This Bill does not seem to me to involve any principle which would mean that it could not be left to the discretion of individual Deputies to interpret the wishes of their constituents. Other than the fact that any Government introducing a measure is naturally anxious that the measure should go through in its entirety and with as few amendments as possible, I can see no reason why the Government could not permit to their Deputies a free vote on the questions at issue in this Bill. If that were done, the Minister would get, as far as is humanly possible, a true reflection of the wishes of the people.
I have no personal interest in the Bill. I am not an owner of a public house, nor do I represent any interest in that connection. I might possibly be put down as being interested from the point of view of a consumer. Other than that, I have no tied views. I regard this Bill as something like the curate's egg: there is good and there is bad in it.
One of the good things I see in the Bill is the proposal to give the right to open public houses in rural areas on Sunday. I approve of that primarily because of the fact that Sunday is the working man's free day, the day on which he is at liberty to enjoy a drink without having to hurry through it in order to carry out his work. I particularly approve of the Sunday opening that would occur just after last Mass. I do not agree with the proposal to open from 1 to 3 p.m. That hour may be suitable for the cities but it is not suitable for rural areas. I would suggest that, in rural areas, public houses should open from 12 to 1.30 or from 12.30 to 2. In most rural areas, there is not a 12 o'clock Mass. The last Mass is usually at 11 or 11.30. I suggest that 12 to 1.30 or even 2 o'clock would be more suitable hours.
In my opinion, it is wrong to continue opening on Sundays later than 2 o'clock because of interference with the normal dinner time in rural areas. It is desirable that a man should be compelled to leave the public house so that he can join his family for dinner. Most people will do that of their own free will but licensing restrictions are not imposed for the sensible people. They are provided in order to compel people who, through weakness of will or for some other reason, would not otherwise do what is good for them.
As regards the later opening on Sunday, again, I see no objection to opening on Sunday afternoon or evening but I do not think that 5 p.m. to 9 p.m. are the desirable hours. Again, there is a question of conflict with the usual teatime, from 6 to 7. If Sunday opening is to be allowed, I see no objection, for the reason I gave earlier, that it is the rural workers' free day when he can relax and enjoy a drink if he has the money for it. I would suggest that the opening hours should be 7.30 to 10 rather than 5 to 9. These are matters of detail but I have mentioned them as representative of the views I have heard expressed in my constituency.
Generally, in regard to hours of opening, I have found no desire in my constituency for an alteration in the hours. I have tried to learn the views of my ordinary constituents and of public house owners and of the people who work in public houses throughout my constituency. In order to get the information, I had to use a direct question. I find general apathy about the whole matter. Nobody in county Waterford or Waterford city appears to be interested in increasing the hours. On the other hand, I found active opposition to increased hours, primarily from the licensed owners in Waterford who, through their organisation, went to the trouble of informing each individual Deputy in my constituency that they were opposed to the increased hours. The organised workers who serve drinks have made no secret of their opposition to it and the general public I have met in my constituency have expressed no great desire for extended hours.
My own view on the question of opening would be rather different from that on the question of increased hours. I would suggest that we should have copied the law as it exists in Great Britain, that there should be in rural areas something similar to what is in the metropolitan area in Dublin, a closing period in the middle of the day, say, from three to five. It is an excellent idea to have a period when a man must leave the public house. Again, this law would not be for the benefit of the ordinary, intelligent man who takes a drink or has refreshment. It would be a safeguard for the man who is weak-willed enough to continue drinking as long as the public house remains open. I should think a break, not necessarily at midday but at some point during the licensing hours, would be of great assistance in compelling a man who is inclined to be weak-willed to leave the public house and to proceed to his home where he would get either some necessary food or some necessary sleep to bring him back to his normal self. In that way, you would encourage temperance in his drinking habits and not have, as we too often have, the spectacle of a man going into a public house and remaining there until the closing hour which, if this Bill is to become law, will be 11.30 that evening.
I believe it is against the best interests of the ordinary working man that the licensing hours should be extended. I know a case has been made that this is in the interests of tourism. I know the case has been made: is it not all the same whether a man stays in legally or illegally? He still stays the same length of time. That is quite true. Violations of the law will occur, no matter what Government are in office and no matter what law is passed, but in the vast majority of cases, if there is an official closing time, people obey that law.
I honestly feel, even as one who has offended, that it is necessary for us to have some curtailment of the period of time we are permitted to spend indulging in intoxicating drink. At the time we indulge, we do not like the restriction, but the next morning when it is our responsibility to undertake the duties necessary to keep our families, we will thank the publican and the law that saw to it that we left the tavern at a reasonable hour.
