Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 25 Nov 1959

Vol. 178 No. 3

Intoxicating Liquor Bill, 1959—Second Stage (resumed).

Question again proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

Mr. Faulkner

When the Dáil adjourned on Thursday last I was giving my reasons for favouring the 11.30 closing. I pointed out that if men remain on licensed premises now after the legal closing time they realise that the penalties will be much the same irrespective of whether they are caught immediately after closing time or at 1 o'clock in the morning. The psychological effect of that is that they are more likely to remain on the licensed premises to a very late hour. Secondly, when men remain on a licensed premises after closing time they are expecting the intervention of the Gardaí at any minute and, for that reason, they are inclined to drink much more quickly and, therefore, to drink more than they would in normal circumstances. Consequently, they sometimes leave licensed premises in a drunken condition, a danger both to themselves and to others. If these men can go into a licensed premises at 10 o'clock and know they can remain there legally for an hour-and-a-half they will be much more likely to leave at half-eleven because half-eleven will be a relatively late hour.

The arguments I put forward in regard to the rural worker apply equally well in the case of the townsman. Both are in more or less the same position. During the summer, when people are put out of a licensed premises at half-past ten, they are inclined, since the hour is comparatively early, to think of the next public house they can go to rather than whether they should go home. Originally I was enclined to think, when this Bill was first moved, that an eleven o'clock closing was late enough. Having examined the Bill I have come to the conclusion that the rather short extension of half an hour would lead to a continuation of the abuses which we are anxious to eliminate.

References have been made, in the course of this debate, to the Pioneer Association and to the fact that two representatives of that Association signed the majority report. One speaker, particularly, seemed to think that, because Pioneers do not drink, they should not have signed the report. That idea seems to arise from the notion that Pioneers are people who are opposed to alcoholic drink and to those who drink it. That is not correct. The Pioneer does not drink, for various reasons which I will not go into here, but he is interested in the situation which arises from drunkenness and from frequent drinking and he is interested in the social evils which follow from these things just as all well-intentioned people should be. If the Pioneers who signed that majority report felt that the recommendations in that report would help to eliminate the abuses they were not only doing what was right but were doing what it was their duty to do.

I am not too happy about Sunday opening, but there is no use blinking the fact that public houses do open illegally throughout the country on Sundays and that people are able to get drink on a Sunday in the rural areas when they want it. We are not dealing with the situation as we would like it to be but as it is. With regard to the suggested hours of opening on Sunday I should like to put it to the Minister that in the Bill as it stands, the hours are from 1 p.m. to 3 p.m. and from 5 p.m. to 8 p.m. I would advise the Minister to change the opening hour from 1 p.m. to 12.30 p.m. and the closing hour from 3 p.m. to 2 p.m.

I know that this change has already been advocated but I feel that the matter is a serious one and that the greater difference there is between the early closing hour and the afternoon opening hour the better. If the licensed premises are to remain open until 3 o'clock and to reopen at 5 p.m. there is the danger that people will not go home but will remain in the village from 3 o'clock until 5. There is also the danger that because hurling and football matches begin at 3 p.m. people will not go home from Mass but will remain drinking until 3 p.m., go to the match and return to the licensed premises at 5 p.m. To eliminate that danger I would suggest to the Minister that he should change the hours at present proposed in the Bill to 12.30 p.m. to 2 p.m.

There are many other aspects of this Bill which have been adequately dealt with by other speakers. I am in general agreement with the Bill. I feel that it will do good and I associate myself with other speakers who congratulated the Minister on his courage in bringing in the Bill.

The Taoiseach

I want to urge Deputies to consider the proposals in this Bill on the assumption that when it becomes law these proposals will be vigorously and continuously enforced. That is the intention of the Government. If Deputies gave their consideration to the proposed changes on any other assumption, our discussions here would be unreal and our conclusions erroneous. The aim of the Government is to try to secure a law relating to the sale of intoxicating drink in licensed premises which will have public opinion behind it. If Deputies feel that the proposals in this Bill are not likely to be supported by public opinion, I would ask them to urge that they should be changed. It will be futile for us to proceed to enact legislation for the control of the sale of drink in licensed premises unless we feel that that legislation can be enforced by the Garda authorities with public opinion behind them.

Everybody clearly understands that public opinion is not behind the present licensing laws. Only a person who has very little knowledge of what is happening could believe that the present legal drinking hours have the support of public opinion in most parts of the country and we all know that it is possible for people to get drink without difficulty or danger of prosecution outside the hours prescribed under the existing law. The position is unsatisfactory from every angle.

The reason the Government feel strongly that there should be a change in the law is, firstly, that because it is not generally enforceable it is unfair to those traders who conscientiously try to keep the law, secondly, because any situation in which the breaking of the law has the encouragement of public opinion is demoralising in the extreme and destructive of moral discipline, and, thirdly, because it is detrimental to the integrity of the Gardaí that they should be put in the position that the onus should be left on them of deciding the extent to which the law could be or should be enforced.

I think most Deputies who understand the situation which now prevails realise that in many areas an actual extension of drinking hours, hours in which drink can be readily obtained by members of the public, is not involved in the proposals contained in this Bill. Indeed, if we assume that we will be successful in securing observance and continued enforcement of the new legislation when enacted, it may be that in those areas a reduction of actual drinking hours is what is involved.

The main principles of this Bill, as we interpret them, are, apart from the aim of creating a law and a practice which the public will respect, the abolition of bona fide trading and of area exemption orders and the establishment of uniform hours for the opening of licensed premises throughout the whole State. I do not think that some Deputies who spoke on this Bill have fully appreciated that these two principles hang together. If we are to abolish bona fide trading, as is proposed, then clearly some extension of the ordinary opening hours in public houses is involved. Furthermore, although some Deputies have suggested the possibility of different closing hours for public houses in towns and in rural areas in opposition to the principle of uniformity of hours, they do not seem to me to have appreciated that that could well re-establish in more aggravated form the worst of the abuses associated with bona fide trading of which we wish to rid ourselves.

If these principles are accepted— the principle of abolishing the antiquated system of bona fide trading and establishing uniform closing hours for public houses thoughout the country— then, of course, there is the very important question of what those closing hours should be. Deputies who have the idea that the hours proposed in the Bill are not the most suitable are, of course, free to put forward their own ideas, and indeed I would invite them to table amendments to the Bill on the Committee Stage indicating the hours they would prefer to substitute for those proposed in the Bill.

I am aware from discussions here and discussions with individual Deputies that there are—as was to have been anticipated—a variety of views regarding the proper opening hours of licensed premises. Some Deputies would urge that the hours should be shorter than those proposed in the Bill; some would urge that they should be longer, but the main factor influencing the Government's recommendation is the one I have already stressed, the desire to get hours of opening that the public will regard as reasonable and will want to have enforced, hours that not only the public but the publicans also will wish to co-operate in having enforced.

Deputies are aware that the Commission which reported on this matter and on whose recommendations the Bill is largely framed recommended that the uniform closing hours for public houses throughout the whole State should be 11.30 p.m. on weekdays and, in respect of Sundays, they recommended hours of opening from 12.30 to 2 p.m. and from 5 to 9 p.m. When the Government came to consider this matter we did not find ourselves in a position to accept these recommendations of the Commission completely. We were not happy with the proposal that the closing hour for public houses should be 11.30 p.m. all the year round. We knew that there was a very strong volume of opinion in favour of an 11.30 p.m. closing in the summer months, in rural areas in particular. Indeed many representations have been made to the Government in favour of a 12 o'clock closing hour for rural public houses. It is argued in support of these representations that the law requires us to put back the clock during Summer Time but that in putting back the clock we do not put back the sun and farm work proceeds in accordance with the sun and that farm workers must be facilitated in completing their work during daylight hours and given the same opportunity as the townsmen might have for relaxation in public houses after their day's work is completed.

On the other hand, strong arguments were advanced against the 11.30 p.m. closing hour in Dublin and in other urban centres, but, adhering to the principle of uniform hours, we came ultimately to the point where we decided to recommend to the Dáil the proposal contained in the Bill, namely, that hours of closing for all public houses should be 11 p.m. for eight months of the year and 11.30 p.m. for the four summer months. I think these proposals must be regarded as a fair compromise between the different views that have been expressed, and I have been very much relieved to find that they have proved to be generally acceptable. Certainly, so far as the country outside Dublin is concerned, the general unanimity with which approval for these proposals was expressed has been in all the circumstances rather surprising.

In the case of the Sunday opening hours we received representation from the Church authorities urging us to keep in mind the undesirability of making arrangements which would conflict in any way with the duty of attendance at religious services. We felt we were doing that when we brought forward this proposal for a 1 o'clock opening hour instead of a 12.30 opening hour as recommended by the Commission. I must say I have been very much shaken in the view I originally held in that respect both by the volume of opinion expressed in the Dáil for the 12.30 opening hour and by the strength of the arguments that have been advanced in support of that opinion.

I think it is probably true to say that the difficulty of enforcement and the danger of the reappearance of illegal trading would be enhanced if we adhered to the proposal for a 1 o'clock opening instead of a 12.30 opening. I think there is also much to be said for the point of view that closing at 2 p.m. instead of 3 p.m. involves less danger of interference with normal family life. Therefore, I accept that we must reconsider our proposals in that regard. In reconsidering these proposals, we are again being influenced by our desire to relate the provisions which will in future be contained in the law to the actual practice as it now prevails as well as by the desire to get a law which will be backed by public opinion and which the public and the publicans will desire to have fully enforced.

Deputies have spoken here about a free vote on this Bill. I may say that the feeling in the Government Party is very strongly against a Bill of this kind being settled in its provisions by any system of free voting. There would be a real danger if we were to leave every important question to a free vote of Deputies that we would get a hotch-potch of a Bill with no logical relationship between its provisions. I have been arguing that the principles on which we framed the Bill follow naturally one from the other and that we would take the risk of producing a very unsatisfactory measure unless we tried to preserve a consistent pattern throughout the whole measure.

So far, therefore, as the main provisions of the Bill are concerned, the abolition of bona fide trading, the maintenance of uniform hours of trading, the proposals relating to weekday opening hours and the proposal relating to Sunday hours, as amended in accordance with the wishes expressed by a majority of the Dail, are in our view fundamental to the Bill and will be supported by all the Deputies on the Government side of the House.

There is one matter which has given us a great deal of difficulty and it has been frequently referred to by Deputies who have already participated in the debate, that is, the problem created for six-day licence holders arising out of the proposed legislation of general opening on Sundays. We recognise that there is a problem, and there is a desire to meet it, but in meeting that problem we must not lose sight of the aim which has been evident in every licensing Act passed by this House during its existence, the aim which is, in fact, contained in every licensing law applying in this country for the past fifty years, of reducing the number of licences in existence. We have at the present time, as is known, 12,000 valid licences to sell drink in public houses extant here, and that is 4,000 or 5,000 too many. It is a ridiculous situation that we should have one publican licensed for every 250 of the population, indeed, one for every 125 adult members of our population. That aim which has inspired all our previous legislation in relation to the licensed trade of reducing the number of valid licences in existence must not be departed from now. Therefore, the Government would resist any proposal to deal with this problem of the six-day licensees in a way which would appear to be running counter to that aim.

Deputies know that a six-day licence holder can in fact become a seven-day licence holder by the simple process of acquiring and extinguishing an existing seven-day licence. That is not a matter of difficulty. At least, it has not proved to be so in the past. I am told there are many thousands of these existing seven-day licences available to be acquired in that way. It has been suggested that in some parts of the country it is not as easy to acquire an existing seven-day licence for the purpose of having it extinguished or transferred to a six-day licensed premises as it is in others, and, arising out of that, there has come the suggestion that the present restrictions of the law should be modified. Under the existing law, a seven-day licence can be acquired only in the district court district in which the person acquiring it resides or in an adjoining district court district. The suggestion has been made that we should modify the law by allowing the acquisition of a seven-day licence in any part of the State. So far as investigation has proceeded up to the present, that does not appear to present any great difficulty and, indeed, we have decided that it should be feasible also to simplify and cheapen the legal process of conveying the licence from the existing licensee to the new licensee. The Minister for Justice will have some proposals to make in the Dáil in that regard during the Committee Stage of the Bill.

I am advised that, subject to these modifications, there should be no difficulty whatever in an existing six-day licensee becoming a seven-day licensee when this Bill has become law.

It seems, however, that if we are to do justice in this matter we must give the same facility to other holders of restricted licences. There are still a number of early closing licences in existence and others of a special kind which limit the type of drink which may be served on the licensed premises. If we are going to make these facilities available to six-day licence holders, to ease the problem for them in acquiring a seven-day licence and becoming seven-day licence holders, then I think we must do the same thing for other holders of restricted licences and the amendments that will be introduced by the Minister for Justice will, in fact, cover these other licences also.

These are, in the main, as Deputies appreciate, matters of detail which can be, perhaps, more fully and adequately discussed in Committee. I confess I am rather surprised by the attitude taken by some Deputies opposite who, while conceding that a change in the law is desirable and having argued only in respect of some of the details of the Bill, nevertheless, expressed their intention of voting against it. If there are to be changes in the law they can only be made by a Bill and the actual changes which will be effected by this Bill are those that will be determined by the Dáil during the Committee and subsequent stages of the measure.

