Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Thursday, 18 Feb 1960

Vol. 179 No. 4

Intoxicating Liquor Bill, 1959—Committee Stage.

Debate resumed on the following amendment:—

In page 4, line 13, before "on" to insert "if the premises are not situate in a county borough".— (Deputies Cosgrave and Ryan).

Mr. Larkin

This amendment proposes that we make a variation in the hours of trading as between a county borough, a county, and other areas. If it is now proposed to place the licensing regulations and licensing laws on a basis of general equality I would like to say that I could not support such a variation as is proposed. I do not see any merit whatsoever in suggesting that, if a closing hour is fixed in one area, a person can then cross a county borough for an extra half hour's drinking. I do not think there is any basis for that if it is contended that the average person has only a certain amount of money to spend on liquor. If that is true, the average person in County Dublin would not have more money to justify an extra half hour's drinking, and neither would the average person in County Cork have more money to spend than those in the urban area.

Aside from that, why should the people engaged in making their living in this trade have additional hardships placed upon them just because they happen to live on one side or other of a local government boundary? Account has to be taken of those engaged in selling liquor, either as employees or as members of a family-run house. Under present circumstances they are not by any means idle. The employee works an average day that is spread over 12 hours, with a break for lunch, and on the average that is very much longer than is claimed by the representatives of the farming community in this House for their constituents.

Nobody could convince me that a substantial proportion of those engaged in agriculture, who are in a position to employ labour, average a working day spread over 12 hours all around the year. In certain months of the year they do have a difficult job but when there is no harvesting, and no Spring sowing, are they compelled to earn their livelihood by staying in their places of employment until 10 or 10.30. at night, and then have to make their way home a distance of three, four or five miles? Of course they are not. I do not think it would be out of place for me to say to representatives of the people in rural areas: "Spare a little thought for the families of people running public houses in the country."

We in the city do not think it at all wrong that ordinary shops close at 5.30 or 6 o'clock, that furniture stores close at 6.30 and that the average closing hour for chemists is around 7 o'clock. We believe that, as human beings, the people running these establishments are entitled to a life of their own, and to relax with their families occasionally. We know there are employments which, of necessity, cause difficulty to those employed in them but surely that necessity cannot devolve from a desire by some people to do their drinking one hour later on a week day evening?

The minority report says that one of the effects of an extension of the hours was considered to be a disruption of family life but maybe the Deputies in this House, and those people outside it who seek an extension of the hours. would not consider it a disruption of family life if, first of all, the people drinking, secondly, the people employed in providing the drink for them and, thirdly, those employed in other services, as a mass are compelled to return to their homes on an average an hour or an hour and a half later than formerly. Would that not disrupt family life? I submit it would and frankly I feel the Minister must feel embarrassed having had to sit here through the Second Stage and again on this Stage to listen to the excuses for elected representatives conniving at open breaches of the law of the land down the years.

Deputy McQuillan suggested it would be a good thing if the public houses in Dublin were open until 11 p.m. or 11.30 p.m. so that the people coming from the picture houses could go in for a few drinks instead of going home as they do at present. From that approach, I take it the Deputy would also suggest it would be a good thing if those employed in the public transport services were asked if they would be prepared to work until a later hour in the night to get these people home? All for what? To cater for a demand, the existence of which nobody has proved by evidence in this House.

I can understand the Minister's difficulty. He feels he could not have gone to his Party and said: "Look. This total disregard for the law has been connived at by everybody, but this bona fide traffic is now reaching such a point that I feel I have no alternative but to ask your support in doing away with it.” I do not think he would get his Party to support him on that clear issue. He is having difficulty trying to balance that outlook with the recommendations of the majority report. Even that report is qualified under five different headings. Deputy McGilligan told us this morning that his information was that a week before that majority report was adopted, another decision was reached by the Commission but that it was reversed a week later. It is on this we are asked to agree to extend the hours.

I should like the Minister sometime during the Committee Stage to indicate whether he agrees with the suggestion that his proposal will not mean increased expenditure in public houses; in other words, if this proposal were carried, that the same amount of money would be spent in public houses as is spent with the existing hours. If that is correct, what is the need for later hours? I do not drink and I cannot speak for those who do, but I am entitled to make my observations based on discussions I have had with people who do drink. Where a number of people are having a drink together it is difficult for one of them to be the first to say: "I am off home." There appears to be a fear of some loss of social or personal prestige if four or five people are having a drink and one of them says: "I have to go home." But the danger to the personal ego is avoided under present circumstances because the owner of the public house or his representative announces at a certain time: "Time, gentlemen, please." Therefore, the boys can all go out of the public house holding their heads erect. None of them has to say: "I am getting a bit low in funds. You will have to excuse me." None of them has to say: "I told the wife I would be home a bit early tonight." None of them has to say: "I have to go because the has are ill." No the proprietor or the barman says: "Time, gentlemen, please," and then they march out.

I have heard it said by people who like to take a drink that at times the most welcome words they can hear are the words: "Time, gentlemen, please." The Minister should bear that in mind. I understand it is considered not quite the thing for anybody in this country to go in and have a drink on his own. If he sees a friend, he has to stand him a drink. If he sees two friends, he has to stand both of them drinks, even though he can ill afford it and even though he may be drinking not on his own money but on the money that should go to his home to keep his wife and family.

