Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 25 May 1960

Vol. 182 No. 2

Intoxicating Liquor Bill, 1959—Report Stage.

Mr. Traynor

I move amendment No. 2:—

In page 8, between lines 22 and 23, to insert the following section:

"The Act of 1927 is hereby amended by the insertion after section 12 of the following section:

‘12A. (1) Where on application to a Justice of the District Court in relation to premises to which an on-licence is attached or on the occasion of an application for a new on-licence, the applicant requests the Court to certify that any portion of the premises to which the application relates is a restaurant for the purposes of section 13 of this Act, the Court, if satisfied, in relation to that portion of the premises, after hearing the officer in charge of the Garda Síochána for the licensing area that—

(a) it is structurally adapted for use and bona fide and mainly used as a restaurant, refreshment house or other place for supplying substantial meals to the public,

(b) it does not include a public bar or part of a room in another part of which there is a public bar, and

(c) there is public access to it otherwise than through a public bar,

shall grant to the applicant a certificate (in this section referred to as a limited restaurant certificate) certifying that that portion of the premises is a restaurant for the purposes of section 13 of this Act.

(2) The Court shall not entertain an application for a limited restaurant certificate unless and until satisfied that not less than ten days before the date on which the application is proposed to be made notice in writing of the intention to make the application was given to the officer in charge of the Garda Síochána for the licensing area.

(3) Every limited restaurant certificate shall unless sooner revoked under this section remain in force until the next annual licensing district court for the licensing area.

(4) A Justice of the District Court may, on the application of the officer in charge of the Garda Síochána for the licensing area, at any time revoke a limited restaurant certificate if he is satisfied, after hearing the officer and the holder of the certificate, that the portion of the premises to which the certificate relates has ceased to be structurally adapted for use or to be bona fide or mainly used as a restaurant, refreshment house or other place for the supplying of substantial meals to the public or that it includes a public bar or part of a room in another part of which there is a public bar or that there is no public access to it otherwise than through a public bar.

(5) Every holder of a limited restaurant certificate shall cause the certificate to be displayed prominently in the portion of the premises to which the certificate relates.

(6) Where, in relation to any portion of a licensed premises, a limited restaurant certificate is in force—

(a) the portion of the premises to which the certificate relates shall be deemed, for the purposes of section 13 of this Act, but not otherwise, to be premises which are for the time being a restaurant, and

(b) subsection (1) of section 17 of this Act shall be construed and have effect in relation to a person who is found on those premises at a time specified in the said section 13 at which the consumption of intoxicating liquor is permitted with a meal as if references therein (other than the reference in paragraph (b)) to a licensed premises were references to a public bar in licensed premises.

(7) In this section "public bar" includes any place exclusively or mainly used for the sale and consumption of intoxicating liquor.' "

The amendment proposes to make what I think is a fairly important modification of the law. Under the existing law, hotels and certified restaurants have the right to serve drinks with meals during certain periods outside the ordinary licensing hours. The Bill modifies the law in extending these hours up to midnight on weekdays and up to 10 p.m. on Sunday nights. A premises could be certified as a restaurant, however, only if the Court were satisfied that it was structurally adapted and mainly used as a restaurant. A licensed premises could, therefore, have a fairly extensive restaurant business, quite distinct from a public house business in some other room or rooms, and yet be able to secure a restaurant certificate because it could not be said that the restaurant business was the main business.

On the Committee Stage, some Deputies raised the question whether these facilities could not be extended to public houses which in the normal course of their trade serve substantial meals. I considered this matter carefully and came to the conclusion that, while it would be leaving the way open to evasion of the law to allow drink to be served with a meal at a bar counter outside the ordinary public house hours, it was desirable to allow these facilities to publicans who could set aside a part of their premises as a restaurant. This is a desirable change in the law, and one which will encourage the tendency which has shown itself in recent years in many good class public houses to supply meals at reasonable prices to the benefit of everybody.

I am conscious, of course, of the fact that we are dealing with premises which are primarily public houses, and for that reason I think it essential to insist on certain safeguards. First, the portion of the premises to be certified as restaurant must be distinct from the public bar—it must be in a separate room or rooms and it will not be sufficient to put tables in part of the lounge bar and call that the restaurant. Secondly, there must be access to it otherwise than through the public bar. This does not mean that there may not also be an entrance to it from the bar, but merely that people may be in a position to enter and leave the restaurant without passing through the bar. Thirdly, during the additional hours in which drink may be served with meals, the public bar will be shut down. Finally, the privilege allowed to it will be confined to the serving of drink with meals during the additional hours specified in Section 5 of the Bill; in other words, patrons may not be in a public house with a limited certificate at all after midnight on a week day and after 10 p.m. on Sundays, just as they may not be in the ordinary public house after the ordinary drinking hours, that is, 11 p.m. or 11.30 p.m. on week days and 8 p.m. or 9 p.m. on Sundays.