There is, however, perhaps a wider matter to which we should give attention. It has been stated by some responsible authorities, by a number of individuals—I have personally received representations to the effect— that lengthening the hours during which drink may legally be served on licensed premises may have the effect of encouraging more drinking. I, personally, would be very disturbed if that should prove to be so. This is a matter upon which the views of religious authorities are entitled to receive here very great weight indeed, because there are moral as well as social aspects involved. Perhaps I am incorrect in describing the risk as one of more drinking. That is not quite the problem.

The real problem which is the concern of the Churches and must be our concern also is the possibility that extending the hours during which public houses may remain open will lead to more drinking in excess, more drunkenness. Drink is one of God's gifts to men, a gift which men are entitled to use and enjoy but not to abuse. The avoidance of the abuse of drunkenness, using alcoholic liquor to excess, like avoidance of abuse of any other of the bounties of nature, is primarily a matter for individual restraint. Drunkenness is a sin for which men are responsible to a higher court than ours. The prevalence of that abuse, in so far as it can be said to be prevalent, is, of course, independent altogether of the laws we enact here because the sin of drunkenness can be committed outside licensed premises and, indeed, in licensed premises, no matter how restricted their opening hours may be.

The State's primary concern in this connection is to check the social abuses which are involved in excessive drinking. Drinking to the point of drunkenness can be a danger to the individuals concerned and a danger and annoyance to other individuals. For that reason we have laws which make it an offence for people to be drunk in a public place or drunk in charge of a car. The law prohibits and makes it an offence for publicans to sell drink to a person who is already in a state of intoxication. These restrictions are necessary for social reasons, for the good of the community, and, if the law goes further in penalising the abuse of drink than it does in penalising the abuse of other bounties of nature, it is because it is known that the mere fact of drinking weakens the power of control and removes the restraints which men normally exercise over their conduct.

The Government, therefore, would be very gravely concerned having regard to their responsibility as a Government and to the effect upon social conditions prevailing in our community, if the enactment of this Bill should in fact result in increased drunkenness. But we must not beg that question. It is a matter for debate and consideration whether the extension of the legal drinking hours will increase the danger of excessive drinking, the danger of more drunkenness. I am told—and told by people who are entitled to have their views respected in a matter of this kind—that the abuse of drink and the danger of drunkenness arise mainly from illegal drinking, drinking in public houses at a time when they are supposed to be legally closed, in some instances, and in other cases from the desire to maximise the intake of drink approaching the legal closing hours in those houses where the legal hours are in fact observed.

The advice which has been given to me by people engaged in the licensed trade is that extended hours of drinking will not mean greater consumption of drink or create the danger of more drinking to excess. If I understand the opposition of the licensed trade in Dublin to the proposed extension of the closing hours in the city, it is based on the belief that these longer hours will not in practice mean the sale of any more drink by them but merely that they will be selling the same amount of drink over a longer working period.

In any case, the argument that the extension of the legal hours of drinking may create dangers that we do not have at the present time is based, like all the other arguments affecting the proposed hours, on the fallacy that there is now no drinking except during the legal hours. It is my personal conviction that when people can drink openly and legally, when they can walk in through the front door of a public house without any sense of being in breach of the law instead of having to slip in through the back door with the slight element of excitement arising from the possibility of a prosecution following, then the inducement to excessive drinking will be reduced and not increased.

We recognise that these are questions upon which human judgments are bound to differ. I do not suppose this will be the last licensing Bill that will ever come before the Dáil. If matters do not turn out as we now anticipate they will, then of course we can change the law again provided we can bring public opinion with us. I want to emphasise that the important aim which should inspire the Dáil in its consideration of this measure, the aim which should never be lost sight of in debating any of the provisions of it, is that of getting a law which the people are prepared to co-operate in enforcing. If we can do that, we shall have conferred a very considerable benefit upon our community. We believe this is a law which the Government will be able to enforce in the knowledge that the public and the people engaged in the licensing trade will want the Government to enforce it, and if that view proves to be correct its enactment will have been a very important development in the history of the licensing legislation of our State.

Mr. Desmond

I suppose the Minister could not possibly bring in a Bill of any description on which he would have to listen to so many pros and cons as on this measure. He has done his best to meet everyone but there are so many different views held on it that it seems impossible to take a middle course. I have not very pronounced views on the subject. I am not speaking on behalf of the Pioneers, although I am one, nor am I speaking for those who drink. At this stage let me say in relation to one aspect of the Bill that I intend to vote in favour of abolishing bona fide drinking. For years past not alone has this been a bone of contention but it has been a disgrace in many parts of the country. For that alone, doing away with this trade, I give the Minister credit.

The Taoiseach mentioned the question of the closing hours in the rural areas in the summer time. It has been suggested in many of the rural areas that in the summer period the later hour of 11.30 should be adopted for six months instead of four. We must remember that we do not always get such fine weather as we had this summer and that the farmer has to make the most of whatever fine days there are. If he is working until 10.30 and has some distance to go in order to quench his thirst he may find himself arriving at the door of the public house a little after the stipulated time of 11 o'clock, that is, during the two months when the later time has not been allowed in the summer time. Some consideration should be given to that situation which affects many people in the rural areas. I agree wholeheartedly with the Taoiseach when he says the Government intend to see that the licensing laws provided under this Bill will be enforced in a determined manner. That is essential but it is unfortunate if the law of the land is such that the unfortunate rural worker is working so late that by the time he arrives at the public house he is told he must come back some other night.

Another problem which relates to the rural areas is that of the six-day licence holder. There does not seem to be any way of getting over that problem. Perhaps it is a matter which it would be more convenient to discuss on the Committee Stage rather than on this Stage of the Bill. As well as the rural worker anxious for his pint after 11 o'clock for six months of the Summer, there is the hotelier at the seaside in the rural areas. Their season is more or less a six months' season. Naturally enough, they are anxious to have the four months of the 11.30 closing extended to six months. I am sure the Minister has already considered this matter carefully. If he can see his way to meet these people, he would have good reason for doing so. Rather than waste time on discussion at this Stage, I shall wait for the Committee Stage. But because this Bill is doing away with something that should have been done away with long ago—the illegal bona fide traveller—I am voting for it on Second Stage.

Mr. Wycherley

The longer this Bill is debated, the more controversial it becomes and the more letters we receive in connection with it. As a rural Deputy, I could not agree with Deputy Desmond's suggestion of a late opening to 11.30 for six months of the summer. If we are to proceed with our economic development programme we must get our men, who are to do the work of the nation, to bed at a reasonable hour. There is an old saying:

Early to bed, early to rise Makes a man healthy, wealthy and wise.

That applies equally to the nation. If our men are to be in the pubs up to 11.30 for half the year—and that would mean it would be twelve before they get home—they will not be in a fit condition the following day to give a fair day's work for a fair day's pay. I would be totally opposed to the late hour of 11.30 in any period of the year for the people who must keep the wheels of industry going.

Some exception must be made for tourists if we are to develop our tourist industry. I am not a spoil sport or a teetotaller. I have spent some late nights myself and I know the evils of late drinking. I would not want to see widespread throughout the country a practice where our rural people would indulge too much in late drinking. If the pubs remain open until 11.30, it will develop as a natural and ordinary habit that people will stay out late at night drinking. For that reason I would much prefer to see the hours of 10.30 for the six months of the winter and 11.00 o'clock for the six months of the summer. When we have summer time that would actually be only 10.00 o'clock. People could then go home and be in a fit condition to do their day's work the following day. In whatever line of business they are, whether they are workers, managers or anything else, I think that is late enough for them to get home from the pubs.

So much for the workers. I am informed also by the publicans that they do not want these late hours. They consider the day entirely too long. They say they would not sell any more drink as a result of the later hours but that so much time would be wasted. Time is very valuable. Time is money. At that hour of the night the time would certainly be wasted, and that would be detrimental for the people indulging in those late sittings. If the Minister can see his way—I am not pressing him but merely giving my view and the view of many people with whom I have discussed the matter—I think he should make the time 10.30 p.m. for the six months of winter and 11.00 for the six months of summer. It would be more beneficial for the people as a whole. He should, of course, cater for the tourist who has always been able to get drink up to 12.00 o'clock.

It is very hard to define what a tourist is. One who comes from a foreign country can be looked on as a tourist, but a man only 50 or 100 miles away from his home can be just as good a tourist as a foreigner. Under the Bill drink can be supplied to people who order a substantial meal in a hotel after 11.00 p.m. Very few hotels here provide substantial meals at that time. If I am travelling late at night—and I know this is the case with commercial travellers—I always ensure that I have a meal around eight or nine o'clock. If a traveller goes into a hotel at 11.00 o'clock at night, it is very unlikely that the staff will be there to cook a meal for him. The usual practice is that such travellers have a meal about eight or nine o'clock. When the traveller gets to his destination there is no doubt but that he would enjoy a few drinks before retiring. Under this Bill he would not be entitled to that refreshment unless he ordered a substantial meal with it. That is not practicable at all. A man needing a substantial meal will get it around 8.00 p.m. or 9.00 p.m. What he wants at 11.00 p.m. is a few drinks after his long journey before he goes to bed, and the law should not prevent him from obtaining them.

To come now to Sunday trading hours, I have found general agreement in my area that the opening should be from 12.30 p.m. to 2 p.m. I recommend these hours to the Minister as being the only suitable hours. The suggested 1 to 3 p.m. opening is unsuitable and would have the effect of disrupting family life on Sunday. As a result of the Taoiseach's speech, I anticipate an amendment will be forthcoming in that regard. That amendment will have my support.

I have found an open difference of opinion as to the hours suitable in the evening. Seaside resorts and big towns want early opening, from 5 to 8 o'clock, in order to cater for people at football matches and tourists at the seaside. In the villages and the crossroad publichouses, they want late opening; from 7 to 10 p.m. would be the most suitable in their case. It is almost impossible for the Minister to bring in legislation which will satisfy everybody. He simply cannot do it. Nevertheless, if it is our intention to cater for people on Sunday evening and if we are to have one law for the whole country, from 5 to 9 p.m. would command the greatest measure of support from people generally. I have had strong representations from people in the rural areas that the hours on Sunday evening should be from 7 to 10 p.m. I know the Minister cannot meet all the demands made upon him because of the variety of ways in which people amuse themselves and the variety of places to which they go on a Sunday evening.

As regards the bona fide hours, there is no doubt that that law is obsolete. Three miles in a car mean nothing. In the old days, when the laws were enacted, a man had to walk the three miles, cycle them, or go in a horse and cart. To-day a man gets into a motor-car and he travels the three miles in five minutes. I know there is almost general agreement that the bona fide traffic should be done away with, but it has been suggested to me that an increase in the mileage to 20 or 30 miles would solve many of the problems confronting us as regards the bona fide traffic.

I hope there will be suitable amendments to the Bill and that all sections will be catered for. Deputy Sherwin said last week that half the men who indulge in this bona fide business are mental. If we extend the hours to half-eleven there will, I think, be a great number of mental cases. I am opposed to the half-eleven for either four or six months. I recommend to the Minister half-ten in winter for six months and 11 in the summer and, on Sunday, from 5 to 9 o'clock.

Mr. McGilligan

I intend to vote against the Second Reading of this measure. I am also in the position of desiring a change in the present licensing laws. The Taoiseach intervened in such a way as to strengthen my intention of voting against the Second Reading. The main purpose of his intervention was to show that the Fianna Fáil Party will be tied to this particular legislation. There will be no free vote for the members of that Party; and the only amendment the Taoiseach suggested was with regard to the two-thirty opening time on Sunday instead of what is in the Bill.

The Taoiseach, in his usual effort to oversimplify, said he cannot understand anybody who decides to vote against this measure because it is accepted that a change is required; and then, he says quite simply, a change means a Bill. Therefore, one must vote for this Bill. That, of course, is completely illogical. I do not intend to vote for this Bill for the reason that, while I regard the present law as being weak, especially since it is not enforceable, I do not think we ought to go the whole way proposed in this legislation. The Taoiseach says that after the passing of this legislation there will be continuous and rigorous enforcement of the law. That may be his intention but I imagine that in another five years we will be faced with further liquor legislation and we will find then that there was no public opinion behind the legislation now being put through. The Taoiseach hopes there will be public opinion to support it.

I want to test the Taoiseach. Does he think that the people in the rural areas who have been drinking illegally over a great number of hours on Sundays will be satisfied in future and give him their support because he will make it legal for them to drink part of the hours on which they have been accustomed to drinking on Sundays? I do not think that will be the case. Neither do I think that the position adumbrated in the Garda Síochána memorandum quoted by the Minister for Justice on the Second Reading will be changed. The memorandum stated that it is well known that it is almost impossible to secure observance of the law unless the majority of the citizens are anxious to see it enforced. Will anybody tell me that because we are going to extend the hours there will be any greater effort on the part of the people in the rural areas to accept the new provisions when the police try to enforce them? The memorandum said it is very doubtful if this can be said of the present licensing laws. People from all walks of life break them regularly. No social obloquy appears to attach to offences against the licensing laws.