I am not talking about the situation in the rural areas where, it has been made plain by rural Deputies, respect for the law does not exist—in this respect, anyway. I am speaking of the areas where bona fide houses operate. Many of them have been operated on proper lines. Never theless, the exodus from these places at 12 o'clock at night has resulted in death and injury to people going about their ordinary business. That only refers to a limited number of places because there are only a limited number of bona fide places outside the Dublin area. The Minister hopes to have the hours extended to 11.30 p.m. If that is done, the area around every public house in this county borough will become as dangerous as the area around the bona fide houses at present.

I shall not refer to the side effects on family life, but I would ask the Minister to bear in mind that we are proud of the fact that drunkenness in this country, particularly among the young people, has been receding. The young men and women of this country, given a reasonable chance, given opportunities of reasonable incomes, of having a home and reasonable expectation of employment and relaxation, are turning less and less to what was once the only consolation of thousands in this country —the bottle. Are we deliberately, as a legislative Assembly, under the proposals of the Minister, to go now into reverse? I shall conclude by saying that it is my firm conviction that it would be in the interests of everybody and would cause hardship to nobody if the present opening hours of 10 p.m. and 10.30 p.m. were retained.

Minister for Justice (Mr. Traynor)

I should like to correct a misapprehension that appears to exist in Deputy Larkin's mind. He suggested that the assistants in the various establishments were being forced to work unreasonable hours, hours that did not permit them to have any family life. If he had referred to the statement I made on the Second Stage of the Bill, he probably would not have made that statement. On that occasion, I said at column 949, Volume 177, of 11th November last:

The trade unions have been stressing the hardship on the bar men and porters which later hours will entail. But the conditions of employment for barmen are already safeguarded by the Shops (Conditions of Employment) Act, 1938, and these safeguards would apply just as much when licensed premises keep open for a 70 hour week as in the case of an 80 hour week. Under the 1938 Act, barmen may not be required to work for longer than 11 hours in any day, or for longer than 48 hours in any week —56 hours, including overtime. The employment of persons under eighteen years of age between 10 p.m. and 6 a.m. is prohibited. Barmen may not be required to work for more than six hours without a meal interval. There are provisions for annual holidays and for compensatory leave for work on half-holidays or Sundays.

I suggest that the Deputy who has been speaking has not been giving much consideration to the facts contained in the explanatory memorandum which would have answered his queries, nor has he paid much attention to the statement I made on Second Reading—to the fact that the hours of work of these men were protected by an Act of this House and that anybody who contravened that protection would be brought to book for it.

I should like to say that the Government did not accept in full the recommendations of the Commission in respect of the weekday hours. We altered the hours made in the recommendation to the hours contained in this Bill. I think that was a reasonable compromise. The Ministers, in their wisdom, thought the hours recommended by the Commission would be unsuitable in relation to the difference between summer and winter time, and I think they did a reasonably good job when they made that compromise. When we talk about 11.30 p.m. being a suitable hour, we had in mind that 11.30 p.m. for the four months of summer was not unreasonable. We all know that during a good summer in this country there is daylight practically up to midnight.

I want further to emphasise that when we talk about transport not being available after 11.30 p.m., we are assuming that people come from the suburbs into the centre of the city in order to take their drink. I do not think that is correct. People drinking in these establishments will be people who live in the precincts of the city and within easy reach of the establishment where they take their drink. People living in the suburbs will be drinking in their local establishments where they meet their friends. They will not come into the city unless they have a car.

Mr. McGilligan

You ought to take a bus ride and find out.

Mr. Traynor

Perhaps the Deputy knows more about it than I do. I admit that I have no experience of that. I made that confession during the Second Reading debate. I am satisfied that when the Government made that compromise, they were making a genuine effort to meet some part of the case which they knew would be made against closing at 11.30 p.m. all the year round. The case for 11 o'clock has been made in this House and amendments have been put down to that effect. As I said, when speaking earlier, I have not a closed mind on the subject and I shall be prepared to hear the case against me. If, at the end of the debate, I am convinced of the necessity of a change, I shall be prepared to bring the matter to the attention of the Government.

Mr. Cosgrave

In considering this matter this morning, I referred to the Report of the Commission and the Minister said that my remarks might imply a reflection on the Commission. I am not in any way reflecting on the Commission but the Commission was appointed to inquire into the operation of the laws relating to the sale and supply of intoxicating liquor and to make recommendations. The recommendation is in the form of two reports—a majority report and a minority report. Twelve members signed the majority report and nine signed the minority report.

As I understand it, and I think it is general knowledge, at the penultimate meeting of the Commission, a majority voted in favour of the existing hours in the county boroughs. When the final meeting was held, the matter was again brought before the meeting, probably to some extent in an irregular fashion because, if a decision had been taken, one would imagine that it would have been adhered to. In any case, the hours were again put to the Commission and they were again carried by the vote given in the report— 12 votes to nine. No matter how long one looks at the Commission's recommendations, they appear to have been reasonably divided, but, despite that, the Government propose the hours which are recommended by the majority with, as the Minister said, certain alterations. In fact, since the Bill was drafted, the Minister has put down amendments dealing with Sunday opening, so that, so far as one can see, there is nothing sacrosanct in any of the hours suggested.