As Deputies will be aware, in an ordinary licensed restaurant and in a hotel, under the law as it stands and as it will be under the Bill, a person may be on the premises at any hour of the night without committing an offence against the licensing code.

Mr. Cosgrave

The apparent purpose of this amendment is to give in some way compensation to those traders whose livelihood has been jeopardised by the extension of drinking hours in the urban areas to 11.30 p.m.—an extension which is not wanted in the city by either the trade or the assistants, and in so far as there is any evidence available, there is no large-scale demand for it either. The position is that under the proposed change in the law the same opening hours will now be operative for city and country. As I understand it, the trade themselves do not want the amendment which the Minister has introduced. It is true that the amendment is permissive but what is involved in the amendment is that people will have to reconstruct their premises and make structural alterations. If they make structural alterations, they will very likely find themselves subject to an increase in valuation.

It places the obligation on a person who wants a drink of having a meal with it. It follows therefore that for the future if a person wants to have a drink outside the normal trading hours, if, say, a man wants a pint, he has to have a meal with it. It is obvious that the interpretation of "a substantial meal" will involve very difficult problems. It has, I think, been held that in certain circumstances a sandwich could be described as a substantial meal. In, say, warm weather, would a plate of salad be a substantial meal? If traders are to make these changes and structural alterations in their premises, will they be provided with the grants which are available from Bord Fáilte to hoteliers who modernise and improve their premises? As I understand the views of the trade in this matter, there is no demand for it. Their businesses will be jeopardised considerably by the extension of the opening hours in the city which, as I say, the trade do not want and which will involve the same opening hours in city and country.

Many of these people, as the Minister said, have over the years improved their premises very considerably. They have spent large sums of money modernising them and providing proper facilities so that people can drink in suitable surroundings and under hygienic conditions. It is only right to say that not only have they provided improved accommodation and amenities but also that these premises are, in the main, well run and properly supervised. They are properly supervised because the traders are anxious to continue in business and to ensure that no action of theirs will lead to criticism of the manner in which they conduct their businesses. They are, as I say, anxious to avoid conflict with the law. There is, in fact, far greater supervision of the way in which they carry on their premises than there is of the manner in which drink is served at dances up to very late hours. Therefore, so far as the traders are concerned, particularly those who up to this have enjoyed bona fide rights, their premises are generally well conducted.

The view of these traders is that this proposed amendment is no substitute for the rights they have at present and which are being swept away by this Bill. Many of these businesses are well established family businesses. A number of them have been trading for not one generation, but in some cases, two and three, and all of them have enjoyed the right to trade under the existing opening hours for at least 18 years, while some of them go back 30, 40, 50 years and maybe longer. The position is that under the Bill the trading hours will be altered considerably. As far as they are concerned, the trading hours will be brought back to 11.30 p.m. in the summer and 11 p.m. in the winter—half an hour less in summer and an hour less in winter. The trading hours in the city will be extended from 10 p.m. to 11 p.m. in the winter and to 11.30 p.m. in the summer. These people feel they are entitled to compensation for loss of business and for interference with their trade. They feel that this proposed amendment will be no substitute for the business taken from them.

It is certain that if such persons reconstruct their premises to meet the requirements of this section, the premises will be revalued and the valuation increased. So far as I know they will not qualify for the grants which Bord Fáilte gives to hoteliers who modernise their premises, though they will be expected to provide the same standard of service as an hotel or restaurant in respect of meals. Many of these houses provide first-class food under good conditions, serving quick meals at the counter for those who require them, but now they will have to construct a separate compartment or room, and divide it off from the public house portion of their premises. If a man wants a pint, he will have to buy a meal and I believe the problem of enforcing the law will be just as difficult in this matter as it has been in other cases in the past.

Assuming the restaurant portion of the bar is open for trade and a person comes in for a drink and there is a plate of sandwiches on a table with a number of people sitting around, how is a Guard to prove that that man taking a pint is not also having a meal? Has he to have a set place in front of him and will he be obliged to prove to the satisfaction of the Guard that he is having a meal? I believe this modification is not wanted by the trade and is no substitution whatsoever for the very substantial drop in business which will result from the longer opening hours in the city— which are not wanted by any section —and the curtailment of the hours in areas adjacent to the city. That is an effort to make uniform by legislation a pattern of life which cannot be made uniform in that way. The mode of living in the cities and in the country is entirely different and to try and legislate to make it the same is refusing to face the facts.

I feel this amendment is no improvement. In fact it is not wanted by the trade and, even though it is permissive for those who might adopt its provisions at considerable expense, those who have already gone to the expense of improving their premises, equipping them and providing proper facilities and amenities, now find their businesses will be seriously interfered with, and they feel they are entitled to compensation for the business that will be taken from them. While this proposal may appear to be an effort to meet their needs, to meet the just claims which they have, in fact the very contrary may well be the case and I would again ask the Minister to consider the claim which they have for some measure of compensation.

