country is in favour of the idea of uniformity and that a majority of the people on all sides of this House are in complete agreement on this issue, namely, that the bona fide trade as we know it must cease.
We can be under no illusion whatever about the necessity for putting an end to the bona fide trade as we know it. I do not propose to quote the reams of evidence given before the Commission on what happens as far as this traffic is concerned. The Minister has at his disposal the evidence tendered to the Commission. The Report of the Commission, I am sure, has been read by most Deputies and is available to the general public. Without that report at all, the general impression publicly was that the bona fide business was a dangerous one.
We have only to read the daily papers every day of the week, one daily paper in particular, to see the pleas and arguments put forward in connection with death on the roads and the demand for further legislation to eliminate accidents. We have the evidence, which is the only evidence I propose to quote, from the circuit court judges, in their report on this matter, paragraph 58 of which says:
A large number of road accidents are caused by persons under the influence of drink but it cannot be proved that the driver was drunk. It is the experience of the judges that many of these arise out of the bona fide traffic. It is also the experience of the Dublin circuit court judges that people returning from these houses frequently get involved in brawls.
There is evidence by very responsible men in connection with this matter. Evidence was tendered to us that quite a large section of the people in the City are anxious, rather than to have to go to a bona fide house for a late drink, to have the opportunity of having a drink in a civilised manner in their own local public house in Dublin. Consider people after a show or a picture. They have to sit into a car and race out to a bona fide premises for what they feel they are entitled to. Why should they not be allowed to have in their local pub in the city whatever they require without having to go out quite a distance, possibly being a menace to everybody on the roads or being hurt as a result of some irresponsible person on the road racing to a bona fide premises?
I hope we are growing up in this country to the extent that we can say the liberalisation of, you might say, from 10.30 to 11.30 in the night opening will not turn this city into turmoil. No evidence was offered to the commission that that was likely to happen. No evidence was brought before the commission that there was any grave danger to the morals of the community by making those hours available, 10.30 to 11.30, in the city. With regard to the country areas, the view was put forward that the dangers were more likely to be apparent where the traffic was outside the city.
Strong evidence was given—I do not know if it was mentioned so far in the debate—by members of the Garda Síochána with regard to the difficulties they have in Dublin in getting the premises closed at the legal hours. Strong arguments were put to the commission that there should be a period of grace, even a period of grace in order to allow people who like to have their drink around 10 p.m. to have the drink without having to gallop out the door. A great deal of evidence was before us, too, that the long hour, instead of causing drunkenness, in many instances helped to prevent it. The number of drinks taken in a hurry and with one eye on the clock was a far more potent cause of drunkenness than the slow drink taken deliberately with an opportunity for a friendly and convivial conversation. That is a civilised approach rather than the rushed manner in which people have had to avail of these facilities up to 10.30 at the moment.
Deputy Dillon again pointed out the necessity for the rigorous enforcement of the law. Fine Gael are opposing the Second Reading. If they want a rigorous enforcement of the law as it stands, what will we have in this country? Let us face it. Do we want what exists in other cities? I refer now to places across the Border. I refer to the situation in Belfast. Do we want the bottle party in operation in Dublin city and in parts of Ireland? If the demand is there—and there is no denying the demand for a drink late in the evening—I think there is nothing wrong with it. If the public feel like it, they are entitled to it. If that demand is there and if this House in its wisdom decides it should not be met, will those people who want to have their drinks not buy them in those premises and bring them to their houses, flats and some other centres? What have we then? Have we not the start of the bottle party?
Where can this House decide that the police or any other section of the community would be entitled to exercise control at that particular stage? Is more control not exercised over the drinking when it is done publicly in the licensed premises and hotels than if we divert the community drinking habits into secret dens, flats or parties? This House should bear all that in mind when we oppose, with high principles, the Second Reading of this Bill. We do not want to see a return to the shebeen or the secret drinking dens. There is nothing as depressing or demoralising in this country as that and we know it is going on to a great extent at the moment.
There are Deputies here from rural areas who know that from 11 o'clock on at night it is one long session until 2 o'clock or 3 o'clock in the morning in clubs or in public houses in various provincial towns. I believe the law should be rigorously enforced but I believe we should liberalise it first and give a reasonable opportunity to a civilised people, as I hope we are, to have their drinking in peace and comfort.