What we are endeavouring to get is an agreement which will provide for the reasonable requirements of reasonable people. A lot of talk has been indulged in about people wanting a drink at the last minute, and people wanting certain facilities for particular occasions, but what I think is incontrovertible is the fact that the pattern and habits of drinking in the rural areas differ from those in the urban areas. Most Deputies who have taken part in the debate have spoken from either an urban or a rural point of view, according to whether they represented a rural or an urban constituency. I represent a constituency which is more or less evenly divided between urban and rural. I can recognise the peculiar requirements of both areas and the fact that the hours that suit the urban areas do not suit the rural areas. Everyone is familiar with the fact that in summer time work on the land goes on later and longer than in other periods of the year, and that work on the land continues long after the time when the urban dwellers, in summer or winter, have ceased their employment. Consequently, it is the natural pattern of life for rural dwellers, whether farmers or farm workers, to go to the public house later than is the case in an urban area. The majority report really decided in favour of later hours in order to preserve uniformity.

One of the fears expressed here was that if there is a differential between the urban and rural opening hours, what are described as the evils of bona fide trading will arise. I think many of the views expressed here show a lack of appreciation of the manner in which bona fide houses are conducted. First of all, they are strictly supervised by the Garda authorities. The very nature of the trade has brought that position about. As I said initially this morning, I do not want to revive the bona fide hours, but I believe that if we recognise the different pattern of life in urban areas and in rural areas, we must provide some differential. If the differential is small, it is quite obvious that few people will bother to make the journey from the city area to the rural one in order to have the extra half-hour or possibly an hour. It will not be worth their while.

On the other hand, longer drinking hours for city areas and for urban dwellers are asked for neither by the public generally nor by those directly concerned, the traders and the employees. So far as I am concerned, I believe the existing opening hours in the cities and in the county boroughs are quite adequate for the needs of the people. Experience of the special exemption orders granted in the early years of An Tóstal showed that tourists, or visitors or, for that matter, city dwellers, did not avail of the extended hours. If special circumstances warrant extra opening hours for particular occasions, then the question of exemption orders might be considered.

I believe it is unreasonable to try flatly to legislate to impose the same hours on urban and rural areas, when everyone recognises, as this debate has clearly shown, that different conditions obtain in different areas. If the differential is a small one, there is no danger of any possible abuse, or of any consequences which have been criticised as being due to an attempt to avail of the extra drinking hours in the rural areas which people might be tempted to do if there were a very big differential. If there is a small differential, it will preserve adequate drinking facilities for the city dwellers, and the city traders and, at the same time, only those who must do so, because of their particular type of work, or their particular conditions—which are by no means new and which have been an established pattern—will avail of the longer hours in the rural areas.

As I say, I represent a constituency in which that distinction is quite marked. Parts of it are rural where the people do not finish work in time to get in early, particularly in the summer months and where people working on the land, or engaged in their normal occupations, work much later than people in the other part of the constituency, which is an urban area, who finish work within what would be regarded as normal city working hours. Consequently, I recognise that in order to provide reasonable facilities for reasonable people from both urban and rural areas, it may be necessary to have a small differential. If that is considered desirable, I see no objection to it. That small differential will avoid any abuse and, at the same time, cater adequately for the needs of city and country drinkers without trying to impose legislative uniformity which will not, in practice, work to the satisfaction of those who wish to avail of the drinking facilities.

Mr. Russell

It is inevitable in a debate on a Bill of this type that one must be prepared to listen to different views from different sides of the House. I must say that I, for one, am glad we did not have an official Fine Gael view and an official Labour view. It seems to me that the only opportunity the various groups who are interested in this question have of voicing their opinion in this House is through the individual members of the Parties and the Independents who are not concerned with the Government at the time.

It is inevitable, as the House generally seems to agree, that if the bona fide trade is to be terminated, some extension of the licensing laws in regard to the closing hours must take place. Again, I think, in general, the House would agree that it is desirable to have uniformity of closing hours in the urban and the rural areas. There have been differences of opinion as to what the closing hours should be. I have put down an amendment, which is included in the amendments under discussion, to change the late closing hour from 11.30 p.m. to 11 p.m. It is obvious from reading the Report that the members of the Commission were not unanimous as to what the closing hour should be and, as Deputy Cosgrave pointed out, it would have taken very little to have tipped the scales one way or the other. I suggest to the Minister, who gives the impression that he is open to conviction and argument, that it would be getting closer to a fair compromise to agree on 11 p.m. as the latest closing hour for either the summer or the winter months.

It should not be forgotten that we are discussing the closing hour only for the four summer months and that during the other eight months, the late closing hour will be 11 p.m. I suggest to the Minister that it would be logical, in the interest of uniformity, and certainly a fairer compromise, that the late closing hour should be 11 p.m. all the year round.