General Mulcahy rose.

Mr. Traynor

Deputy Cosgrave remarked that no relationship exists——

An Ceann Comhairle

There is only one speech allowed on this Stage. This is a Report Stage. Perhaps the Minister would allow Deputy Mulcahy to speak and then reply?

General Mulcahy

Deputy Cosgrave spoke of this with particular reference to Dublin and the problems that arise in Dublin as a result of other aspects of this Bill, but I take it that the amendment is intended to apply to the whole country. Applying as it does to the whole country, there are one or two points raised by Deputy Cosgrave on which I should like to get some information. There are a number of cases throughout the country in which six-day licensees run small restaurants in part of their establishments and with the possibility, even at considerable cost, of changing over to seven-day licences, they would be anxious to develop their restaurant businesses in order to extend their general trade. I think this amendment would be of assistance to them.

In connection with that, and on the point raised by Deputy Cosgrave, I should like to ask the Minister whether facilities for improving their premises will be available to them under some of the arrangements in relation to the tourist development machinery because, hit as they will be if the Minister does not change the proposal he has put to the House of fining them £200 for changing over to seven-day licences, they might have difficulties in facing up to the expenditure necessary to improve the restaurant side of their businesses. I feel that if facilities for loans and grants in relation to the extension of their businesses on the restaurant side were available, it might help some of them to make their businesses more secure, by giving them some kind of offset as against the expense of throwing themselves into seven-day licences.

Mr. Belton

In putting down this amendment, I think the Minister appreciates very much the development that has occurred in the licensed trade since the last Intoxicating Liquor Bill was introduced but I do not think the amendment will create the position the Minister obviously would like to see. Being a person who is interested in the trade, for the life of me, I cannot see how any public house or bar in this city which intended to cater for the public by way of meals could, within reason, carry out structural alterations to suit the requirements set out in the amendment. Where the Minister suggests that separate dining rooms should be provided, apart from the bar, I think that the difficulty could be got over by installing roller shutters to close off the bar.

The majority of places now providing meals in licensed premises are doing it in the lounges. If the Minister's amendment is approved and some licensee would like to avail of its provisions, he would have to construct a completely separate entrance to his premises and the Minister, knowing the city of Dublin as well as anybody else in this House, must realise that these premises have not got the room or accommodation to do so. In many cases, if extra entrances had to be provided, it would mean that structural alterations would have to be carried out on the ground floor because the bulk of the catering trade is carried on on the second floor.

It is a well-known fact that the licensed trade in this country is 25 or 30 years behind the licensed trade in Britain. Everybody in this House has heard the advice often given by friends living in London and other cities in England that when they go there, they should have bar lunches, because they are cheaper, quicker, and so forth. That trend is developing in this country, whether we like it or not, and I believe the Minister for Justice appreciates that fact because he has brought in this amendment to deal with it. However, I do not think it will enable licensees to carry out economically the structural alterations required.

Like Deputy Cosgrave, I should like to know if it will be possible for Bord Fáilte to make grants available to people in the licensed trade who wanted to cater for the public and develop tourism, in the same way as grants are made available to hoteliers, large and small.

The principle of the amendment is sound but I realise that there are too many difficulties in the way of its effective operation.

Mr. P.J. Burke

I welcome the amendment in principle, as it may have the effect of helping a number of my constituents who are in the licensed trade. Nevertheless, it will be very expensive on any publican to open a restaurant. If there were a large lounge in a public house, could the publican apply to have portion of that lounge licensed on the basis that he is partitioning the lounge for the purpose of using portion of it as a restaurant, to which there would be a separate entrance? While I agree with and welcome the amendment in principle, I do feel that a number of publicans would find it hard to meet the expense of carrying on a restaurant. I am referring to people in county Dublin whose sole livelihood has been the bona fide trade. Whether we like it or not, that problem is there. It was there before our time. I know that the amendment will go a long way to meet that problem. I do not want to labour the matter but I am talking from my experience in county Dublin.

Mr. Moher

This gives them an escape hatch.

Mr. P.J. Burke

I fully realise that in the case of people who were depending on the bona fide trade their business started from 10 o'clock. Now there is uniformity and city publicans will have the same hours and I feel that the bona fide trade will disappear completely in a number of areas.

The amendment would have been wonderful, if there were not so many restrictions. The type of people I have in mind will find it very expensive to take advantage of it. There are not as many hotels in the county as there are in the city. In London, one can go into a public bar and have dinner or tea. That has been the custom. The same applies to other countries. The Minister should reconsider this matter. It would be impracticable to clear one section of a public house and reopen after 11.30 p.m. There must be some room specially provided for the serving of meals. It would not be practicable for the licensee to say to people on the premises that they must leave at 11 o'clock because a restaurant is to be opened in that portion of the premises. There should be some other way out of it without involving too much expense for the people I have in mind.