Again, does anybody assert that, if this Bill becomes law, a person who is found on licensed premises after hours will feel any sensation of social obloquy which, the Guards think, is absent at the present time? I personally do not believe they will. The memorandum goes on to say that the penalties imposed by the Courts are often quite inadequate as a deterrent. The Courts over the years have definitely failed to impose proper penalties for breaches of the licensing laws, and it is quite true nobody thought it any shame to be found in a licensed premises after hours. Will there be any change in the attitude of the people towards drinking during unlicensed hours or who are found on licensed premises trying to get drink in hours that are not permitted? I personally do not think there will be any great change. Neither do I think any great change likely to occur in the attitude of the Garda. Nobody regards being found in publichouses at the wrong hours as anything really wrong. If the police try to enforce the law under the proposed new hours I believe the Garda will find the same attitude in the future as has obtained in the past and the Courts will take the same attitude in the future with regard to the imposition of penalties.

The Taoiseach also told us that he understood one of the great evils at the moment was that, with the approach of the closing hour, there is a sort of feeling of apprehension— Deputy Faulkner referred to this matter also—that the Guards will be around any minute and people therefore order a few drinks and swallow them quickly because they are afraid the publican may insist on closing at the proper time or the Garda may be in to prosecute the publican for nonenforcement of the law.

Let us think of the hour as being 10 o'clock or 10.30 or 11 o'clock. Will there not be people who, instead of going into the public house at 9 o'clock, will go in at 10 o'clock or 10.30? The same situation will arise. Those people, realising that time is nearly up, will order a couple of extra rounds and will drink them quickly with the same evil result. I do not think that the changing of the hours will make any difference to that section of people and you will have the same people getting drunk every bit as quickly by drinking the few last drinks as fast as they can.

The Minister told us that the Church's attitude was that they were afraid of drunkenness and he gave us a sermon on drunkenness. In doing so he introduced the question of the drunken driver. I do not think that it is proper to equate those two things so that one will come to the conclusion that every person found guilty of driving a car while drunk is guilty of being sinfully drunk. Drunken driving depends on whether a person is able to exercise effective control over a vehicle. Some people might be able to do that and still be definitely drunk but to say that it applies to everyone who is found guilty of drunken driving is putting the matter too far.

I understand the attitude of the Church to be, not that there will be more drinking, but that the longer hours will allow more people to get into the habit of drinking even though they are not drinking to excess. You are going to extend the number of people who will get into the habit of taking drink. I can see a considerable change coming over the rural areas where, up to the present, after Mass, you have certain people scrambling to get into a public house because they know that the Guards will not bother them but, under the new dispensation, it will be possible for everyone to go in during certain hours. In those circumstances you are bound to have an increase in the number of people who will be accustomed to taking drink.

I am against this proposed legislation. I agree that the legislation that exists at present has been ineffective and I agree that the legislation has not been enforced properly and that lack of enforcement depended to a great extent on public opinion. That state of opinion showed itself with the public that counted. That is not the general public but the public that wanted to drink during the illegal hours. Both the Courts and the Guards decided, and it was not through indolence or inefficiency but they agreed with the people, that there was no stigma attached to drinking in an illegal period. I personally believe that the Court and the Guards have helped to weaken public opinion in regard to this matter. If there had been some better effort to enforce the law and if the Guards had been serious in their effort they might have helped to create a better public opinion and they might have got District Justices to impose penalties that were adequate.

Public opinion has weakened and wilted on this matter. If public opinion has to be educated, we cannot do it by giving in to people who want to drink at times when they should not drink and that is just what we are doing. We should also say that we hope the Courts will help to enforce the law by inflicting heavy penalties and that we will see that the Guards will take more vigorous steps to enforce the law in future.

At present there is great contempt for the law with regard to drinking as it stands and the proposals now before the House do not make any effective changes that I can see. Many of the clauses in this legislation are interlocked but, on balance, I can see only two changes. The area exemption orders are to be abolished and the bona fide traffic is also to be abolished.

The area exemption order is a very small matter. It allowed four hours, at the most, in certain areas. That is to be taken away and, as I have already said, the bona fide traffic is going to be abolished. In return for that, there is quite a considerable extension of the hours allowed and as far as I can see the result will be a considerable extension of the number of people who will get encouragement to drink. As far as the ordinary licensed house is concerned, the time is to be extended by an hour. I do not see any reason for that. I have noticed no pressure for it and there have been many representations made against it. Those people who write to the newspapers are definitely against it.

In addition to that there is a change being made in regard to the hours during which drink may be served with meals. An additional period is being allowed. It used to be from 11 o'clock or 11.30 and there is an alteration of an hour or an hour and a half with regard to the time in which drink can be served with meals.

Personally, I think that this matter of drinking must be looked at in a different light when it is a question of drink being served with a meal and when it is a question of a person getting a drink without any food. Is any effort to be made to define what a meal is?

Is there to be any question of relating the price of the meal to the liquor served with the meal and the price charged for the meal itself or are we going to reach the situation— I do not think that we reached the point in this country that they reached in England—where in railway refreshment rooms and such there was the well-known business of a sandwich chained to the counter and served to all sorts of customers with the liquor they ordered? That was at one time regarded as sufficient at least to pass for a meal with which a drink could be served. When a person is supposed to be taking a drink with a meal—and not having a fake meal so as to get a drink—that would be all right, but I see no way of enforcing this matter of a meal and insistence on a real meal when drink is being served, unless some regulation is laid down in law, and it would be difficult to enforce, in relation to the price or value of the meal and the amount of liquor a customer will be allowed to have.

With this extension, first of all of the hours when drink is to be served with the meal, there can be an extension of a full hour on the ordinary closing times in hotels and restaurants for weekdays. We have then to consider all three types of special orders that may be obtained from time to time, the general exemption order, the special exemption order and the occasional licence which, of course, allow for a considerable extension of the old hour and will still be something additional to the new laws imposed in this legislation.

It is when one comes to the rural opening hours on Sundays that one finds the biggest change has been made. At the moment there is permission to have drink from 1 to 3 p.m. or in Dublin from 1.30 to 3 and from 5 to 7 p.m. In the county boroughs that prevails. There was no permission to have drink outside the county boroughs on a Sunday. I am leaving out the bona fide trade for the moment. It is now proposed to allow drinking in all areas from 1 to 3 p.m. and from 5 to 9 p.m. during what is described as summer time and from 5 to 8 p.m. during the other months. I understand that this is no extension, so far as practice is concerned in the rural areas, and yet we are told by the Taoiseach that we have to depend on this, making legal something that was previously illegal, to gain us the whole weight of public opinion in rural Ireland.

These hours are a great extension of drinking facilities in rural areas on Sunday. In addition, the periods during which drink may be served with meals are also enlarged so far as Sunday is concerned. It is in regard to the Sunday that the two big changes are being made. The Area Exemption Order is scheduled for repeal and that will mean the deprivation of possibly four hours at a maximum on certain special occasions. In addition, the bona fide trade has been abolished. The bona fide trading must, of course, be related to Sunday drinking and no doubt most people are against bona fide trading and would like to see it go. But a balance has to be kept and I fear the balance is very much weighted in favour of better facilities for drinking and therefore for having a change and a change for the worse in the habits of the people without necessarily leading towards drunkenness. It is for those reasons that I take the Tables that are put as a Schedule to this memorandum and in regard to Tables 1 and 2, I confine my entire objection to this legislation in regard to the extension of hours as set out in those two Tables.

There is also the matter of the six-day licence. The Taoiseach, intervening again, said that a tendency has been always observable in the licensing legislation passed through Dáil Éireann, a tendency towards the diminution of the number of public houses in the country and that was a good tendency. The Taoiseach makes a case against any good treatment of six-day licences as running against that tendency, that at any time that we did have any legislation that approved of that tendency, we always provided for compensation. A particular line that has been very successfully explored was that the number of public houses could be reduced by certain machinery and compensation paid to those who went out. A way in which that could be more effectively done in the country was by, not so much reducing them but securing better placing of licences as the population swung to and fro. In other words, it has been possible to buy a licence—I am speaking of a full licence—extinguish an old licence, and then get a new full licence in certain areas in Dublin where the population was showing an increase and where there were not too many licences in the neighbourhood.

We are departing entirely from the other guarantee that was given and observed in regard to licence holders that in the future, where anything was done by the State to destroy a legitimate trade—a trade regularly and legally carried on up to a certain point —the case should be met by compensation. We are now faced with this: the six-day licence holders and seven-day licence holders in the countryside up to date were very much in the same position. The six-day holder did not open on Sunday and the seven-day holder although licensed for the seventh day found in fact that it was not of very great value except only in respect of bona fide traffic. Now, the seven-day licence holder is given a tremendous advantage over a licensee who has only a six-day licence. I believe that once the State interferes in a way that puts some group at a serious disadvantage, or gives a very considerable advantage, the State should do something to see that the old-time equality is better preserved.

It has been said here and said quite clearly that the number of six-day licence holders is a very small fraction of the number of licence holders in the country. The Minister, or some Deputy, said they were about 1/8th and that is so. The difficulty about the six-day holders is that there are pockets in the country where the number of six-day holders is a much bigger proportion of all the licence holders in the area than it would be of the whole countryside and no doubt difficulties will arise in trying to treat these people in any sort of fair way. I can see an injustice either way, but I think the lesser injustice is done by giving the six-day holders a full licence and not insisting on their buying out. The Taoiseach appears to think that the provision with regard to buying out a licence will meet the situation and that no injustice will be done and that we shall also secure the aim of the Dáil over many years of licensing legislation of reducing the number of licences in the country. It may reduce the number of licences but it will certainly work unjustly so far as the six-day holder is concerned.

The Taoiseach has said that he understood, or that it had been represented to him, that there was any number of licences to be had, so to speak, for the asking. That might be the case up to date but when this legislation is passed and the full effects of it are realised, there will be no cheap licences for sale. People will know that there is a considerable advantage to be got by those who may buy or succeed in getting a full licence. That, of course, will have a reaction and immediately the price of what might have been a decaying licence will become the price of a really valuable property.

There are a certain number of matters in this legislation on the minor side which, of course, are of importance also. Some rather leave me a little bit confused. The Minister, at column 953, spoke of the minor matters and said there were three of some consequence. One is that a new publichouse licence can be granted for premises in a rural area on the extinguishing of two existing licences of the same character. That is, they were cutting out the old time requirement that they must be in the same or adjoining district court area. There may be some advantage in this but certainly whatever advantage there is is overweighted by the fact that two licences will have to be bought instead of one, as previously.

The Minister made as an important point a second matter, that there are provisions in the legislation whereby a person who intends to construct a new premises or to make substantial alterations in an existing licensed premises, can get a declaration from the courts that if he completes his premises according to plans and fulfils other statutory requirements, he can get a promise, so to speak, of a licence in due course. If that is any change, it is certainly not a change in Dublin where for quite a while the practice has grown up of people going in with plans, and showing that part of the premises have been brought to some point of reconstruction and securing from the court a statement that if the premises were constructed according to the plans, the licence would be granted. It is recognised, I have heard justices say that this was something of an extension of the licensing laws or the provisions with regard to the granting of new licences but nevertheless, it is a practice which has prevailed in Dublin for many years. It may be that it will ease the situation in the countryside.

Part IV of the Bill was referred to by the Minister at column 954 and he brings it forward as something of an advantage that the health authority would be allowed to object to the grant or renewal of a licence on the ground of unfitness of a premises. It may strengthen the hands of those who do not want licences to be granted or to be renewed but, again, I am not sure that this will be of any special advantage.

One of the objections that may be taken to the grant or renewal of a licence is with regard to the unfitness of a particular premises and those objections have been made from time to time in the courts and many a premises has been ruled out on the ground of faulty toilet room accommodation, and things like that. I do not know that leaving the health authorities the right to intervene will make very much difference. I wonder is it right to allow health authorities to intervene? When a licence or a renewal is sought there are any number to object. The Licensed Vintners' Association generally are represented at any of these applications and they themselves raise the question of fitness or unfitness of the premises and often have got licences or renewals refused.

That brings me to another consideration. The police are entitled to object. For many years there was confusion as to what were the proper grounds upon which the police might make objections to premises. Various views have been expressed on that from time to time. Personally, I have taken the view and have heard that my colleagues in the district court take the same view, that the police were entitled only to object on police grounds, on such things, say, as supervision of particular premises or that because of an addition or extension to a licensed premises supervision was rendered more difficult or almost impossible but the police did get into the habit of entering objections on the grounds that there were too many licensed premises in the neighbourhood. That, I suggest, is none of their business. That should be left to those who are in the neighbourhood and who can be very vocal on such an occasion when they think that the trade they have under certain conditions will be broken into by some new trader being allowed to establish himself in the area. I do suggest to the Minister that, whether by order or regulation or possibly by some legislation or addition to legislation, the Garda should be confined to making objections, say, for renewals or the grant of new licences to what are police matters and should be confined or should confine themselves to that.