Deputy Cosgrave maintained that the drinking practices in rural areas are different from those in city or urban areas. I also represent a constituency which is part rural and part city. It seems to me that the reverse is the case, that when the urban dweller cannot get any more drink after 10.30 p.m., he goes to the rural area where he can drink until 12 midnight. The argument put forward earlier today, that we are in fact restricting the drinking hours, is not correct because the only people who can drink until that hour in rural areas are the bona fide travellers, so that, in fact, we are extending the hours of drinking in the rural areas from half an hour to one hour, under the terms of this Bill.

Mr. Cosgrave

Extending? Cutting them down.

Mr. Russell

For the locals.

Mr. Cosgrave

Oh, yes, for the locals.

Mr. Russell

Furthermore, everybody who visits a public house now and again knows that it is quite impossible to clear the premises at closing time. One has only to read the national papers and, in greater detail, the local Press, to realise the difficulties of the publican in trying to get his customers out at a reasonable time after the closing hour. When that has been accomplished, the assistants have to clear up in preparation for the following day and by the time they have gone home and the proprietor has an opportunity of retiring, at least half an hour has elapsed. Therefore, if the late closing hour were 11 p.m. it would certainly be 11.30 p.m. before the assistants were on their way home and the proprietor had an opportunity to retire.

There have been several suggestions that there was no demand for this Intoxicating Liquor Bill. That may be true from the point of view that no large body of opinion has evidenced a desire for a change. Nonetheless, there is a general desire in the country that the difficulties which do occur and the several differences between city and urban areas should be ironed out and that there should be some basis of uniformity as between the urban and rural trade.

There is also, of course, a large body of possibly unvoiced opinion that the licensing laws should be rigidly enforced. I do not think that the amendment which the Minister has tabled to a later section of the Bill, to introduce fines of a minimum of £1 and a maximum of £5, will achieve that object. I suggest that is another reason why the late closing hour should not extend beyond 11 p.m. If the Minister were talking in terms of fines of £20 or £25 for persons found on premises after the closing hour, we could possibly afford to be rather more lenient in regard to late closing.

I was not here for his speech but I understand Deputy Dillon suggested that there should be no regulations up to 12 o'clock, that the licensed house proprietors should make their own arrangements, on a regional, town, city or rural area basis. There is a great deal to be said for that, undoubtedly. In time, things would iron themselves out. But, if we do have that in mind, I suggest that the first step might be to close at 11 p.m. and to allow that to operate for, say, a reasonable period of years and then by a simple amending Bill a further extension in the licensing laws could be brought in.

If the Minister were to agree on a closing hour of 11 p.m. instead of 11.30 p.m. he would meet many of the views of people not only in the House but also outside. It would certainly be easier on the assistants and the proprietors involved and would make enforcement of the law easier, which is essential if this Bill is to be a success.

Mr. P.J. Burke

On Second Reading, I said that we had agreed on uniformity. Deputy Manley took exception to the Bill. He painted a picture of drunkenness, of people not obeying the law, suggesting there was no law in rural Ireland. I want to take point by point. It is a sad reflection on our people if we have to pass laws to make them do the things they should ordinarily do. If a man or woman has not the will-power to avoid excessive drinking, the law will not prevent him or her indulging in such drinking. Deputy Manley nearly went as far as some of the Puritans in the United States did, when they made America dry and made it one of the most corrupt countries in the world.

I believe in giving people freedom. A man, a woman or a boy should be able to make up their own minds to avoid public-houses. I do not know of any abuse in county Dublin, despite the accusation made here by Deputy McQuillan that the pressure group, the licensed trade, of county Dublin, were looking after themselves. Of course, they were looking after themselves. They are people who have put a great deal of money into their houses and are employing large staffs. What is more, they had to obey the law in county Dublin. It was not a case of knocking and getting into a public house after 12 o'clock. I do not know of any place in county Dublin where one can do so and I have represented the county for 16 years. Many wild statements have been made in the House to the effect that the law was not obeyed and that as a result of this Bill, the law would be enforced. It is a pity that Deputy Manley approached this Bill as he did. Surely our people do not want to be marshalled like that. I was a Pioneer once, although I am not one now——

Mr. T. Lynch

Shame on you.

Mr. P.J. Burke

——but my children are Pioneers, thank God, and I want to say that the idea of trying to marshal people to do something is not popular. It is not right to suggest that there is anything wrong because people join a club and enjoy themselves. There is a lot of sociability involved in going into a public house and having a drink with a friend. Many an old row has been settled over a few drinks——

Captain Giles

And many a new one started off.

Mr. P.J. Burke

Listening to Deputy Manley, I thought he wanted to close all the public houses to end all the evils he saw. Thank God, our people have grown up and if it were not for one per cent. of our population, we would not need any licensing laws because the people are capable of conducting themselves properly. There are very few rows or fights compared with 30 years ago.

Mr. O.J. Flanagan

Drink was cheap then.

Mr. P.J. Burke

Deputy Flanagan may speak until the cows come home and I shall not interrupt him.

Mr. O.J. Flanagan

Since the Deputy's Government came in, very few people can get a few drinks.

Mr. Everett

The Government made them all Pioneers.