There is opposition to this measure from vested interests, on one hand. There is also opposition from other groups who are very well-meaning. I am a firm believer in not trying to shepherd the people too much. I do not believe it is necessary for everybody to go around and to act as a guardian to his neighbour. It is not necessary that that strict control be exercised over your neighbour. In this country there is a feeling or a tendency to worry too much about how you can keep your neighbour within bounds. There is no end to societies which spend their time thinking out means of achieving that object. I do not think they should get their way on a measure of this nature.
I want to be quite blunt on the aspect that there is a great deal of hypocrisy and talk throughout the country to-day on all this and there will be plenty of it I am sure in this House before this measure goes through. Let me remind Deputies of what took place here a few years ago. A certain Deputy—I shall not mention his name: he will probably speak soon —saw fit to introduce a Private Members' Bill in Dáil Éireann to give facilities to people in rural Ireland to have a drink on a Sunday locally. It was discussed in this House. I never listened to anything like the discussion. References to morals were trotted out here "goodo" by Deputies on both sides and to the dangers involved in having a drink in rural Ireland. The Bill was defeated by an overwhelming majority on the basis that it was wrong to open the pubs on a Sunday in rural Ireland.
About 12 months or two years afterwards the same Deputy, being of the opinion that this House felt seriously about the question of Sunday opening in rural Ireland, decided he would give this House an opportunity of dealing with the Sunday opening in the cities. He brought in a Bill suggesting that the city pubs should be closed on Sundays. What happened? I cannot give the exact figures. In the first debate, about 120 Deputies voted, on moral grounds, not to open the pubs in rural Ireland on a Sunday. Approximately the same number and the same people trotted into the division lobbies to keep the Dublin pubs open on a Sunday—twelve months or two years afterwards. It was immoral for country residents to have a drink on Sundays but it was strictly moral in the cities.
I am trying to bring home that Deputies had a free vote of the House. When the Whips were off, every association in this country ranging from the Pioneer Total Abstinence Association, the Father Mathew Union, down along to some very doubtful ones, made representations. I have the greatest respect for the first two societies I mentioned, but a lot of undesirable ones moved in on the tail of these very high-principled organisations. They all got together to deprive the rural man of his drink on Sunday. Let us ensure that, on this measure, we shall have less of that hypocrisy and more common sense, and that we shall not be afraid to face the music as individuals outside the House.
Let us try to have a Bill that will be respected by the majority of our people. It would be an impossibility to get a measure to suit everybody, but I have not the slightest doubt that if each Deputy here votes according to his conscience we shall have legislation that will meet with the approval and respect of the majority of our people.
I hope on the Committee Stage to move some amendments or support amendments that may be moved by other Members. I do not think it would be desirable for me at this stage to make reference to different sections in the Bill. However, as far as the Commission's report is concerned, may I point out to the Minister that the Commission felt very strongly that the same regulations should apply to clubs as apply to public houses? When I mention "the same regulations" I mean the same powers of investigation and control to be exercised by the Garda Síochána over these clubs rather than have the special privileges accorded to them at the moment where nobody less than the rank of an inspector dare enter the sacred portals of a number of these clubs throughout the State.
Clubs have a privilege to this extent, that the members can decide who is going to sit beside them having a drink. They can decide for themselves that they do not like certain individuals who are precluded from these premises. No club is entitled to more facilities than the ordinary members of the public are entitled to, and if it is within the power and control of the Garda Síochána to make the necessary investigation into the conduct of an ordinary public house, I cannot see why it is necessary to invoke the aid of the higher officers of the Garda Síochána before any investigation is made into the affairs of clubs.
That is the only point in relation to the Bill to which I would make specific reference. I would like that matter to be thoroughly examined. I do not know how amendments can be framed but I hope to put amendments down if I possibly can in relation to a particular section which gives to certain people in the community privileges to which they are not entitled.
An appeal has been made to have the Whips taken off when it comes to voting on this question. I do not know what the position of the Government is but it would be a desirable thing that each Deputy would be able to say that when he voted on the sections of this Bill he was not under any direction from his Party and that he could not—I presume this would apply to a few—shelter under the banner of a Whip and say to his constituents or any section of the people: "I would like to have voted in such a way but the Party Whip was on and I could not do it." Let us have legislation passed in this connection so that every Deputy will make up his own mind conscientiously. If that is done the result will not be too bad.