The Minister, towards the end, spoke of a provision whereby licences which were dormant for five years cannot be revived. This definitely confuses me. I had always thought that the law was that if there was a licence dormant, which did not trade during 12 months, that licence was lost. It is true, it could be revived on an application to the court but the courts were very slow to grant such applications. I know that it was possible to evade that requirement by opening for a certain day or a weekend or two or three days towards the end of a week and making it possible to say that the premises had not been closed to trading for a full period of 12 months. But, if the Minister's purpose is to say that, even although there might be an odd bit of trading done year by year, if a licence does lie dormant for five years then there is no possibility of its being revived even on an application to the court, that may make some improvement. Personally, I do not think it will matter much.

At the end of his speech the Minister returned again to this matter to which the Taoiseach referred to-day, that when this Bill becomes law it will be strictly enforced and there will be no periods of grace allowed. There again the Minister is going to find himself up against public opinion. The public opinion is not really in favour of licensing regulations at all and the Minister will find that the Guards will not get support from the public and I doubt if they will get support from the courts, even after this legislation is passed. There will still be that remnant of that old time idea in the public mind that they should be allowed to drink any time their appetites drive them to it as long as they have the money to spend. I would emphasise again that the public in this connection means really the drinking public, the public who resort to these places. I doubt very much if the passing of a piece of legislation will change the old time attitude which has been built up over many years in regard to drinking in the city and the country and that there will be any great change made in it simply because we yielded to public opinion and have failed to enforce the law for many years and now feel that we will restore public confidence by some extension of drinking hours.

Mr. Doherty

As a rural Deputy who has been engaged in the business all my life, I would be failing in my duty if I did not voice an opinion on this very important Bill. It is generally accepted by an overwhelming majority of the people of this country that the laws as they stand in relation to the sale of intoxicating liquor are far from perfect, that they are open to abuse and are indeed being abused. Therefore, the time is opportune for all concerned to get together with a view to rectifying the faults that exist.

It would be practically impossible for a Minister or a Government to introduce a Bill in relation to the sale of intoxicating liquor which would be entirely satisfactory to our community as a whole. Therefore, the Government set up a Commission to enquire into the laws relating to the sale of intoxicating liquor and the Minister has gone a very long way to meet the wishes of the majority of the people and to adopt the recommendations of the majority report of the Commission. That is only right because, if we have any regard for democratic and constitutional rights, we must adhere to majority rule.

The Commission are to be highly commended and congratulated on the volume of evidence which they collected from the large number of individuals whom they interviewed. They did their job efficiently and in the shortest possible time. The Commission was fully representative of the various communities in the country. The proposals in this Bill have met the views of the majority of the signatories of that Commission's Report and even though it has not met with the wishes of us all, I think the Minister has endeavoured to meet the wishes of the majority of the Commission and of the community as a whole.

As a trader I can honestly say I agree with the entire Bill but as a public representative and as one who is acquainted with the social life in rural Ireland and indeed in most of the small towns in the West of Ireland, I must object to part of this Bill in which it is proposed to give a raw deal to six-day licensees. I hope during the course of my remarks to convince the Minister of the injustice which will be brought about in respect of these six-day traders if the Bill as it stands passes through the House. I hope also that my remarks in arguing this case for those people will be relevant to the position as a whole in regard to the six-day licensees.

Under this Bill the seven-day publican is getting a concession he never had before. If we are to have a hard and fast rule in this matter what is good for one should be good for all of us, and there should be uniformity for both six-day and seven-day traders. In the Twenty-six Counties we have approximately 1,425 six-day licensees; that is one eighth of the total number of public houses in the country. The proposals in this Bill are giving the seven-day licensees a free hand to open their doors on a Sunday for general trading. In the same vicinity you have six-day traders and you are actually tempting these people to break the law. But the worst feature of all in my opinion is that you are tempting the customer to concentrate on the seven-day public houses and thus the six-day man will lose his trade.

While I agree with the Minister and the Government in any measure they bring into this House to reduce the number of public houses I cannot but oppose this Bill because of the raw deal it proposes to give to the six-day licensee. I know the Department of Justice have put the case that a six-day licensee can purchase a seven-day licence but if that situation arises you will have roughly 1,500 six-day men bidding for a vacant seven-day premises and in that event seven-day premises will go to prohibitive prices.

It has been clearly stated here by the Leader of the Opposition that the majority of these six-day licensees are in the West of Ireland but he also clearly pointed out that the majority of these six-day traders have a mixed business such as grocery, provisions and bar, hardware and bar, drapery, boots and bar, and so on. I do not think it is fair not to make concessions to the six-day man who is wholly dependent for his livelihood on the sale of intoxicating liquor.

As I have stated, I object to that proposal and I do not want to be misinterpreted when I fully back the Minister and the Government in any measure brought into this House to reduce the number of public houses. I would appeal to the Minister—and I think it will have the full backing of the House—to extend the field of jurisdiction for these 6-day licensees. By doing that he will meet my objection and, I am sure, the objection of those people who have put up the various arguments on behalf of the six-day licensees. If he does that he is giving a chance to those six-day men and the enactment of this measure will not jeopardise the livelihood of these six-day men and their families.

We have been told by the Taoiseach to-day that there are 5,000 seven-day premises redundant in the country and I have even been told to-day outside this House by a person who is acquainted with the situation in other counties apart from mine that he has as many as seven to ten seven-day premises for sale. He sold one during his business last week for £85, but on an average—I am referring now to the licence average in that area—the price will be approximately £200 and I do not think that is out of anybody's reach who is in the trade.

There is a case that can be put up by the six-day men that they have subscribed to the State to no small extent by way of revenue down the years just the same as the seven-day man. For example, of the total cost of an Irish bottle of whiskey 22/- goes in revenue; 2/- of the cost of a glass of whiskey, approximately 50 per cent., goes in duty and those six-day licensees pay that duty like the seven-day man. For that reason I am giving my views as to why these people should be considered. I again ask the Minister to give some concession to them. If the field of jurisdiction is extended, I shall fully support the Bill.

I should like to join with other Deputies in recommending the elimination of the bona fide trade. It was generally regarded as one of the greatest jokes of all time. I also welcome the St. Patrick's Day opening. It was high time that a Minister for Justice brought in a Bill to enable an Irishman to have a drink in comfort on our great national feast day. It is only just that the Sunday opening hours should apply on St. Patrick's Day. It is good that we should endeavour to meet the wishes of the tourist trade because it is one of the ways we have of meeting our balance of payments. It is a great boon to our national economy and is second to agriculture. The majority of our tourists come from Great Britain and to give them facilities it is right that we should extend the hours during the holiday period.

Speaking as a Deputy from rural Ireland, I think the Sunday opening hours should be from 12.30 p.m. to 2.00 p.m., after Mass, in order to protect the farmer and the family unit. I can speak with experience of social life in rural Ireland. The farmer is entitled to a drink after Mass on Sunday. I think the majority of members will agree that that is the only day the farmer has to discuss his problems in the local pub. In our areas it might be called a social club.

I also wish to refer to an industry which is affected by the liquor laws. This industry has been carried on for years without a Government grant and, indeed, without Government blessing. I refer to poteen-making in the isolated areas. The Minister will agree it is an old tradition that has been carried on down the years when drink was beyond the reach of most men. They say in the West that a drop of "the cratur" is all right at the right time, but when the gin bottles become scarce and there is a fixed price per five naggin, the situation is very serious. That is the situation in parts of my constituency. No doubt Deputies on both sides have at some time or other in their profession defended those fine moonshiners and got them out of trouble.

I wish to bring to the Minister's notice a part of my constituency which recently hit the headlines in our daily papers. It is a Gaeltacht area and I claim the people there are entitled to a decent drink and a reasonable standard of living. I refer to the Carratigue and Rossport areas, where Gael Linn have been very prominent in recent weeks. One would hardly believe that in 1959 those people are deprived of a drink, even on a fair day. I should like to ask the Minister if a person has to travel 24 miles for a drink, surely in this modern age some means should be devised by this House to enable some responsible business people in the area, who have capital and accommodation, to be granted a licence so that these unfortunate people can get a drink in comfort.

I know the Minister is aware of the constant warfare going on between those people and the Civic Guards. I submit the Minister should come to the aid of those people without delay. If he does not, I can guarantee him that Mr. Khrushchev will never be done out of his vodka. I am not at all acquainted with the legal position of purchasing a new public house, but if the Department of Justice and the Superintendent of the Guards in that area deem it advisable that a licence should be issued to those people, the Minister should devise some means under this Bill to issue such a licence to one or two responsible people.

It is obvious that this Bill has a moral aspect as well as a social and commercial aspect. However, I am confident that this House will give its fullest consideration to the views of our religious superiors.

Dr. Browne

For the past few weeks I have been arguing here about the merits of the suggestion that in a difficult, complicated matter it would be helpful to establish a commission on which there would be people competent to look for evidence, to examine the problem, consider it and weigh up all the arguments for and against any proposed changes. I argued the case on the Courts of Justice Bill that a commission is of great help and assistance to Deputies since it does the technical work of examining the problem and sifting the evidence. That procedure has been followed in relation to the proposals to rationalise the drinking laws and the recommendations of the commission have been embodied in the Bill now before the House. Because of that it is very difficult for us with the relatively little knowledge we have—indeed, it would be irrational on our part—to throw out their proposals as being wholly unacceptable. I have read the speeches made. I have listened to the views of the Opposition on this Bill. So far, I do not think a very convincing case has been made against acceptance of the general proposals contained in the Bill. At the same time, I am not in complete agreement with all the proposals and I should like to put some specific points to the Minister.

I listened with great interest, as always, to Deputy McGilligan. Personally, I am most concerned with the extension of the drinking hours. I am not completely happy as to what is the wisest thing to do. Deputy McGilligan had no counter suggestions to offer against those made by the Minister so far as I could gather. He came to the conclusion, in fact. that the proposed changes would not show any great change in the overall situation. If there will be no great change in the drinking habits of the public as a result of this Bill, I do not see why the Deputy should oppose it. I do not wish to misrepresent him in any way. He was referring to the proposed extension of the drinking hours, not to the bona fide traffic, but his reason did not appear to me to be a good enough one for rejecting the Bill.

I found it difficult to accept one reference made by the Taoiseach. He said he believed there would be a net reduction in drinking hours as a result of this legislation, if properly enforced. I wonder is the Taoiseach to some extent confused. I am sure he did not wish to mislead the House, but he gave the impression that there might be a net reduction in drinking hours and less likelihood of increased drinking in the community as a whole. It is proposed to extend considerably the drinking hours in rural Ireland, particularly on Sundays. There will, therefore, be a much greater number of drinking hours as a result of the passing of this Bill. I wonder if the Minister agrees with that.

I am in the difficult position that I accept, as every other Deputy appears to accept, the need for the abolition of the bona fide trade. The case has been made so well and so convincingly on both sides for its abolition that there is no need for me to go into it now. On the demonstrated need for the abolition of the bona fide trade because of the abuses of it—the high incidence of drunkenness and drunken driving as a result of late drinking, coupled with the disparity in conditions as between the city drinker and those who go four or five miles outside the city in a car— the case appeared to be that we are well justified in abolishing the bona fide trade. It seems to me, however, that there is a certain attempt to hang certain consequential decisions on the abolition of the bona fide trade, decisions which I do not think are quite consistent, namely, the extension of drinking hours throughout the country generally.

I agree the position in regard to St. Patrick's Day should be changed. I see no reason why a public holiday should be singled out for different treatment from that accorded to other public holidays. If the Opposition are trying to establish the case that no new principles are involved in this Bill. I cannot see any new principles anywhere in it. As to whether there may not be serious and undesirable sociological consequences as a result of this proposed legislation, I am inclined to think that there could be such consequences with regard to certain of its provisions. At the same time, in discussing a matter such as this, we have to put it in its context. We must remember the wonderful record for relative sobriety we can claim in the Republic over a long number of years. I am not a Pioneer, but I have a certain amount of sympathy with their fears that the extension of the drinking hours may have detrimental results. At the same time they must take cognisance of the fact that there has been a remarkably consistent, and it appears to me irreducible minimum, number of people guilty of drunkenness over the last 25 years. The figure runs between 3,000 and 4,000. In 1932, the number of convictions was 3,800. In 1951, it was 3,700. One must bear that fact in mind when one considers the slight risk involved in the proposal to extend the drinking hours in the country generally. I sincerely hope that the fears expressed are and will be unfounded. I hope there will not be an increase in drunkenness as a result of increasing the hours. So far, I do not think that case has been established.

The Taoiseach said there was a great public demand for this legislation. He was in a different position from that in which he found himself a couple of weeks ago when, irrespective of whether or not it was in accordance with public opinion, he introduced the Courts of Justice Bill. This time he is introducing a Bill behind which he believes there will be strong public opinion. I am inclined to take Deputy McGilligan's view on that, unless the contrary is proved. I must discount to a considerable extent the case made by those who have a vested interest in an extension of the hours. Like Deputy McGilligan, I think it is the drinking public who want the hours extended rather than the general public, and that is something the Minister ought to bear in mind.