Mr. P.J. Burke

Deputy Flanagan and his Party did not do much to reduce the price of drink. All they did was to set up the Commission and give us this contentious Bill. Thirty years ago, a man was a hero if he was a bully and stood at a public house door kicking up a row. That situation has gone now. The times and the people have changed. We are entering a new era and it is getting better every day.

Mr. O.J. Flanagan

For goodness sake, wake up.

Mr. P.J. Burke

Things have improved. A number of inter-Party Government speakers have gone away from their own Commission. Apparently, they do not want it now. I am delighted to see the Minister again restored to health although I am sorry he has to sit in the House so long because this is going to be a very long debate.

Deputy McQuillan made a special attack on county Dublin. One would imagine that no crime was ever committed, apart from those committed by the publicans of county Dublin. I thought he was going to suggest a barbed wire encampment into which they should be put. If he represented county Dublin, I wonder would he say that? Would he appreciate the difficulties these people have? What would he say if 100 publicans in his constituency lost their livelihood as a result of this Bill? If we are honest supporters of puritans, we must be big enough to see everybody's point of view. If we want to do that, we must look at every angle of the Bill and see whom it will hurt and whom it will help. Dublin city is getting extended hours and county Dublin is having a half-hour taken off.

I am in favour of an 11.30 p.m. closing, as in the terms of the Bill. I would even go a step further to try to save the livelihood of people in county Dublin. I do not want to embarrass the Minister but I should like to see something done at least to help the people whose livelihood we are trying to take away in county Dublin. Their houses are well conducted; they must close on time; there are decent men in charge of the houses; they give good employment; they have spent thousands of pounds in reconstructing their premises.

Taking an auditor's report on about nine or ten houses, their present value, I suppose, would be about £90,000. There are 141 people employed. In the old days, these bona fide houses grew up around the city, some of them in non-populous areas. I got statements from quite a number of these publicans and the position is such that in one case on a Saturday night a public house in a non-populous area had taken in £4 before 10 p.m. and £25 afterwards. These people have to be considered and the only consideration I ask is that the House should give them that hour, until 11.30 p.m. Their property will be depreciated by 50 per cent. as it is.

In the case of other houses from which I got statements, the amount of money taken in before 10 p.m. is very small. There is a problem there which I want the House to face. These people bought their houses dearly. This trade is something you cannot wipe out overnight and if the House is to deprive 400 or 500 of my people in county Dublin of their livelihood, I think they should be favourably considered. The only consideration I want for them is an extension to 11.30 p.m. We have agreed as a Party on uniformity but on this occasion when I see the livelihood of people I have the honour to represent being taken away, I am making this plea.

When Chief Superintendent Quinn was asked about traffic going out on Sunday, he told the Commission that the volume of Sunday traffic was very light because the hour did not mean a whole lot. While I am supporting the Minister on his present stand, I believe that if it were agreed by the House that the hours should be reduced— Deputy Russell said we should close at 11 o'clock—a number of people would be put out of business.

County Dublin is one of the biggest tourist areas in Ireland and I suppose in practically all such areas it is bright up to 11 o'clock. I do not see what harm it would do for a man to have a drink up to 11.30 p.m. in a public house rather than risk the possibility of some shebeen being set up where he could go and drink without supervision and which would carry on for a while until detected by the Garda or somebody else.

I hope the House will take a serious view of that problem and, before deciding to do anything, will take every phase of Irish life into consideration and in doing so will not make statements regarding areas about which they know nothing, as they have been doing.

The City of Dublin has its own problem. County Dublin and every other county have their problems. I have great pleasure in supporting the Parliamentary Secretary, Deputy Brennan, who spoke this morning in favour of the 11.30 p.m. closing hour. The only alteration I would suggest is that it should be for the whole year round. I am making that plea to save the livelihood of a number of workers in County Dublin. There is one house in County Dublin which employs 12 people. The proprietors could do without them for six hours during the day but they need them for the evening trade. They would lose their livelihood. We have enough people on the unemployment register.

Mr. O.J. Flanagan

It is a good job the Deputy is admitting that.

Mr. P.J. Burke

We were on the rocks when we had to take over from Deputy Flanagan and his Party.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

That does not arise.

Mr. P.J. Burke

I have been approached in connection with this legislation by all the Pioneer organisations in the country. I believe I am speaking as my conscience dictates to me and as I see the position in my own constituency. I do not intend to be pushed by any pressure group but when I see the livelihood of people who trusted me over the years being jeopardised, I must defend them to the best of my ability. It merely remains for me now to appeal to the Minister in relation to the Sunday trade. Superintendent Quinn said there was very little traffic in that connection, that the hour meant nothing. There again, you have the evidence of a very responsible police officer who had been dealing with Dublin and Wicklow.

Mr. Dockrell

I am very much against the extension of the closing time till 11.30 p.m. I should like also to say—this may come strangely from this side of the House—that I have sympathy with the Minister and any Minister who has to pilot an intoxicating liquor Bill through this House. The decisions are not easy because it is a very complex matter. Its complexity arises from the fact that we are trying to do partly by legislation what really lies in the realm of ethics or of moral issues and that naturally makes for wide differences of opinion. There are the total abstinence people, on the one hand, and you have persons who are in favour of the almost unrestricted sale of liquor, on the other hand. The truth, as in so many instances, lies somewhere in between.