I know that the amendment is intended to apply to the whole country and I would say good luck to anybody who is sufficiently enterprising to take advantage of it but the people I am trying to defend and seeking some way to help will find it very expensive.

In principle, the amendment is definitely a good amendment, but there are too many restrictions embodied in it and too much expense involved in carrying out structural alterations. For the moment, I shall say no more about it.

Mr. Sweetman

It is the only chance you will get. We are on Report.

Mr. P.J. Burke

I wondered why the Deputy kept so quiet for so long. I would repeat the point I have made in regard to a publican who has a large lounge which he decides to divide in order to provide a restaurant. I am talking about bona fide traders whose trade is to go. If the Minister were to meet the people I have in mind in that way, it would be of great assistance to them and I am sure they would be able to rise to the occasion and get an alternative entrance to that part of the premises. If they have to build and carry out structural alterations, it will involve great expense. It is problematical if they would make a profit on the serving of food. Unless there is constant demand, it would not be profitable.

Mr. Moher

A plate of ham sandwiches would do for a month.

Mr. Sweetman

That is more unkind than I would be.

Mr. P.J. Burke

There is the added difficulty of deciding what is a substantial meal.

Mr. Corish

I should not like to be feeding the Deputy very often.

Mr. P.J. Burke

Believe it or not, I do not eat very much.

Mr. Corish

You must have at one time.

Mr. Sweetman

Whatever the Deputy eats, he is a very good advertisement.

Mr. P.J. Burke

The court must decide what is a substantial meal.

Mr. Moher

A good crubeen.

Mr. P.J. Burke

This is a serious matter for the people I have in mind. The decision as to what is a substantial meal rests with the court and may vary as between district justices. I wish my colleagues would stay quiet and let me make my point.

Mr. Sweetman

They are being more unkind to the Deputy than I would be.

Mr. P.J. Burke

The question is: what is the yardstick for a substantial meal?

Mr. Moher

A crubeen.

Mr. P.J. Burke

It depends on how the district justice may regard it. I have discussed the matter fairly fully and shall not say any more at this stage. I hope to have a further opportunity to do so.

Mr. Sweetman

I should like the Minister to clarify one point for me, that is, in relation to the proviso in subparagraph (c). I take it that when it says that there is to be public access to it otherwise than through a public bar, it means the actual bar portion of the premises and not the public bar licensed portion? The difference is this: if you have a hallway into which you go, you turn to the right to the bar proper; you turn to the left to the room that is to be used under this amendment.

Mr. Traynor

You could go upstairs.

Mr. Sweetman

I would prefer to keep them both on the same floor for a particular reason. You turn to the left to the restaurant—that is in a separate room—you have the bar on the right hand but the middle hallway is licensed also. I want it to be perfectly clear that it is licensed also and it is not an offence, for example, to carry your bottle of stout out of the public bar and drink it in the hallway. I want to be quite clear that the mere fact that that is so does not debar a person from taking advantage of this phrase.

I should also like some further clarification of another point. The term "public bar", so far as I know, appears only in the licensing Acts in respect of the actual counter which is excluded by the hotels section of the 1906 Act. Is it clear that in relation to this Bill now, and therefore in relation to this amendment, the term "public bar" means every place other than a restaurant in which——

Mr. Davern

——drink is ordinarily consumed.

Mr. Sweetman

I know about subsection (7) of the amendment but again I am not clear on it—not merely consumed, but dispensed. I can see that if the phrase were also "public bar"— and I think subsection (7) would perhaps cover it—if it is to include as well that you must have access other than to the dispense bar, it may cause even further difficulties. I should like the Minister to clarify that point in relation to what I have given as an example, the hallway.

Secondly, does it mean only the part in which the drink is actually consumed, as apart from the portion in. which it may be dispensed? I take it also the intention is that in this restaurant the licensee will have the right to go into the public bar portion of the premises for the purpose of getting there drink which he wants to bring in to serve in the restaurant. I do not think that is very clear. Obviously, it is not intended, I imagine that a restaurant proprietor who wants to take advantage of this section should be forced, so to speak, to carry two stocks in two different places. That is not as it should be. I am not clear as to how this section which is being inserted now will work out in practice and for those reasons I should welcome further clarification from the Minister.