I do not want to appear too pious in my views on the question of when a man should take a drink and when he should not. My honest interpretation of my responsibility as a Deputy is that I should go with the side that says that closing at a reasonably early hour is in the best interests of the working people. The owners of public houses do not appear to be interested in the later closing time. The reason they give is a sensible one, that the average patron of their hotel or public house has a limited amount of money to spend and it will simply mean that instead of going in, say from 9.30 p.m. to 10.30 p.m. for his limited amount of drink, limited by the amount of money he can afford to spend, he will delay his visit which will mean the added cost to the publican of keeping open, the extra expense of lighting and heating and possibly paying extra help for that later hour. The workers themselves engaged in the trade feel the very same way and feel that this later hour will deprive them of the free time they would desire to spend with their families at home. All these things considered, I think it my duty to vote against a Bill providing later opening hours than we have at the present moment.
There seems to be a general chorus of approval of the Minister's proposal in relation to the closing down of bona fide houses. I should like to disagree with that view. Bona fide houses, as I know them in the neighbourhood of Dublin, the city of Waterford and other cities, are well-kept taverns. They serve a particular type of trade and they serve a very necessary purpose. If one were to visit an ordinary well-conducted bona fide house at any period, say, from 10.30 to 12 midnight on any weeknight, what type of person would one meet there? Would it be the young boy or the young girl of 18 years, unaccompanied or together? I would suggest the vast majority of the people who frequent bona fide houses are more likely to be a man and his wife or other people of adult years. That at least has been my experience..
I believe those bona fide houses have served in the past and do at present serve a purpose by being a means whereby tourists and other people who have sufficient money can go out for an occasional evening, where they can enjoy possibly music, good food and a certain amount of intoxicating drink. Many speakers have asked: why should a man be able to get a drink because he has the necessary money to travel three or ten miles by motor car? That is a view I held myself for quite a while but I believe now it is quite right that the man who cannot afford to have a car or to hire one to travel a certain distance, because of shortage of money, should not be entitled to have a drink because the money he has is so limited that it would not be in his own interest that he should be free to indulge.
Many laws made by different countries appear to have a taste of class distinction. For instance, up to recently in Great Britain, a man was not entitled to bet on a horse unless he could go to a rececourse or had an account with a bookie. That seemed most unfair because the ordinary worker was not entitled legally to place a bet. But when we examine the consequences and evil results of the system of betting in Ireland, I am not at all sure that they did not make a mistake in Great Britain in changing the law.
The question of bona fide houses was mentioned and it was stated that these gave a privilege to the man with money. It may not be so much a privilege for the man with money, but a help for the man who should not be encouraged to spend his money so freely. One would think there was something obnoxious about compensating the people who establish bona fide houses at large expense. Were they not engaged in a legal and necessary occupation? If the earnings of people in a legal occupation are likely to be reduced by an Act of Parliament, is it not plain that the principle of compensation should apply? When the shareholders of the Great Southern and Western Railway were about to be deprived by an Act of this House of certain doubtful earning rights, was not compensation permitted?
Listening to the debate, anyone would think that every proprietor of a bona fide house was a potential murderer, that it was only there that people got into a state of intoxication and drove their cars on the road so that the public were in danger of their lives. Even if you do away with the bona fide houses, you will have motor cars outside licensed houses up to 11.30 in the summer months. An intoxicated person leaving a licensed house in a motor car at 11.30 p.m. or midnight is just as great a danger to the public as those who leave the bona fide houses at present.
Under the Bill, permission will be given to bars in dance halls to remain open until 3 o'clock in the morning. I cannot see how a bona fide house, where you can get a meal, where you can be accompanied by your wife and where you can take some drinks and return by car, is any more dangerous than a dance hall which can remain open until 3 o'clock, where you are not accompanied by your wife and where you certainly will not get any meal. The boot is on the other foot. It is because of that that I look on this Bill as being like the curate's egg —there is good and bad in it.
There is one other point in the Bill which I think is unusual and wrong. It is the section in which the Minister proposes that in future beer bottles will not require to be stamped at the source of manufacture or, if they are stamped, will not be subject to the weights and measures laws. Is that not a direct encouragement to bottlers to provide short measure? Is the ordinary man buying a bottle of beer at a certain price not entitled to know that he is getting a certain amount of drink? I cannot see why the Minister has gone out of his way to alter the law in this respect. I am aware that the wholesale bottlers, the people who carry out the bulk of this stamping, are in wholehearted agreement with its continuation. I am informed that the expense of stamping and of employing four inspectors at the Irish Glass Bottle Company is carried by the trade and that no Government expense is involved. Why then has the Minister decided on this alteration? Wholesale bottlers who have built up a large stock of stamped bottles at great expense will now be in competition with people who can introduce any size or type of bottle and be safe from prosecution. The Minister would be well advised to omit this section.
I have no fixed ideas on the Bill. I agree with, say, Sunday opening, and certainly with St. Patrick's Day opening for a limited period. The rural community are entitled to that concession. But beyond that this Bill will have to be amended considerably before it gets my support.