It is in that spirit that I approach this question. I am glad Deputies I have heard speak have all obviously sincerely tried to make up their minds as to what was in the best interests of the country and of course, in certain instances, in the interests of their own constituency. I say that, not in the sense that they were necessarily looking at the interests of their own constituency from a selfish point of view but that there are districts where there are varying outlooks. Deputy Cosgrave has told us of the position in his constituency, which is partly rural and partly urban, and where, therefore, the problem can be argued very well from both points of view. I represent a city constituency and it is from that point of view I should like to speak first.

As far as I am aware, in the City of Dublin there has been no demand from the trade for the extension of the hours to 11.30 p.m. from any aspect of the trade, from the assistants or indeed from the public. None of those sections has asked for it nor indeed have the Guards asked for it. I believe that even if you do not increase the actual hours in which a licensed house is open—and I think I am correct in saying that that is in the Minister's proposal—nevertheless the drinking habits of the public are different. The busy time of most public houses is from 6 o'clock onwards. If you increase the hours of opening from 10.30 p.m. to 11.30 p.m. and in certain months from 10 p.m. to 11.30 p.m., you increase the period in which the heaviest amount of drinking takes place.

Although all of us are sensative of appearing to censure our fellow citizens in any way, there is what I might call the ethical or moral issue involved. Sitting here I have been asking myself: why have we closing hours at all? We have closing hours because in the past we found the heaviest amount of drinking took place in the later hours and that it was not in the public interest or in the family interest to permit that. We are, as I said, loath to interfere with our fellow citizens on private matters but we do it in all sorts of ways.

We do not allow persons to carry firearms or to own fireams without pemission from the police. There are many other instances in which our rights as citizens are presumably interfered with for the common good. That is why we have closing hours. We cannot divest ourselves of a degree of responsibility to our citizens in that respect. We may stand up and say: "We do not wish to interfere with people." We are always interfering with people and we should be false to many of our principles, if we did not do so.

Some Deputies have referred to bona fide houses because that matter comes within the scope of this amendment. As far as I can understand, they were started in a very different age and for very different reasons. Anything over 50 or 60 years ago, when men had to travel long distances and were off a railway line, they had to travel either on foot or on horse. In cold weather, they probably actually needed alcohol to protect them against severe cold.

Nowadays, if a motor car has not a heater, which I think all new cars have fitted as standard equipment, it can be purchased and put into the car at no great cost and people can travel in the utmost comfort at all times of the year. They are not in need of alcohol now as a form of refreshment to save them from the cold.

We know of the great danger of alcohol when combined with any form of transport. A very considerable case could be made and has been made in some countries against serving any motorist with alcohol. I am not proposing that. I am merely instancing it to show how far the legislation of one period can become dangerous to the habits of the present day. At one time, it was necessary for a traveller, in bad weather, to be able to get alcohol perhaps to ward off very serious chills and illnesses. The pendulum has swung so much in the other direction that it is not necessary now and is in certain circumstances extremely dangerous.

Owing to the state of the roads, if a pedestrian is under the influence of drink he is a potential danger mainly to himself and possibly to other road users. The whole question bristles with complexities. Each man can only make up his mind and express what he feels.

Casual people have said to me when I sounded them on the Bill: "I am not in favour of extending the hour from 10.30 to 11.30 p.m. because the man of the house may come back having had an extra hour in which to spend money in his pocket which he possibly ought not to spend." From a family point of view, that is not desirable. I do not see that any real case can be made for the extension to 11.30 p.m. Therefore, I want to register my very sincere disapprobation of that proposal.

A suggestion has been made to extend the time to 11 p.m. I have no great enthusiasm for that, either. I do not see the necessity for it. There has been no great call for it. I think it is mainly to get a small increase of time but no considerable case has been made for it. Therefore, in the case of the city of Dublin, I think the 10.30 time limit should remain.

I would be open to listen to an argument for an alteration in regard to rural Ireland. The chief argument in favour of an alteration there is that, owing to the early hours of closing, the law has been continuously broken. That is a very poor reason for asking us to extend the time. This applies to both the city and the country. No matter what extension we may give, the law will be broken just as much as ever. I am not making any case about the law being continuously broken but where it is broken, it is broken because people want to drink. If you permit that same type of person to drink for an extra hour, or one-and-a-half hours, he will be just as loath as ever to go.

I have great sympathy with publicans, the vast majority of whom conduct their houses in a very reasonable and good fashion. It is the old Adam in most of us that makes the trouble and causes the difficulty and I think, reluctantly, we must endeavour to the best of our ability to control that. Therefore, I am not in favour of an extension of the hours.

Mr. Sherwin

I expressed my views on the Second Reading and I pressed for an 11 o'clock closing. I also made a case for a 1 o'clock closing on Sundays. I have changed my mind about that. I accept the proposal of a 12.30 to 2 p.m. opening on Sundays as being the best. I am told the Minister has accepted that proposal.

Acting-Chairman (Mr. MacCarthy)

The Deputy is aware that we are not discussing Sunday opening or closing now, but only weekdays.