Mr. Traynor

My worst fears have been realised. I was not happy about bringing in this amendment because I felt that it might be construed as the re-establishment of the bona fide trade. I want to state categorically that so far as I am concerned it has no relationship to the bona fide trade. It is not making any effort to re-establish it or to provide the facilities which bona fide customers had in the past. I had representations from sections of the licensed trade, from bona fide traders, from Deputy Cosgrave's side of the House and from this side of the House, to bring in an amendment of this particular type and I must say I was very doubtful as to the wisdom of it. But I realised that hotels and restaurants as at present established have been carrying on this type of business for very many years and that none of the abuses suggested in the course of the discussion have been known to occur. I feel certain, because of the manner in which this amendment is framed, that they will not occur in the future, that the supervision will be such that there will be no illegalities involving abuses of this concession.

If Deputy Sweetman will look at subsection (7) of the proposed section, I think he will find that the bar is defined and that there will be no difficulty about it—"In this section, ‘public bar' includes any place exclusively or mainly used for the sale and consumption of intoxicating liquor."

Mr. Sweetman

Does that include the dispense bar?

Mr. Traynor

I am not sure what the Deputy means by dispense bar. Is that a bar in a hotel that serves drink?

Mr. Sweetman

If you like, the storeroom out of which drink is brought by a waiter for consumption.

Mr. Traynor

The clearest way I can put it is this: at the precise closing hour, the licensed premises closes down and no drink may be consumed on that portion of the premises——

Mr. Sweetman

So long as the accent is on "consumption", I am quite happy.

Mr. Traynor

Whatever drink people may have at that particular moment, even in their hands, they must leave the premises and if they want to have the benefit of the amendment, that is, by proceeding from the public bar to the restaurant portion, they can do so only without carrying their drinks with them as the Deputy suggests. The drink must be purchased in the restaurant portion after having ordered a substantial meal. I am not going into the question of what is a substantial meal.

As far as the point about structural alterations is concerned, I cannot answer the question by Deputy Mulcahy and other Deputies in regard to whether Bord Fáilte would or would not provide a grant. I rather imagine that if the matter were put to them, they would be quite prepared to consider it because they are interested in this from the point of view put forward here from time to time in this debate, that many tourists coming here do not quite understand why they cannot continue to have drinks up to, say, midnight. This is an effort now to make that provision in such a way that it will not be abused.

I received a letter recently from the County Dublin Licensees' Association extending their congratulations to me on this amendment of the law. The only suggestion they had to make was that it should not operate in respect of new boroughs. I could not accept that suggestion because this Bill is being brought in on the understanding that whatever we have in it will apply uniformly to the whole State. To accept that it should be provided to facilitate the county Dublin publicans, or some other set of publicans, would be to suggest that it is for the purpose of compensating in some form or another the bona fide trade. That is not its purpose. As I said, the purpose of the amendment is to meet the requests that have been made generally from people interested in this matter, including Bord Fáilte. This amendment will do that and I am satisfied there will not be any abuse of its provisions.

Mr. Cosgrave

Can the Minister say if structural alterations, which do not involve the premises being enlarged, are carried out, will the trader be liable to have the premises revalued or not?

Mr. Traynor

I cannot answer that. It would be a question for the Valuation Office. I rather imagine if the reconstruction or extension were of such a character as to necessitate revaluation, they would have to face up to that fact.

Mr. Cosgrave

It is one question if the premises are extended, but assuming that the bar is a single room and the owner runs a partition through it without increasing the floor space or the floor area, would that involve him in revaluation?

Mr. Traynor

I cannot answer that from the purely technical point of view. Many representations were made to me in respect of this matter by people who had been carrying on this type of business and who were fully equipped and furnished to adapt their business. The Bill, as it was, ruled that type of business out after a certain hour, and there were many of those people depending on it who would be hit. The amendment goes further than meeting their requirements to the extent that now any person in any part of the State who wishes to avail of the facilities provided in this amendment can adapt his premises to meet the requirements. I rather imagine that will be done in many seaside resorts throughout the country. That type of public house will, I think, be adapted, but I doubt very much if many licensees other than that type of person will bother their heads about it.

Mr. Sweetman

Would the Minister mind looking into the point I raised about the hallway, between now and the time when the Bill goes to the Seanad? I am aware of subsection (7). It depends on whether places and rooms are the same thing in subsection (7).

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Belton

I move amendment No. 3:

In page 8, line 25, to delete "subsection" and substitute "subsections" and to add to the section the following:

"(11) An exemption order granted under the provisions of this section in respect of the Dublin Metropolitan District shall not be in respect of any hour prior to half-past seven o'clock in the morning, and it shall be a condition to the granting of each such order that the holder thereof, while such holder, shall cease trading at such earlier hour as bears in relation to the statutory closing hour the same differential as the earlier opening hour provided for in the exemption order bears to the normal opening hours of licensed premises in the same district.

(12) The provisions of subsection (11) shall not apply in respect of exemption orders granted in respect of any public market or fair."