I know that the commission also came down with the conclusion that the weight of evidence convinced them that the present hours are inadequate. I do not know how they could establish that to their own satisfaction especially as I understand that the amount of drink retained for home consumption in the last 15 or 20 years has reduced in quantity, that there has been less drinking done by the public over a number of years despite the fact that there was a tremendous influx of tourists to help them in their drinking. It does not seem to me that the public are anxious to do any greater amount of drinking than is permitted at the moment. They seem to me to be doing less drinking and it would seem to me that it would be right to assume that they do not want the extension of the drinking hours.

As to the drinking hours proposed in the Bill, I do not know who does his drinking in the mornings. I do not understand why the public houses need to be open before one o'clock in the day when they could open with drink and a light lunch. Could the hours not be shortened in the morning in the interest of the workers in the industry? Who has time to drink before one o'clock, except possibly in rural Ireland on fair days when an exemption could be made? I think that is a consequence of this legislation to which I am surprised the Minister did not pay more attention— the implications of the extended hours on the men working in the trade. They will have to work longer hours. I know that these men are protected to some extent by the Shops Act but instead of a 48 hour week they will now find themselves doing a total of 56 hours which includes overtime.

These men will be working a very long day and a very long week. An 11 hour day seems to me to be a terrible prospect for anybody to have to entertain in order to earn his living. I have a certain amount of sympathy with the assistants in this business and with the single publican who has no assistant and who may have to work very long hours in order to remain open. While the Minister has said that this is permissive legislation, we all know that once this Bill is passed a publican must remain open if he is not to lose his customers. Consequently it means that the publican will have to remain open and that the assistants will have to work longer hours.

I think that is a retrograde step. Their present hours were won after a considerable labour struggle in the early 'twenties. This is a retrograde step in leaving these people open to more extended hours of working which will be essential in the case of the single publican who has one assistant. In the other houses, where there are three or four assistants, there will be probably shift work as there is for nurses in hospitals but nevertheless considerable hardship will be imposed. I wonder if the Minister would consider amending the hours as regards the mornings in order to compensate the worker for the extended hours at the other end of the day?

The consequences of these extended hours obviously do not end with the man going home at a later hour to his family. Some way will have to be found to get him home and the transport arrangements will have to be altered so that you will have consequential hardship imposed on workers and transport and ancillary services which will be required to be kept on later because of the public houses closing later in the evening.

I am not at all impressed by the argument put forward in regard to the tourist trade. That trade is one of the reasons given by the representatives of Bord Fáilte in their recommendation for longer hours. I can understand their making the recommendation. That is what they are paid for but I do not think it is essential that we should accept their recommendation. The main attraction for anybody going from one country to another is to see another way of life, not to see a replica of what he has left behind him. It seems to me to be a strange departure by a political party that has identified itself during all its political life with the effort to establish the Irish way of life and that has gone further and attempted to establish that our language shall be the Irish language only. That is inconsistent with the arguments made to back these proposals, that we should make ourselves as much as possible like the Englishman, the Scotsman, the Welshman or the American so that these people will not find any difficulty in getting drink when they come to visit us.

I am not impressed with that suggestion. If we decide that our drinking hours should be whatever we wish to fix, let them be two or five or ten hours, let us do that because we decide to do it ourselves in the interests of our own people and not because we want to satisfy the late drinker who may visit us for two weeks in the year. Most other countries adopted their drinking hours without looking outside to see what others were doing. The French have one extreme and the Swedes have another but they do not go around the world to see what the hours in the other countries are. I think that is a flippant way to approach the whole question. We should not depend on materialistic considerations of how much money we will get from our drinking tourists. I do not think that should be added on at all. If you are to do this because of tourists, some of them might like all-night night clubs; some of them might like to have obscene books exhibited so that they could read what they liked; others might like an amendment of the cinema censorship so that they could see what they liked. Where are you going to draw the line in this consideration of how much money you can get out of tourists? Surely, as I said before, the standards we accept in relation to matters like this are the standards that we consider desirable and acceptable to ourselves as a nation and let the tourists like them or lump them. Personally speaking, as a tourist I never found the country to which I went paid much attention to my likes or dislikes or to my eating, sleeping, drinking or other habits. I think that is a consideration which is completely irrelevant and certainly has no validity where I am concerned.

The extension of hours in rural Ireland is a very desirable thing and it was quite wrong to have a disparity or discrepancy or drinking anomalies in the legislation as between rural Ireland and the cities. In my view there could be no justification for it and indeed everybody agrees that there is no great discrepancy in fact at the moment because drinking goes on, but what the Minister is trying to do is to bring the law into line with reality, with the situation as it is. I think nobody wants to controvert that on either side of the House. There is this illegal drinking in rural Ireland and it is perfectly understandable that it is most unfair that they have to do it in that way. This Bill remedies that situation. For that reason and because of the abolition of the bona fide trade I must support this legislation because I think it is perfectly just.

It seems that opportunities for several levels of interference with the Gardaí in rural Ireland were more than likely to arise as a result of the flexibility which I understand was recommended by the authorities, the Department of Justice or the superintendent, or the realists who had to live and work in the area and knew that it was just looking for trouble to try to enforce the law too strictly because the district court did not, or would not, back them up on many occasions. I think I remember a Minister for Justice—my recollection is rather vague on it—saying that the right thing for them to do was to draw down the blind and go on with their drinking and in that way they would not embarrass the police. I think that was a realistic understanding of the situation in rural Ireland and the Minister's proposals are giving effect in legislation to what is already a reality in rural Ireland. Because of that, and because of the abolition of bona fide trading—I think everybody agrees that is desirable—and because of the proposal to give justice to the drinkers in rural Ireland I concede that the measure is acceptable to me as legislation.

On the question of breaking up the family, the Taoiseach made some attempt to meet that problem. I think drinking to a late hour such as 3 o'clock on Sunday is undesirable on the whole and I understand the question as to whether it should be 12.30 to 2.30 or 1 to 3 can be considered on the Committee Stage when amendments may be brought in. Personally, I would favour 12.30 to 2.30 as I think the man coming out from Mass wants to have a drink. He cannot hang around for half an hour although Deputy Carty, I think, made a very relevant point that the only hope nowadays of a political speaker at election time getting an audience will be this gap between 12.30 and 1 o'clock. Whether that is a consideration that would weigh with the Minister I do not know.

There was some suggestion that opening should not be permitted on a Sunday so close to the hour of Mass or Service and that it should be later on in the afternoon. I am not a rural Deputy but I have a certain association with rural Ireland and is it not a fact that the average person in rural Ireland only comes into the area where there is a public house from the outside area for the Mass or Service and that it would be most inconvenient for him to go to his Service, then go home and come back again to drink? The reason why the hour is fixed so close to the religious service hour is to facilitate the person living out in the country who could not, and should not be asked to come back to the town for a drink later in the afternoon.

It seems to me that if the public want this extension—and I share Deputy McGilligan's view in relation to the drinking hours—I am inclined to believe it is the drinking public. As a Deputy, I have had no representation for the extension of drinking hours. I think it will impose a hardship on the assistant. The publican himself, whether he believes it or not, will probably gain or get an increased intake to some extent as a result of the extended hours but I do not think the same can be said to the same extent for the assistant who will merely work later and longer hours. Later hours may be serious for him and entail consequential difficulties particularly in rural Ireland when it comes to getting home. It may lead to the necessity for increased transport also because, presumably, the extended drinking hours will be something the transport authorities will have to bear in mind when they find a demand for transport facilities by people going home later than has been customary up to the present.

It always struck me as odd that there was a ban on St. Patrick's Day drinking. Probably it has historical implications of which I am not aware. It probably started in days when there was very much harder drinking than there is now. I often wondered why it is—I am sure this would not appeal to any Deputy in the House—that it is permitted to drink on Christmas Eve. I believe this is not at all in accordance with public demand, but I think it is a change the Minister might begin to consider seriously. Christmas Eve drinking has, in my view, become a disgusting orgy, in the cities in particular. It is quite shameful in some places, and I understand that it has come to the stage that they find it impossible to hold midnight services in the city of Dublin largely because they are afraid of drunken people going in there and making it impossible to hold the services. It seems to me that it is a matter that should be considered seriously by the Minister.

I know there would be very little public support, particularly from the drinking public, for that suggestion but there is certainly a very much better case for stopping drinking on Christmas Eve which, as we all are led to believe, is a Christian festival and not a Bacchanalian orgy, which it has largely become. I would be with the Minister in trying to bring a little more sanity and understanding into people's minds as to the significance of that time of the year than there appears to be there at the moment.

As to the question of principle in this legislation, I do not think there is any matter of principle involved. There may be sociological implications which, on the whole, I do not think we have reason to fear, from the figures we have of the relative sobriety of the country for many long years. There is no new principle in the extension to rural Ireland of drinking which is already going on in the city and urban areas. We all recognise that drinking in rural Ireland goes on as it is going on, even if we do not accept it.

Legislatively, we permit drinking in the cities as it is at present on Sundays. Consequently, it seems to me that we are establishing no new precedent and are not breaking down any established principle or conflicting with any established principle. The principle involved in the extension of hours was already established in the bona fide trade. The later hours were established for the bona fide trade.

I find the Bill acceptable in the two major considerations to which I have referred. I honestly do not believe a case has been made for an extension of the evening hours. I would ask the Minister whether he would consider the position of the assistants in the trade and attempt to give us later drinking hours in the morning. I honestly believe that it must be a very tiny minority who drink to any extent before, say, 1 o'clock. It seems to me to be a very early hour to start drinking. It must be only a very tiny minority of the people, except in rural Ireland on a fair day, for which provision could be made. There does not seem to be a necessity to have this very long working day for the assistants. I would prefer, indeed, that the drinking hours in the cities and towns were not extended because I do not believe there is a demand for it.

I do not know how the Minister is going to enforce rigidly the law in relation to getting out at a particular time. Does he propose that the publican should have them all ready to go out from 10.30 or get them out at 10.30 or start getting them out at 10.30 and in that way have them out at whatever the hour is? In that way there would be very little change in the total drinking hours. Will the Minister be able to achieve that? Will he have the support of the drinking public? That very essential point made by Deputy McGilligan must be emphasised. It is the drinking public for whom this legislation is being passed here. The Guards may want it and I can understand their problem in wanting it. As Deputy McGilligan pointed out—I think he had a very valid point—you will still be dealing with this very recalcitrant drinking public who will have exactly the same attitude at 10.30 or 11 or 11.30 or 12, to being put out from their favourite public house or club, no matter what hour you make it. I am not convinced by the Minister's assurance that this extension is the extension to end all extensions. I do not think so.

Mr. P. Byrne

At the outset I should like to express a certain amount of sympathy for the Minister who has taken upon himself the task of revising our licensing laws. The length of this debate and the fact that so many backbenchers participated in it is an indication of the extent to which we all regard ourselves as experts in this problem. We in Fine Gael are opposing the Second Reading of the Bill and I want to stress a point which a number of my colleagues made: We are opposing this Stage, not in any spirit of reactionary or destructive criticism. We recognise that there is need for change. The Bill we regard as quite good in parts but also bad in parts. We believe that the disimprovements effected by the Bill outweigh the improvements.

It is very easy to get bogged down in detailed points in considering a matter like this, points that could, perhaps, be better deferred to the Committee Stage. I suppose that is because there are, as Deputy Dr. Browne has said, really very few basic principles involved in this Bill. There are, perhaps, one or two important points of principle. One is that wine is one of God's choicest gifts to man. It is not evil in itself. There is no reason why we should be restrictive in our enjoyment of it in an ideal state of affairs. But, we Irish, for historical reasons for which we need not at all reproach ourselves, are strongly addicted to drink which, at one time in our history, was a grave social evil. There was much abuse. We are a race of strong drinkers. Thank goodness, drunkenness is no longer the problem which it was but, notwithstanding that, we must recognise that there is still some room for discipline.

I believe the time will come, perhaps within the next 30 to 40 years, as we develop socially as a nation, when it may be possible to dispense with restrictions in matters such as this. Let us hope that such a time will come.

I think the main feature of the Bill, one which so far no one has criticised, is the abolition of the bona fide trade. I should like to join in the welcome which has been extended to that proposal. I am only familiar with the problem as it has existed in Dublin. Bona fide drinking has been a grave social evil. The bona fide houses are a complete anachronism. It is quite true to say that the vast majority of the people entering bona fide public houses in the late evening after the city houses have closed have already had quite enough to drink. It has been a problem for the Guards and has contributed considerably to the rate of accidents on the roads. The Minister's method of effecting the abolition of the bona fide trade is to impose uniformity between Dublin city and county. The majority report of the Commission was in favour of that uniformity.

It is quite wrong to extend the hours in the City to 11.30 in the summer time and to 11 in the winter time. There is absolutely no demand for it. It will have the effect of raising the price of drink. It is unsound. The old adage of "early to bed and early to rise" has fallen into quite considerable disrepute without this House encouraging people to neglect habits of thrift, to drink until late at night during the middle of the week. The minority report was against this proposal and two signatories of the majority report stated that were it not for the fact that they were very keen on uniformity they would be opposed to extending the hours later than 10.30 p.m.

The signatories to the minority report summarised their arguments which I think are worth quoting. They stated that the extension to 11.30 on weekdays would mean complete disruption of the present pattern of family life, that it would involve the absence of public transport facilities and the attendant ills of late drinking. They emphasised the evil consequences to the general family economy which would result from such a move.