Mr. Sherwin

It is suggested that there should be a free vote. I do not accept that because everyone would be lobbied or blackmailed, if you like. To enact legislation in that manner would be rather dangerous. An example can be found in the case of those who represent county Dublin. Naturally, they are influenced, rightly or wrongly, by the publicans in county Dublin, and there are quite a number. Publicans are quite influential people. In the old days, it was the publicans who ran the elections here. I understand that half of the candidates for Parliament were publicans. They are very powerful people and they meet everybody. I am not saying anything against them. I am pointing out the power they have and the power they would have in relation to representatives from county Dublin.

There are others, of course, who may be influenced by people from total abstinence associations. I was approached myself. They may be unduly prejudiced. You might meet some of those people who might have the minds of those who were responsible for prohibition in the United States, people with no imagination, because if the people who enacted the legislation had had imagination, and if they had known anything of human nature, they would have foreseen most of what happened, but they decided that, as they felt a certain way, everybody else must feel their way. That is wrong. It would be great if that could be the case, but it is not.

The view I take is strictly my own view, whether it is right or wrong. I always think out things for myself. I do not mind listening to other people but I make my own decisions. There have been various viewpoints expressed, some by people who never drank. You could nearly suspect those views. I do not drink now; I did drink for 20 years but I gave it up. I can claim to have experience of both sides of the case. Then you have the views of those who drink. I do not know that those views were expressed here at all. You also have the publicans who do not want late hours. The publicans in county Dublin do want the late hours.

I think 11 o'clock is the best time. I heard the Minister mention a moment ago that most of the people in town late at night would be people who reside in the centre of the city. That is not correct. All the big dance halls and cinemas are in the centre of the city and on any night of the week, there are probably some 40,000 people in the cinemas and of that number I am certain there are 30,000 who do not live within a quarter of a mile from the cinemas. Half of those 30,000 are people who live on the fringe and outside the city who come in to see the latest picture. I have been in show business all my life and I know what I am talking about. All the big dance halls are in the city and whenever there is a big meeting, a Labour meeting or something else, in the city, you can safely say that a very large number of the people present are people living outside the city.

The question then arises: what is the best for these people? As the Report said, we should try to think of their habits. That is a vital consideration and questions of law and order and of abuses and all the rest, come into it. Let us take the cinemas. They all close about 10.30 p.m. or 10.45 p.m. and as against those who want an earlier closing time, the people attending the cinemas would be deprived of a drink. You would have some 30,000 people coming out of the cinemas and perhaps another 20,000 from the dance halls or meetings of all sorts. Various meetings go on to 10.30 p.m. or 11 p.m. The closing time as it stands at present actually encourages people to break the law, because I know that people who do come out of the cinemas late and are not able to get a drink down town knock on the door of their "local" when they go home and get a drink. It is hard to blame them. They want a drink and they have no opportunity to drink down town. They know the local publican and they can knock on the door and get a drink. We do not want to see that happening. If a person goes down town now, he gets a drink and takes one or two in his pocket and then goes home. This business of closing at 10 p.m. or 10.30 p.m. is nonsense. Those people would encourage a greater evil and encourage people who are always looking for an easy pound to open shebeens.

Mr. Larkin

You have them now. How many would you have if there were a later closing?

Mr. Sherwin

The number would jump considerably, if you closed at 10 p.m. or 10.30 p.m.

Mr. Larkin

They are shutting now at that hour.

Mr. Sherwin

The thing is that we are trying to meet a situation and 11 p.m. would meet it, whereas 11.30 p.m. would be dangerous from the point of view of people getting home. Shutting at 10 p.m. or 10.30 p.m. encourages shebeens and encourages the bona fide trade. It seems to me that only county Dublin is fighting for the bona fide trade and it seems to be a lost cause, although whether they should get some little compensation or not, I do not know. It is hard on people who have spent a lot of money, not expecting this development, to find themselves thousands of pounds out of pocket. We must concern ourselves with the question of whether there should be an 11 p.m. or 11.30 p.m. closing. That seems to be the issue. The other issues are not serious. I gather the 11 p.m. closing suits all the people in the centre of the city and I would say that some 20,000 to 30,000 people would be in the city then.

The danger of 11.30 p.m. is that most of the buses are full or have gone at that time. If they have not gone, you will not get on to them. Every night, I see crowds of people who are not allowed on to the Finglas bus. They have to walk to Finglas at twenty-five minutes past eleven. They will let only some of the people on to the buses and the rest must walk. What would it be like if the public houses were open to 11.30 p.m.?

Mr. Larkin

What would it be like?

Mr. T. Lynch

They could take taxis.

Mr. Sherwin

They cannot all take taxis. Then you have the barmen's objection. They want to get home. Again, you have the question of the habits of the people. You do not want people rolling home, if they have to walk, at 12 o'clock causing a "shindy" in the house and waking everybody up. Even if they got a bus, it would still be late because the practice is to make a cup of tea when one gets home and then go to bed.

What happens? At 11 o'clock or 11.30 Radio Éireann is finished. Television is finished. The father rolls home and arrives there at 12 o'clock midnight. There is no tea and he will upset everything.