This amendment deals with exemption orders for the opening of licensed premises in certain specified areas and suggests that where the licensed premises get permission from the courts to open at 7.30 a.m. or 8 a.m., the premises should be closed at a corresponding hour in the evening. The ordinary publichouse at the moment can remain open for 13 hours: 12 trading hours and the "holy hour", as we call it. Any of these traders who elect to apply to the courts for a special exemption should also be permitted to open for trading for 13 hours.

In the licensed trade in the city of Dublin at the moment, a great number of publichouses are availing of this relaxation and I suggest that of the people who are availing of the special hours, more are wearing dress suits and morning suits than are wearing working clothes. In the dock areas in Dublin, I suppose 50 or 60 publichouses are open at 7 a.m. or 7.30 a.m. If the licensee thinks it worthwhile to have a special exemption to open at that time, I suggest he should close at 8.30 p.m. That is the purpose of this amendment.

Mr. Ryan

I am in agreement with Deputy Belton on this amendment. It is true that the reason so many publichouses in certain areas are seeking leave to open at exceptionally early hours is that they are afraid that if they do not, their rivals will skim the cream off the milk during the other hours of the day. If they were to have the assurance, which this amendment will give, that they will not lose later in the day if they do not open at those awkward hours, there would be a considerable reduction in the number of these exemption orders.

As Deputy Belton has quite rightly said, a large proportion of those people are seeking cures on their way home from long night binges. It is a kind of bona fide traffic at the other end of the day. For the amount of business spread over 60 public houses, it is certainly not worthwhile to light and heat them in the early hours of the morning, and the publichouses which can afford to pay overtime are very few indeed. Those unfortunate owners who are afraid they may lose their reasonably respectable trade at other hours of the day, have to climb out of bed at 5 a.m. or 6 a.m. and go down and open their doors just because their neighbours do so. The Minister may feel it is no duty of this House to protect a foolish man against himself, but the fact is that people bought public-houses in those areas. This tendency has grown up in recent years and they feel that they cannot afford to be out of line with their neighbours.

Everyone is aware that the licensed trade is a very ticklish trade. If people feel that one house does not offer the same facilities as another, they are inclined to move along the line to the publichouses which remain open longer. The object of this amendment is to ensure that if it is worthwhile for the trader to open in the morning, and he feels that he can make more by doing so than by remaining open from 8.30 p.m. to 10 o'clock in the evening, he should be free to do so but it is undesirable that people in close proximity to him should have to act in the same way for fear that the man who opens at 7.30 a.m. will get the extra customers in the late evening because he offers that facility.

I do not think this amendment offends against the principle of uniformity which the Minister has in mind. It simply allows traders in certain areas where there is supposed to be a large concentration of people to suit the needs of that concentration of people, be they workers, travellers or people coming into the market. If that facility is given, they should close in the evening and not be allowed to have it both ways.

Mr. P.J. Burke

A number of representations were made to me by a friend in the trade in the city on this problem which is really a vicious circle in the dock areas and the markets. We have had experience of a man who gives a big amount of employment on the quays—I shall not mention his name—whose neighbour, about 40 yards away, got permission to open at 7.30 a.m. and was open until 7.30 p.m. It is a difficult problem for the Minister to solve. I have great sympathy with him. Nevertheless, it is a vicious circle among the trade in Dublin especially around the areas to which Deputy Belton and Deputy Ryan referred, that is, the dock and market areas. "John Jones" will get a permit to open at 7.30 a.m. on this side of the street and "Paddy Murphy," on the other side of the street, will not get a permit to open at that time.

If people want to avail of the opening hour of 7.30 a.m., they should be asked to surrender a few hours at night because some lining-up has to be brought about. A number of very decent traders in Dublin city welcomed this Bill very much. Certain publicans got permission to open at 7.30 a.m.; then a few other neighbours along the street started the same practice; then it went to the next street and away into another street.

Consider the man employing trade-union labour and keeping a very big house. He will see that his neighbour down the street is able to open at an early hour. For that reason alone, I feel it is unfair trading. We agree that around the markets it is a recognised principle. I should like to see that principle carried on so that people going either to the cattle market or the vegetable market will be facilitated.

Certain traders had the privilege of opening at 7.30 a.m. It has gone out of bounds altogether. Representatives of the licensed trade, the chairman and the secretary, have been with myself and other Deputies on this subject because we know the problems that have arisen over the years. If the Minister could look into this and see what can be done to be fair to every section it would ease our minds a lot. Of course, anybody can go to the courts in relation to this matter. At the moment, it is not fair trading because one would nearly require to give it to everybody in the city.

Mr. Sherwin

I had no intention of speaking on this subject. I want to speak on another matter. However, the question of early opening hours has been raised and I represent the market areas. Consider what might arise if we were to deny those early openers the late period, if we were to ensure that they had an early licence and closed early. Suppose all the publicans decided not to open early. Then the people coming in from county Dublin, which Deputy P.J. Burke represents, would complain that they could not gee a drink.