The case for uniformity has not been substantiated by the Commission or by the Minister in introducing the Bill. At the same time, I recognise the Minister's problem. It is a most effective way of abolishing the bona fide trade and at the same time meeting the apparent demand which has existed for drinking after hours, but that was a demand of a very small minority of people and one which should not be met.

It is quite absurd to impose uniformity on Dublin City, Connemara and West Cork. I quite agree people in rural areas have sound reasons for drinking late at night. They do not finish work until 10 or 10.30 p.m. It is quite different in the city. The Minister's point could be met if he were to impose the same hours on Dublin City and County and include therein the urban district of Bray. If he did that, there would be no likelihood of a mad rush out from the city to places as far away as Drogheda or Wicklow town. If there were a rush from some part of County Dublin, say, from Skerries to Drogheda, that would not be as great an evil as is being created by leaving the Dublin public houses open till 11.30 at night. It would be nothing like on the same scale as the rush which has taken place from the city to the nearer suburbs to the houses with which we are all familiar.

Like the last speaker, I am not at all impressed by the argument that we should cater for the tourist trade in this respect. For one thing, I do not believe that the tourists really need late night drinking, and I feel very strongly that there is absolutely no reason why we should be expected to change our way of life for our visitors, welcome and all as they are. In general terms I would say that certain aspects of the tourist drive akin to this proposal seem to have a rather vulgarising effect on the country at large, or could have. To appreciate that fact one has only to walk down O'Connell Street to see the number of ice-cream shops.

I want to emphasise that I am not opposed to the country houses remaining open until 11.30. Indeed like previous speakers I am inclined to wonder if 11.30 p.m. is late enough for country houses. Deputy McGilligan has rather shocked some of us by stating that he believes that in the country the closing hour of 11.30 p.m. will not be adhered to and that there will be no effective improvement in the position. I hope he is wrong in that. I am impressed by the argument that the law must be an enforceable one. That argument is a particularly good one in relation to certain parts in the West and South of Ireland where there is a deep-rooted tradition of lack of co-operation with the police and a certain lack of respect for the law. That is deplorable and any step we take to bring the law into greater respect in these places serves a very useful social purpose.

A previous speaker here last week spoke about holiday resorts in the South and in the West, places like Achill, Salthill and Ballybunion. A traditional feature of these places is the sing-songs and hoolies which are held into the small hours of the morning; very pleasant and enjoyable affairs they are. The 11.30 p.m. closing hour in such places will be quite inoperable and indeed undesirable. That is why I feel the Minister is making a big mistake in proposing uniformity throughout the country. It may seem a sound idea to him but I think it is quite impracticable.

Mention has been made of the six-day licences and it is quite possible that Dublin Deputies such as I can take a more objective view of this matter than those from the areas affected. As far as I know we have none or only very few six-day licensed houses in Dublin City. I am impressed by the arguments I have heard from all sides of the House including those of some of the Minister's followers who feel that the concession afforded to the seven-day publicans should be extended to include the six-day premises in the West and South of Ireland.

To revert to the bona fide problem in the Dublin area, one or two speakers have suggested that the trade should be compensated. I cannot believe the Minister would take that proposal seriously. It would be most undesirable that we should use public moneys to compensate these houses for loss of business. This move abolishing the bona fide houses is long overdue. As far back as 1943 the Minister's predecessor, Deputy Gerry Boland, forewarned the bona fide trade that a move such as this was bound to come in the near future. A number of bona fide houses have changed hands in recent years at fancy prices. Any purchaser of such a house was taking a calculated business risk. There is absolutely no consideration in equity that can be advanced in support of the proposal to compensate him because he took a gamble which has not come off. The reality is that it has come off because many of them, even if they bought premises five or six years ago, have recovered their capital by now.

I must confess I am not thoroughly familiar with the exact proposal in the Bill relating to exemption orders, but I am inclined to wonder if they have not been abused in the past. In recent years in Dublin exemptions have been given to quite a few houses for early morning opening on the theoretical ground that they are near the market place. Of course, we have always had traditional market houses but they have been extended to areas quite far removed from the markets and from the docks. I think that they are not, by and large, being used for the benefit of those whom the Justices had in mind. I believe there was a time in Dublin when you could not get into an early morning house near the market unless you had a chicken or turkey under your arm to prove your bona fide as a user of the market. I am aware that at present some of the early morning houses are being abused by those who have been drinking all night and are out again first thing in the morning for a cure. I do not think that is desirable.

Again, in relation to exemption orders, there is mention in the Bill of fairs and festivals. I was at one of these fixtures three years ago in County Kerry, a traditional and well established one, Puck Fair. It was a most humiliating and embarrassing experience. No words of mine could be strong enough to condemn the quite disgusting and uncivilised orgy of drinking which I observed in the town of Killorglin some years ago. I saw tinkers sprawled in the gutter being photographed by American tourists delighted with themselves at the spectacle before them. That is something of which we can all be thoroughly ashamed. I sincerely trust that at the earliest possible date the people of Kerry will do something to rid themselves of that disgraceful experience. Possibly I had an unfortunate experience. It may not be always quite as bad. I can only hope that that is the case. So much for our festivals.

There is another matter to which I want to refer, and I think some Deputies will concur with me. I want to make it clear I am not being flippant on this point. There is a Common Law liability on an innkeeper to serve the reasonable requirements of the general public. I think the Minister has a function in seeing to it that licence holders face up to their responsibilities in that respect. There is in Dublin a very small section of licensed premises which are not meeting the reasonable refreshment requirements of the public at large. I refer, Sir, to the regal hotels where it is quite impossible to obtain a bottle of Guinness's stout in their public bars. I think that is a disgraceful state of affairs. It is a manifestation of petty snobbery which, unfortunately, is all too rife in parts of this city to-day.

I must make it clear that you can, of course, if you sit down with the old ladies taking tea in the lounge and wait twenty minutes or half an hour for service, get a bottle of stout; but if you are with some friends taking a short drink and go into the public bar, you will not be served with a bottle of Guinness's stout. That is notwithstanding the fact that in some of these places you can get English, foreign and indeed, Irish beers. You can get all sorts of mucked up concoctions at fancy prices. That is probably the reason why they will not serve a bottle of stout, because they can get these fancy prices for short drinks.

It is, I think, a piece of sharp practice in addition to being a manifestation of petty snobbery. It is furthermore an acute disservice to the tourist trade. Visitors to any country expect to be provided with the wine of that country. Our national drink is Guinness and we are all aware it is the finest drink in the world. It is only right and proper that visitors to our hotels should be facilitated in sampling the beverage of which we are all so fond. Furthermore, it is a disservice to the firm of Guinness which we all hold in such high esteem.

I want to assure the House I am not being flippant in this matter. I think there is a principle involved. I would seriously suggest to the Minister that he would impose on the holders of beer licences an obligation to serve bottled beers and stout to any members of the public. I would ask him if he would be disposed to consider a technical amendment of that nature. Many people in Dublin feel quite strongly about this. For my part, I am not personally concerned because I do not like those fancy places for drinking but some people, the tourists, do. As far as I remember, one of the district justices—I think is was the late District Justice Terry O'Sullivan—actually went so far as to threaten to refuse to renew the licences of hotels which would not serve Guinness in their public bars. I feel that mention of the matter in this House should effect some improvement in the position, and I hope it will. The Minister is essentially a democrat and a man of the people. I would ask him to regard this matter sympathetically.

Another small point to which I would refer is the question of the licence duty payable by publicans. I was disappointed that the Minister did not effect any material change of this. The majority report of the Commission mentioned that they had received reasonable representations pointing out to them that the present system of levying licence duty militated against the improvement of public houses. The position is that if a publican is contemplating improvements to his premises, he knows his valuation will be increased and his rates, therefore, will go up. I suppose he cannot complain about that. But it is rather inequitable that he should at the same time be faced with an increase in the licence duty payable. The yield of licence duty is £200,000 a year. I have just been wondering if perhaps the Minister was deterred from improving the position by the notorious dead hand of the Department of Finance. I would ask the Minister to consider seriously the question of changing the process of assessment to licence duty, which is a very heavy overhead indeed for most publicans.

There is one point in relation to the extension to 11.30 which I overlooked. It is a most important point. The assistants in the licensed trade already work very long hours. In Dublin the vast majority of the houses are staffed by paid men. In the rural areas most of the houses are run by family labour. There is, therefore, a very fundamental difference. Employees in public houses are entitled to reasonable remuneration and proper overtime. They have made it quite clear they are not prepared to work the new hours without an increase in pay and without the imposition of shift work. Now shift work will involve the employment of extra staff, with a consequential increase in the price of beer. A pint is already 1/6d. Goodness knows, it is dear enough and I would strongly deplore any further increase in the price of the pint. Indeed, that is one of the strongest reasons why these hours should not be imposed in Dublin City. There is no public demand for them. I urge the Minister to reconsider his proposals in that respect. If he does so, and if he attends to the matter of the six-day licences, and some of the other points made, he will, I believe, take this Bill out of Dáil Éireann very much improved. We may possibly reach the stage at which we can pass it as an agreed measure satisfactory to all.

Mr. Kitt

I listened to the Minister's speech introducing this Bill. I have heard a good many of the speakers so far in the debate. I cannot understand why any Deputy should oppose the Second Reading of the Bill. The Bill is based in the main on the Report of the Commission of Inquiry. I should like to take this opportunity, with other Deputies, of congratulating the Commission for the pains they took, all the evidence they gathered and the report they produced. The Bill before the House is, as I say, based mainly on that report. While I do not agree with all the proposals in the Bill, remembering the further Stages through which the Bill must go, I think we could amend it in such fashion that it would become a more acceptable measure to all. I appreciate that Deputies speak from the point of view of how the Bill will affect their own constituents. What may suit an urban constituency may not suit a rural constituency. I represent a rural constituency. I have discussed this matter with a good cross-section of my constituency of North Galway. Generally, people approve of the main proposals in this Bill. There are one or two objections. I shall mention them later.

As regards the bona fide traffic, everybody is delighted that it will be done away with. Were it not for the unanimity in that regard it might not have been possible for the Commission to bring in a majority report. But, fortunately, everybody wanted uniformity throughout the country and a uniform law for all. It was unfair that there should be a distinction made between rich and poor, between the man with the bicycle and the man with the motor car, between communities in towns and cities and the people living in the rural areas. Everybody will be glad when the bona fide traffic is done away with. That is one of the principal reasons why I and other Deputies are glad this Bill has been introduced.

With regard to the ordinary weekday hours, the people in North Galway seem to be well satisfied. With regard to the Sunday hours, I prefer the hours recommended by the Commission. I would prefer 12.30 to 2 o'clock rather than 1 to 3, as proposed. I am prepared to cut that down by half an hour and make it 12.30 to 2 p.m. because the half hour earlier will suit the rural community. They will be able to meet their friends and neighbours after Mass. Old age pensioners will be able to have a drink together and discuss their problems. While the men are having a drink, the women will be able to have their own bit of relaxation and chat. There is nothing realistic about the 3 o'clock in the rural areas anyway. I should think it applies equally to the cities and towns. All publichouses should be shut by 2 o'clock. Not alone does the consumer need his dinner, but the publican and his staff need their dinners also. The consumer, with 3 o'clock closing, might very well destroy his appetite. I suggest, therefore, that the Sunday morning hours and St. Patrick's Day should be from 12.30 to 2 p.m. as recommended by the Commission.

I join with other Deputies who have spoken on behalf of the six-day licensees. If we are having uniformity in other matters, there will certainly not be uniformity if the present proposal with regard to the six-day licences remains. The difficulty could be overcome, I think, by extending the area in which seven-day licences can be purchased. We were given figures today of the large number of seven-day licences that are redundant or extinguished in the country. At the moment a lot of the six-day licences are along the western seaboard and I understand from people who know the legal position that these can only become seven-day licences if purchased in very small circumscribed areas. If these areas were extended so that a six-day licence could become a seven-day licence by the payment of a reasonable sum of money, it would possibly meet the problem of bringing about uniformity.

As far as any of the other matters are concerned I agree with Deputies who say that they will not lead to increased drinking in the country. I have been told by publicans that on Church holydays, when the front doors are wide open to people going home from Mass, they will not have as many in the public house as they would have at a time when it is not legal to be there. Perhaps there is an historical reason for that, on account of the many years we were oppressed when it grew to be a tradition for an Irishman to be "agin the law". I have been informed, and I think I can vouch for it myself, that when you have the doors wide open and when it is quite legal to go there, it will not mean that the same number of people will want to go. I believe this is the realistic approach to the question of after-hours drinking and that when we have good healthy legislation in this country—if we amend this Bill in Committee and bring in some of the amendments I have mentioned—it will lead to happy homes throughout the country and that is the ultimate aim of all our efforts here.