I do not agree that 11.30 p.m. should be the time. There are strong objections to 11.30 p.m. by all the Pioneer Associations, the publicans in the city and their employees. There are other objections to 11.30 p.m. apart from the arguments I made. As I said before, I speak with a little experience. I am quite well aware that it would be a great thing if there were no drinking at all.

Mr. T. Lynch

What would Messrs. Guinness do then?

Mr. Sherwin

If there were no drinking at all, I am afraid a lot of the personnel of the Dáil would not be here. Some other people would be in their place. If I had kept on drinking, I certainly would not be in the House and would not be a pain in the neck to all the people here. Thanks to the fact that I do not drink I am here. If there were no drinking by anyone, there would be more competition. Some people should be thankful that others drink. I want to repeat again that everyone in the city is against the 11.30 p.m. closing.

Mr. Loughman

I am supporting the terms of the Bill. Before this Bill was published, I received—and I am sure other Deputies received—deputations from representatives of the licensed trade dealing with matters with which they were concerned in regard to the new licensing regulations. Their concern was mainly on the question of hours. These deputations were very persistent but after the Bill was published, and until it was introduced in the Dáil, there was a complete lapse in such representations. I gathered from a private conversation with the members of the licensed trade that they were very happy about the proposals in the Bill.

I listened to several speakers here on this question of a 10.30 p.m. closing and a few of them remarked that these hours are proposed for four months during the summer. Few thought of the fact that that is really half-past ten. In fact, according to the time we knew long ago, it is practically ten o'clock. At any rate, for all ordinary purposes it is 10.30 p.m. and at that time during the summer months we have broad daylight and at that time, as Deputy Sherwin pointed out, people come out from the picture houses; people leave the fields. The farmers, and sometimes their men, and even people out for walks and that kind of recreation in the countryside might like to adjourn to a public house for any refreshment they thought suitable.

At the present time, ordinary clubs are on the wane, mainly because public houses are making their premises more attractive and, as Deputy Corry said today, people like in the evenings to go into the pub and have a sort of social evening with their friends and talk about things. The only hour available to them is the hour or the hour and a half after 10 o'clock or 10.30. I can see nothing in the world unreasonable in 11.30 as the closing hour. In fact, my own wish would be that the hour would be extended to 12 o'clock because I do not regard 12 o'clock as a late hour during the Summer months.

We hear a good deal about the city publicans and the city workers and their objections to the 11 o'clock or 11.30 closing. We also hear protests from the temperance organisations, using the city publicans and their employees to defeat the 12.30 or the 12 o'clock closing. There is a very obvious method whereby the publicans, the employees and the temperance organisations can offset the 11.30 closing.

We know that trade unions are very powerful. In many ways they get their way because of their organisation. We also know that the licensed trade is a powerful body. They have methods of getting their way also. I rather think that if the licensed trade and their employees, represented by the trade unions, together with the temperance organisations, got together they could, if they chose, arrange that the public houses in the borough could close at whatever hour they wish.

Mr. O'Sullivan

The Minister would not like that.

Mr. Loughman

The point to remember is that the law does not require any public house to remain open a minute longer than the publican himself wishes. I cannot see why we should have only very limited restrictions as far as this Bill is concerned. I tried to examine the effect of restrictions. My view is that the greater the restrictions the greater the dangers and the greater the abuses. Let us have regard to what happened in America when licensed houses shut down completely. That was a case of total restriction. We had the most awful abuses in consequence. We have closing hours of 10 p.m. and 10.30 p.m. We have the abuses simply because the law and the hours are not acceptable to the people generally. We are aware of that.

From the temperance organisations I got letters protesting against the proposed hours on the grounds that we were increasing the hours available for drink. To me at any rate that is the greatest nonsense. In actual fact, we are reducing the hours available for drinking since the Minister intends to have the law enforced vigorously once the Bill is passed. Everybody in rural Ireland who keeps his eyes open knows that he can walk into a pub at any time he chooses in any place. That is common knowledge; the people who say anything else are blinding themselves to the fact that you can walk into a public house almost at any time. The greatest abuse is that many of these publicans will serve people up to 2 o'clock in the morning. I believe that to be the truth. I know it to be the truth. I certainly think that 11.30 p.m. in summer time in rural Ireland is a good hour to close the public houses.

I cannot see any reason in the world for closing at 10.30 p.m. Those who advocate that are blinding themselves to the facts. We cannot have restrictions without having trouble. That is my belief. Since we are trying to introduce a measure which can be effectively enforced, we are right in insisting upon an hour which will be acceptable to the people generally. That is a firm conviction of mine.

I should like to refer briefly to this question of the free vote. I mentioned it already by way of question to Deputy MacEoin. Deputy Cosgrave, speaking after the Minister had introduced the Bill, stated that his Party had decided to oppose the Bill. That led me to believe that his Party had already made a decision that they would oppose the Bill. If they had arrived at that decision, why this talk about a free vote? If the principal speaker for the Party made that statement, had they not already decided to oppose the Bill?

Mr. O'Sullivan

Why have a Committee Stage in any Bill?

Progress reported; Committee to sit again.

The Dáil adjourned at 5 p.m. until 3 p.m. on Wednesday, 24th February, 1960.