The purpose of the early opening is that large numbers of persons coming in with vegetables, and so on, will be able to get a drink because they must wait at the auctioneers' market. It is important to get there first so as to get away first. There is usually a big line-up there waiting for the auctions to begin. It could be a cold morning. There is no point in hanging around for an hour. Therefore, to serve those people, we have the early hours. Most of the men walk in with their load of vegetables. They may walk ten miles or more. They do not drive in. There is no room on their lorry. They want a drink and a position for their car while waiting for the auctioneers to commence business.

The early opening hours are there to serve the public. If we penalise the publicans concerned and say they must close at 8 o'clock in the evening a lot of them might not apply for the early opening but prefer the ordinary hours. It is like a lot of complaints I get about differential rents and flat rates. One hates the other and thinks the other is getting away with something.

We should get rid of that approach. It would probably encourage a certain amount of illegal trade if people opened early and closed early. The public houses at the docks and at the markets are there to serve the people. That is the main purpose of the early opening. As far as the markets are concerned. Deputy Burke's constituents are served.

Mr. Traynor

I am aware of the circumstances which have given rise to this amendment and I have sympathy with the licensed traders in Dublin who have a grievance in the matter. But the cure is not to legislate in the manner set out in the amendment but to take steps, under the existing provisions of the law, to ensure that when a General Exemption Order is in operation it fulfils the public need for which it was granted. If an Order does not fulfil the need for which it was granted there is machinery whereby the Courts can revoke or vary an order.

A deputation from the Vintners' Association, expressing concern on this matter, was received in my Department on 25th April. Earlier, I had heard similar views from a trade union deputation. I have since given the Association an assurance that I am instructing the Gardaí to keep the situation under review with a view to informing the Court from time to time whether the precise purposes for which the Orders were granted are being fulfilled.

Section 9 of this Bill provides that a General Exemption Order will remain in force until the next annual licensing session and will then expire. That means that the publicans who are now operating under General Exemption Orders must apply again at the next licensing session—at the end of September—and must satisfy the Court that they have been stocking food and non-alcoholic drinks at reasonable prices for supply on demand and that they have been accommodating a considerable number of persons attending a public market or fair or following a particular calling. At the forthcoming annual licensing session the Gardaí will be in a position to inform the Court as to whether the applicant has been fulfilling the purpose for which he got an Order in the past or whether he is keeping open mainly for casual trade for passers by and the people who want a "curer" after the night before.

I understand that the Vintners' Association are fairly well satisfied that the course I have suggested will rectify the position and they have no better suggestion to offer.

It came to my attention that the issue of these exemption orders was not being done with what I might describe as common sense or wisdom. The original intention was to provide for people working in the vicinity of the markets or the docks. The boundary, so to speak, was being extended slowly but surely. On examination of the position, I found that quite a number of people were granted exemption orders unreasonably. We are dealing with the matter now by ensuring that in future it will be of annual application. I think that will probably meet the needs of the Vintners' Association. In the case of these applications, anyone who wishes to make an objection to the reissuing of that exemption order can appear before the court and make the objection.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Traynor

I move amendment No. 4:—

In page 8, section 10, to delete subsection (2), lines 38 to 41, inclusive.

The purpose of the amendment is to remove a subsection which has now become deadwood since the High Court proceedings have concluded and the time for the appeal has long since passed.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Traynor

I move amendment No. 5:

In page 8, Section 11, between lines 53 and 54, to insert the following paragraph:

"( ) carrying out construction, decorative, repair, replacement or maintenance work in relation to the premises or any of the fittings or equipment thereon,".

On Committee Stage, the point was raised that although the law allowed an employee of the licensee to be on the premises after hours in the course of his employment, it did not expressly make similar provision for an employee of a contractor and the purpose of the amendment is to make such provision. Deputy Dillon, I think, mentioned that matter.

Mr. Dillon

As a matter of fact, Deputy Ryan mentioned it.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Traynor

I move amendment No. 6:

In page 9, lines 16 and 17, to delete "to whom intoxicating liquor may lawfully be sold or supplied on those premises at that time" and to insert "as respects whom the relevant requirements of this Act for the lawful sale or supply of intoxicating liquor on those premises at that time are satisfied".

This is merely a drafting amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Amendment No. 7 has been disposed of.

Mr. Belton

I move amendment No. 8:

"In page 10, between lines 23 and 24, to insert a new section as follows:—

"(1) Section 4 of the Licensing (Ireland) Act, 1902, is hereby repealed.

(2) The provisions of section 12 of this Act shall apply in respect of the granting of a new licence in urban areas."