Mr. Lindsay

In approaching a matter of this kind, affecting as it does the whole drinking public, the business of the people who supply drink, and the police who have to enforce the law made in that regard, we must of necessity approach it as a measure that will be dominated by at least one guiding principle. If there is to emerge from this House, as a result of this and later discussions on the principal Bill and the various amendments to it, a measure that will give not alone universal satisfaction but receive universal respect, it must be such a measure that from the satisfaction engendered, there will emerge a respect that will make it easily enforceable, and that the people will be so satisfied with the measure that they will observe the hours permitted.

Legislation of any kind and particularly on a matter of this kind should, in my view, have some reflection in it of the country geographically, of the moods and tempers of the people and their application vis-a-vis the different parts of the community. In that matter, I do not think that the Minister will achieve the overall object of this Bill by aiming at what he calls uniformity. I think there is a decided difference in the average drinking day as between cities and the principal towns and the rural areas, particularly the remote rural areas. Different situations will obtain at different times of the year as regards holiday time and the tourist time. We must also take into consideration late harvest working on one hand and what happens in fishing villages on the other hand.

I believe that uniformity will not spring from hours but that it should rather spring from the habits of the people. Somebody has said here that tourists coming here are complaining that this is a dead hole because they cannot get drink. To my mind that remark is unrealistic because I think the situation is that, outside the city of Dublin and the other larger cities, there is not a time of the day or night when one cannot get a drink if one seeks it reasonably hard. That is one of the features of this country of which tourists have from time to time spoken to me—the hours at which you can get drink and the company in which you can get it, particularly having regard to the matter of enforcement. I hope I make myself clear.

We must not approach a situation of this kind as if drink were an evil thing. Of course, drink can be a source of evil, if uncontrolled. But we do not want to approach it on the basis that drink is evil in itself and that it must be regarded as such from the very beginning, as some of our brethren in another part of this country learn when they begin to take their first drumming lessons to the tune of "There are no public houses on the Lambeg Road." If you are to beat a drum of that kind, you must take the examples of literature and poetry in which writers and poets have extolled the virtues of drink and denied its evil. We cannot forget the lines that Chesterton wrote when he said, "To punish evil man they gave him soda water." And we have our own Donchadh MacNamara who said: "Mar sin is da bhrí sin, níl beart níos críonn ná bheith go siorrai ag cur preab san ól."

There is no reason to doubt that this legislation is necessary. We are opposed to it because we think that within the framework of this measure the hours are unsuitable. With all due respect to Deputy Kitt, I do not know that the people are so universally satisfied as he would have us believe. I have no interest in either the six-day licence or the seven-day licence but my attitude to that matter would be that all public houses should have equal hours if they so desire. There should be a provision in the Bill allowing people not to take advantage of the seven-day licence if they so wish. The six-day house has a peculiar and varied history. Some people opted for a six-day licence when it meant less duty; some people changed to the six-day licence because there was nothing else coming to them from particular magistrates whose view at that time was based on the view that drink was evil in itself and that Sunday drinking was, of course, beyond the pale altogether.

We must distinguish between drinking as a means of recreation, of passing time, meeting the neighbours, having a chat, and alcoholism, which is a disease that takes possession of a man or woman after a long period of dedicated drinking, and drunkenness. I understand we had a dissertation from the Taoiseach earlier on drunkenness. Then, there is, lastly, conviviality. It must not be forgotten, even by the Minister for Justice in this country in 1959, that we are a convivial people and the vast majority of the population drink for that reason only.

I do not see why it is necessary to alter their hours. I agree with Deputy Kitt, if I may speak first about the Sundays, that there is no reality about the hours of 1 to 3 on Sundays in any Irish parish where people have to come from one to four miles to Mass. I do not believe there is any reality about them having to stay round the corner. I do not believe they will do that even when this Bill becomes law. Not even all the Gardaí and all the mobile units that we have will baffle the ingenuity of a man who wants to get a drink even though he has to get it through the back door, over the wall, or even through some other house. When I say this, I am not speaking in any condemnatory manner but from a wealth of experience in that regard. I think it is the agreed view of my Party that the hours of opening on Sunday should be some suitable time after the last Mass, or service, in the area until 1.30; certainly not later than 2 o'clock. There are other people to consider—the publican and his family who must get lunch. We must consider also the man who, if he stays drinking until 3 o'clock, will not get much benefit from his lunch, if he goes home for it at all. There are the people at home who must be considered and I think, therefore, the hour should not be later than 2 o'clock on Sundays.

This is, perhaps, a matter for the Committee Stage. Personally, I think public houses should not open at all on Sunday afternoon. I know that would present difficulty, especially in the bigger centres, after such events as football matches, but, on an occasion like that, one could always have the special or occasional licence. Publicans tell me that it would be much better for them and for the public if they were closed completely on Sunday afternoon. When people had had their meals they would emerge then around 7, 7.30 or 8 o'clock and remain to about 10 o'clock. There is no logical basis for concluding that it is in the interests of sobriety, or anything else, that a publichouse should close at 10 o'clock, or 9 o'clock, on Sunday night when it can remain open until 11.30 on Saturday night.

I can see no basis for that. The 11.30 opening, while it may be all right in certain parts of rural Ireland, is in my opinion too late in the bigger centres. That must be considered from several points of view. The average drinker has so much money for drink, and no more. Experience might well tell everybody that when you have not money to drink you will get very little drink on credit. If this Bill were accepted, what it proposes to do and would in fact do is make the person who had enough money to pay for a few drinks between 9.30 and 10.30 as the law now stands change his hour to 10.30 to 11.30. I think it will be readily conceded that the most interesting and lively period in any public house is the last hour before closing. Then there will be the "extra few minutes". You will bring the man out an hour later, bring him home an hour later and the whole household is upset. He will be out until such an hour that his normal bedtime is pushed back an hour and you will interfere with his capacity to work the following day. We are all familiar with the hangover and how it interferes with competent and efficient working the following day. You are going to do that in regard to every day if you have this 11.30 closing.

The three types of people directly concerned in this drinking business are the publican, the customer and the police. The publican, with very rare exceptions, does not present any problems. The customer presents nearly all, if not all, of the problems. You will not find any publican standing at his hall-door during prohibited hours inviting people in. He will respond to a knock by a customer at the door and however much he might feel inclined to refuse that person admission there will be some compelling economic or neighbourly factor that will make him say: "I cannot refuse," and in you go. For that reason, I have always felt, when penalties were imposed for breaches of the licensing laws and when publicans are fined £1, £2 or £5 and those found on the premises not only escaped publicity in the local newspapers but were fined only 1/- or 2/6 each, that if things were reversed and the heavier fine placed on the person who put the publican in the position of having to open, you might succeed in altering the practice more easily.

The police have their own difficulties, particularly in rural areas. How can you hope, with the present trend of reducing the number of Gardaí in rural stations, that they can control outlying public houses or public houses in villages far away from where they are stationed? Indeed, at the moment the police, where they are possessed of tact, are doing a wonderful job on unwritten laws which operate in various parts of the country and the publicans play ball with them in a most admirable fashion. That is one of the reasons why the Minister should think again about these hours and cease foolishly to imagine that an alteration of hours or an extension of hours will bring about the enforcement which he envisages and for which he, no doubt, hopes.

The bona fide trade does not give me any particular trouble in so far as my own constituency is concerned. It is outmoded. It is gone. This business of the three miles is gone. It is for that reason, of course, that I favour Sunday opening but with different hours from those in the Bill. I have always thought it stupid that where a man could go in and have a drink on a week night he could not go in on Sunday or was not supposed to go in on a Sunday. I recall the whole ludicrous situation that obtains in this country as illustrated as a result of a banner headline in one of the papers early this year when the Commission's report came out. The scene was a six day publichouse. The day was Sunday. The hour was 12.30. The Sunday papers arrived late. Somebody opened a paper and said, “Boy, isn't it great, we shall be able to drink on Sunday in future”. We will not achieve anything by attempting to legalise something that is there already. You will have to approach it with reality, reality in hours and a code that will be enforced, not so much by any compelling presence of the police, but by the people's universal satisfaction and the respect that would emanate from that.

The fact that the question of the six day licence was left out of the Commission's Report entirely is not a valid reason for the Government not including it in the Bill. If enforcement is to be the rule or the guiding factor in this Bill, approximately 1,500 people are being cut out on Sunday and their customers are being punished and their customers will be got rid of in other ways, such as those outlined by Deputy Sherwin, and they will never come back. I am firmly of the view that whatever uniformity you might hope to achieve, that is one uniformity that you should not only seek after but which is extremely desirable, namely, the abolition of the six day licence and the creation of all seven day licences, if they so want.

What are you doing here? You are going a little bit of the way to do it. You are leaving the law as it stands. We are all familiar with the way in which you can buy a seven day licence and extinguish it in the same district court district. That is creating a vested interest in the owners of the seven day licences and putting a premium on their houses and their licences. It is being done again in this Bill by another way, by the extinction of two seven day licences and their transfer somewhere else and the creation of another seven day licence. Apart from the undesirable results that may follow from that, again in this legislation, a principle is created whereby the State is increasing the value of particular publicans. Seven day licences will bounce sky high as a result of all this kind of thing. There is no reason why one section of the community should be favoured more than another and that the six day licensees should be punished to that extent by being ignored in this Bill as people having no rights at all. In so far as vested interests in employment are concerned, most of these people are dependent on family labour. They have no land. They are entirely dependent on what they earn in this and other mixed business. To shut them out entirely is not doing justice in the scheme of things.

Deputy Byrne has already dealt with the situation whereby it is impossible to get beer, stout, in certain parts of public houses and in some public houses. I do not regard a place as a public house at all if you cannot get a pint of Guinnesss there or a half-pint if you want to be really genteel about it.

On the 11.30 opening, once again, in the city of Dublin I believe, if the opening hour remains the same, that is, 7.30 or 10, as the case may be, and the closing hour is extended, it will create all kinds of labour difficulties; it will create added expense for employers and, of course, the natural result must be anticipated, dearer drink for the drinking public. On the question of 11.30, I do not think the House should regard the report of the Commission. Of course, all credit must go to the Commission for their work, labour and assiduousness in the preparation of the Report but I think it was a very narrow thing that they said 11.30. As my recollection goes, if a vote or two had gone one way or the other it would have meant retaining 11.30. For the reasons I have stated, 11.30 is too late and the hour of 10 or 10.30, to which Dr. Browne has referred, is too early.

To recapitulate or summarise the points I made, I am in favour of Sunday openings all over the country. I do not approve of the hours set out in the Bill. I suggest some hour after last Mass in country areas or in smaller towns but not later than 2 o'clock. The domestic side must be taken into consideration for the publican, the person drinking and the people at home. In the afternoon, I would have complete closing except possibly for certain fixtures in the bigger towns but that could be covered by occasional or special licences. I would open in the evening after the evening meal, so that people who would not be going to the pictures or who had no pictures to go to could retire to what is, in effect, the average Irishman's club, his local pub, and I would not confine him to an hour and a half. I would say it should be 7 or 7.30 to 10 o'clock, so that he could stay and discuss on the Sunday evening, quite happy and satisfied instead of having to travel a bit of a distance, as he has to do now, do a certain amount of gulping and put himself and the public with whom he comes in contact in danger whether he be walking, cycling or in a car.

Let the bona fide traffic go without any of this horrible compromise of the 11.30. That is what this 11.30 business means, nothing more. It is a compromise. It is an effort to ease them out. Let them go. If you think it is good for the people as a whole that the bona fide business should stop, stop it but do not stop it by way of excuse. People will assert that it is now a vested interest and that, of course, they would be entitled to compensation. They are not. They were purely and simply speculators at all times and even as far back as when the present Deputy Boland was Minister for Justice and was bringing in the Liquor Bill, in 1943 I think it was, it was suggested and was well known then that the Government had not gone as far as they would have liked to have gone and that the bona fide trade was in danger. I do not know of instances but I have heard of instances where people bought places in bona fide areas and thought that if they got five or six years they would be able to get back their capital with perfectly good dividends. I think they have got it back and we need not lose any sleep over that.

Anyway, the trend of things at the moment is that more and more public houses are getting into the way of giving food and with the provisions in this Bill that you can have food or a meal up to a certain hour of the night, the bona fide houses will be able to look after themselves, and they are so equipped already to avail of the advantages contained in this Bill. It is on the principle of unsuitable hours, either weekdays or Sundays, the fact that six-day licensees have been left out of consideration altogether and that, generally speaking, this is not a Bill that will give universal satisfaction and command universal respect, that we are opposed to it at this stage.

Mr. Larkin

I rise to indicate very briefly my opposition to this Bill. It is a Bill brought in by the Minister following the setting up, examination by and report of a Commission. It is a Bill for which, as far as the general public are concerned, there appears to be no widespread demand. Nobody was suffering as the result of the closing hours being 10 o'clock and 10.30 p.m. and whatever complaints there have been—and there have been many about the operation of bona fide legislation—surely the difficulties and the evils flowing from that type of legislation could have been dealt with on a separate and distinct basis.

During the course of the debate Members from all sides of the House have indicated that in the past years laws governing the sale of liquor have been in the rural areas and possibly also in the urban areas honoured more in the breach than in the observance. How could it be otherwise? This is a legislative chamber. Public representatives are elected to Dáil Éireann. There are other forms of public representation such as local bodies. It is not well known that in many parts of the country the Garda authorities find difficulty in pressing to the point of legal action breaches of the licensing laws because very well-known public figures were repeatedly involved in such breaches. In how many thousands of cases has a local Garda been embarrassed, if he happened to call in to a licensee to check on whether the regulations were being observed or not, by being confronted by a Deputy, a Senator or the chairman of the county council or other leading, supposedly responsible persons? How can laws be respected by the ordinary citizen if the people who make the laws and possibly the people who administer the laws, are known to be committing breaches of these laws, day in and day out?

Much of this difficulty arose because there was a differentiation between the urban areas and the rural areas. I do not drink; at the same time I think it absolutely ridiculous that if you are in the county borough of Dublin you can drink at a certain time and that if you are in a rural area you cannot drink at that time. The law must be general; it must be reasonable or it cannot be enforced.

As regards the bona fide trade, we know that its development particularly on the outskirts of the larger towns in recent years has led to a situation where the ordinary citizens who live in or pass by the neighbourhood of any of these hostelries are exposing themselves constantly to the threat of death or being maimed because other citizens coming out of these premises get into cars fast and otherwise, and decide that the best way home is as fast as their car will travel, and let the Lord look after whoever gets in their way.

When an accident occurred in these circumstances and somebody lost his life or was injured, you would very seldom find the State succeeding in proving that the defendant was guilty of being drunk in charge of a car. No; they had only 10 or 20 whiskeys or 15 or 20 stouts. Look back at the legal records: how many cases will you find where the charge of being drunk in charge of a car was sustained when somebody was killed or maimed?

I am at a great loss to understand why the Minister had not sufficient courage to bring proposals into the House to cure the bona fide evil. It appears he was anxious to do that, that he realised that down the years there was a growing feeling of uneasiness about this position, but for some reason or another he had to come in here with a tag: “All right; we shall do away with the bona fide problem which has given rise to comment and uneasiness all around. We will extend to the rural areas the same opening hours as apply in the city areas.” But the Minister, judging from the contributions made here, was also convinced that this lack of respect for the law and difficulty in securing adherence to the law would continue unless some kind of a sop was provided. The Minister therefore comes along with what is in my opinion the objectionable feature of this Bill—this proposal to extend the hours by an hour each night.

One would think that the 600,000 people living in Dublin city and environs retired late at night—that it was normal practice for all of them to retire at 12 midnight or one o'clock in the morning. One has only to walk along the main street of this capital city half an hour after the theatres and cinemas have closed to discover what is the normal situation here. The bulk of our people have gone home. If one goes out to the residential areas around 10.30 p.m., one finds that the majority of the citizens and their families have retired for the night. The children have been put to bed and the family are preparing for a refreshing night's sleep to be ready for work in the morning.

Very little consideration appears to have been given to this aspect of the matter. Normally, the theatres, cinemas and concert halls in Dublin close between 10.30 p.m. and 11 p.m. The people come straight out of these places of entertainment and go for the buses to bring them home. No public houses are open for them to go into. Having spent their few bob going to the cinemas and theatres, are they now to be encouraged by the Minister by having the public houses open for half an hour or more when they come out? If that is his intention, he should have indicated it. Or does he think that the theatres and cinemas may remain open a bit longer and that we will develop a little further night life in our city? Then perhaps some other Minister will suggest that the cinemas, theatres and concert halls and public houses do not give sufficient spice to the night life and that we ought to import some continental night life?

But there are people working in public houses serving the desires—not the needs—of the customers. These workers have families. It is recognised in this year 1959 that the worker is entitled not only to a reasonable wage but to some rest and recreation. He is also entitled to some family life. What family life is possible for assistants and porters working in public houses which close at 11 or 11.30, or indeed for the owners of public houses where they have no assistants? These people will not leave at 11 or 11.30; they will be lucky to get cleared up at 12 or 12.30. What regard is had for them? People working on essential public services are required at times to work outside the normal working hours. Everybody feels sympathy for them because they are working under conditions which make it necessary for them to continue beyond ordinary hours. But there has been no indication on this Bill that there is any necessity for imposing additional hours on the people working in the trade.

Reference has been made to the question of enforcement of the law. It is quite clear that it is not easy at 10 o'clock or 10.30 for the owners of licensed premises to persuade their customers to leave at the appointed time. Will this Bill make it any easier in that respect? Will the man who is cranky and loath to leave the premises at 10 or 10.30 be in a better humour and more prepared to leave at 11 or 11.30? I do not think so. I think he would be much less likely to leave at the appointed time.

The question of the enforcement of the law is an aspect which should get more attention. It should not be made more difficult for those whose onerous task it is to enforce the law, as it will be made more difficult if we extend the hours on the lines laid down in this Bill. Extending the city hours on Sundays to the rural areas means longer official opening hours. Irish citizens in the rural areas will at least be aware of the fact that they are not being penalised from their point of view. At present they express their contempt for the state of things by going to every kind of extreme to avoid observing the law or the punishment as a result of breaking the law.

The argument was advanced that an extension in the hours would prove an attraction to tourists. I wonder how many tourists come to Ireland just for a drink. I doubt if very many come for that purpose. If tourists who come here are treated hospitably, if they are welcomed, if they are not fleeced in the same way in which they are fleeced in other parts, they will come back and they will not care whether or not they can get a drink outside of hours. I do not wish to pursue that but, if some justification is being made on the basis of encouraging tourists, then the argument falls. Surely there are more profound arguments for bringing in this unwanted later opening than the poor excuse that such later opening will encourage tourists. Dear knows, some of them who come here and get drunk are no asset to anybody. We would be far better off without them.

The Taoiseach has indicated that he and the Government are having second thoughts about Sunday opening from 1.30 to 3 p.m. It is suggested that should be altered to 12.30 to 2 p.m. I have been waiting for proposals from some Government source that this 3 o'clock closing was objectionable. Deputies have mentioned the desirability of an earlier closing hour on Sunday. I support them strongly in that regard. The position in the city of Dublin at 3 o'clock on a Sunday afternoon is not a very edifying one. Wives and mothers who have borne their share of work during the week are greeted on Sunday afternoon by loving spouses or sons carrying under their arms brown paper bags full of bottles. I am often puzzled by this. It is held that Sunday is a day apart. Aside from religious duties, it is a day on which a family has an opportunity of an outing together. I have to admit that the situation I have depicted occurs in a minority of cases, but nevertheless, it is not edifying: the outing is somebody down at the pub at the opening hour, at half-past one, and returning home at half-past three with bottles of stout in brown-paper bags. I do not know when these men get their mid-day meal. Worse still, they are back again at the pub at 5 o'clock.

The Taoiseach has indicated that there are second thoughts about Sunday opening and that there may be an earlier closing hour—2 o'clock instead of 3 p.m. That might afford those working in the publichouses an opportunity of getting a meal and a bit of fresh air. I should like the Minister to indicate where this widespread demand for longer opening hours has come from. Who will benefit? We should not lightly pass legislation here without some indication from the Minister that such legislation is either necessary or beneficial. I do not think this legislation will benefit those working in publichouses. I doubt if it will be beneficial even to the consumers. I am certain it will not be beneficial to the community as a whole. It has been said that this Bill deals with two main interests, those of the publicans and those of the consumers. But its effect will be much wider. We must look at this from another angle. If one indulges too heavily in food one may get acute indigestion and dyspepsia and become a burden to oneself and to one's family. Generally, however, over-indulgence in food does not affect the community. It does not affect the women and children in the community.

If we encourage later drinking, which I cannot dissociate from more indulgence, it inevitably will have its effect on the community. There are very few people in this country who can take a drink or a few drinks and remain happy and carefree. We may be a convivial people, but how often do we read in our national and local newspapers of the semi-justification advanced by somebody accused of assault of one kind or another, that he had a few drinks too many or that he was not used to drink? We all recognise that there are two effects of drink which usually concern people other than the drinker himself.

I do not think it would be of great importance if the extension of the hours just meant that 100 people would drink themselves into insensibility and ruin their health. The extension of the hours will possibly affect people far removed from the situation in any particular public house. The last bus at night, either in the city or in the rural areas, will frequently carry people coming out of public houses who are feeling "narky" or annoyed. Somebody has told them that they must go home and they do not like it; they take it out on the unfortunate bus conductor or driver who is only doing his duty in taking them home. Will the situation be any better at 11 o'clock or 11.30 at night? If the Minister can assure us that the situation will be better we might have another look at the Bill but he knows that the situation will not be better. Things will not be improved by extending the hours by an hour in winter and summer.

Reference has been made to the fact that there is no provision in the Bill for six day licences. There is a position, however, about the people who run a grocery business and is the Minister making any provision to avoid a deterioration in that position? Most people engaged in the sale of groceries are able to have a free day on Sundays. There are some exceptions but generally the staffs engaged in that trade are able to make arrangements to take their families to the seaside or to get to a sports meeting on a Sunday afternoon. If there is no provision in the Bill to protect that position what will inevitably happen, first of all in the smaller towns and later it will extend to the larger towns, is that in economic self-defence the grocers will try to keep open for an hour or so on Sundays to keep their customers. If they do not do so, they will inevitably be put out of business. That is one of the problems to be examined and the Minister does not appear, at the moment, to be prepared to deal with it.

I want to make those remarks because I think it important at this stage that opposition to the Bill should be expressed in this House. I regret that the sentiments and the views expressed by me are not shared by all my colleagues of the Labour Party but, as Deputy Corish has said, the Party has decided that on this matter we should be entitled to express our views freely and to vote in accordance with the views we express. The members of the Minister's Party, on the other hand, appear to be under a severe handicap because, willy-nilly, I understand that they are going to march into the Division Lobby on this Second Reading and are to cast their votes in favour of the passing of this Bill on Second Stage, even though there are many of them—and I have no doubt there are many of them—who feel very severely embarrassed at having to support a proposal to extend the opening hours of public houses. They will have to obey the Party Whip.

I am not opposed to Party discipline. In a measure like this I can sympathise with members of the Minister's Party because, whatever apology may be made for this measure, it does not evolve as the result of any public demand by our citizens as a whole. If passed in its present form it will impose severe hardships on many sections of the community and will not, I am afraid, be conducive to any greater regard for the law governing the sale of intoxicating liquor.

It has been admitted that it has not been possible to enforce the present legislation. I indicated one or two reasons as to why I personally felt it was impossible to enforce the existing law. Will this Bill, if passed, be any easier to enforce? At present little, if any, attempt is made to enforce the law covering the sale of liquor outside Dublin City and, even in Dublin City, there is a feeling among many who are fond of drinking that we operate in a situation where the important thing is who you know, and the particular publichouse, or publichouses, in which you are fairly safe because people of note may be there at the same time. Will that be altered under this Bill? Will the ordinary citizen, who may risk doing something equivalent to breaking the law under existing legislation, be in future in the same position if found breaking the law with a number of other ordinary citizens? If he is in the company of an extraordinary citizen, will he be immune from prosecution? Is there any assurance that situation will be changed? Will the Minister give the House an assurance that the Garda authorities will not shut their eyes on occasions? I am of opinion that the Minister has very little hope of obtaining any regard for the law in this respect unless and until the ordinary citizen is satisfied that people will be treated equally before the law and not merely that an ordinary citizen will be safe because he is in the company of a Deputy, a Senator, or some local "big noise".

I do not drink, but I have met quite a few who do and I am well aware of cases where people were caught in flagrante delicto but no prosecution followed because the white cloak of a well-known citizen or public representative of some kind, protected him. These issues should be cleared up here and now. I know that in rural areas they show a happy disregard for most things legal. Many of them feel that they are not conforming properly unless they show a disregard for the law. But this is a legislative assembly——

Mr. Donnellan

I am afraid the Deputy does not know much about rural Ireland.

Mr. Larkin

The Deputy may not know too much about rural Ireland, but he has met a few rural Deputies. He has been listening to rural Deputies speaking in this debate and there were very few of them who did not say that people are getting, and have got drink, through the front door, the back door, or somewhere else in the rural areas.

Mr. T. Lynch

And the same in Dublin, until five o'clock in the morning.

Mr. Larkin

I am passing on the information that has been given to me. I say here publicly, and I do not care who hears me, that it is not worthy of a representative in this House publicly to condone breaches of the law. I make no apology for saying that. I say it because I want the Minister, when replying to this debate, to say whether he is reasonably satisfied that the alteration of the law on the lines suggested in this Bill will ensure that the law, as it will then be, will have some chance of being observed by the citizens as a whole.

Mr. Corry

Is the Deputy in favour of the law as it is at present?

Mr. Larkin

I am not in favour of the present law as applied to bona fide traffic. It is outmoded and should have been done away with long ago. I am in favour of having the law provide hours during which people can get the refreshment they desire so that the rural citizens will be in no less advantageous position than the urban citizens. It is quite true that every citizen in Dublin, Cork and the county boroughs can get refreshment at certain hours, and citizens in rural Ireland should have no stricter control placed on them. If the information is of value to the Deputy, I repeat that I am completely opposed to the suggestion that there is anything beneficial in these extended hours or that there is any express desire on the part of the citizens as a whole for an extension of the hours on the lines suggested in the Bill.

Debate adjourned.