The purpose of this amendment is to alter the situation as it stands at the moment. In an urban area, a new licence may be granted by the court on condition that an old licence is extinguished and that a 25 per cent. increase in population is proved in the civil parish in which the proposed new licence is situated. This amendmend suggests that two licences should be extinguished rather than one. In rural areas, it is necessary to extinguish two licences to get one new licence. I am suggesting that the conditions applying in rural areas should apply in the cities, that is, that when a person seeks a new licence, he should extinguish two licences within the borough area. I am not suggesting that two licences should be extinguished in the rural areas to grant a new licence in the borough.

Mr. Traynor

The provisions of Section 12 of the Bill allow a new publichouse to be established in a rural area on the extinguishment of two publichouse licences anywhere in the State. The reason for this section is that in isolated rural areas, particularly in the West of Ireland, there is no publichouse for many miles, that this is a hardship on the local people and is moreover an incentive to sheebeening and illicit distillation.

Deputy Belton's amendment now asks that the law should permit of a new publichouse being established in towns and cities, also, if two public-houses are abolished in any part of the State.

Most people would agree with me that there is scarcely a single city, or town, in the whole State which has not too many public houses. I do not know precisely what Deputy Belton has in mind but I have been assured that his amendment is not supported by the Vintners' Association.

Since 1902, no new licence for a public house may be granted in an urban area except in substitution for an existing licence in the same urban area, and then only where a 25 per cent. increase in population has taken place in the parish as compared with the year 1901. The result of this law has been that existing public houses have a certain monopoly value; every urban publican knows that a new public house cannot be established beside him unless he happens to be living in some place such as a city suburb where there has been a 25 per cent. increase in population in the parish since 1901.

Deputy Belton's amendment seeks to abolish the condition that a 25 per cent. population increase must have taken place. Admittedly the amendment would make the applicant extinguish two existing licences instead of one as at present, but that does not alter the fact that it would radically upset the equities that have existed for nearly sixty years. The change proposed would be a major one, and its consequences would be difficult to foresee. I have had no evidence that the change is in the interests of the public or that it has the backing of any substantial section of the licensed trade. I think that we should leave well enough alone.

Mr. Belton

On a point of explanation, I put down this amendment as a result of representations made to me by the Licensed Vintners and Grocers Association, through their secretary. I am suggesting in this amendment that the two licences to be extinguished by an applicant from a city should be two licences which were operated in the city, not in the rest of the country.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Traynor

I move amendment No. 9:

In page 11, between lines 48 and 49, to insert the following section:

"(1) Where a person proposes to acquire, construct or alter premises and to apply for the grant of a restaurant certificate, within the meaning of section 12 of the Act of 1927, in relation to the premises, he may apply to the Court to which it is proposed to apply for the grant of the restaurant certificate for a declaration that the premises would be structurally adapted for use as a restaurant, refreshment house or other place for supplying substantial meals to the public, and the Court, if it is so satisfied, may grant the application on such terms as it may think fit.

(2) Where a person proposes to acquire, construct or alter premises and to apply for the grant of a limited restaurant certificate, within the meaning of section 12A of the Act of 1927, in relation to any portion of the premises, he may apply to the Court to which it is proposed to apply for the grant of the limited restaurant certificate for a declaration that—

(a) that portion of the premises would be structurally adapted for use as a restaurant, refreshment house or other place for supplying substantial meals to the public,

(b) that portion of the premises would not include a public bar, or part of a room in another part of which there would be a public bar, and

(c) there would be public access to that portion of the premises otherwise than through a public bar.

and the Court, if it is so satisfied, may grant the application on such terms as it may think fit.

(3) The intending applicant under either of the foregoing subsections of this section shall give the Superintendent of the Garda Síochána, within whose district it is proposed to have the premises, at least ten days' notice in writing of intention to make the application and cause to be deposited with the said Superintendent a copy of the plans of the premises.

(4) An application under either subsection (1) or subsection (2) of this section shall be accompanied by a plan of the premises.

(5) A declaration under this section shall remain in force for two years from the grant of the application or for such longer period as the Court granting the application may in any particular case think proper to provide.

(6) In this section ‘public bar' includes any place exclusively or mainly used for the sale and consumption of intoxicating liquor."

The purpose of this amendment is to provide that, where a person intends to ask the Court to certify his premises or portion of his premises as a restaurant, he may, before incurring expense on construction or repairs work, made a preliminary application on the basis of plans. Section 13 of the Bill has a corresponding provision in relation to applications for licences. It is proposed that the provision should apply where the application is to be for an ordinary certificate or for the limited certificate provided for in amendment No. 2.

Mr. Cosgrave

This puts it on an ordinary footing, the same as a new licence application?

Mr. Traynor

It is to ensure that the licensee will not go to any expense until he is assured that he will get the certificate.

Mr. Cosgrave

It is the same position as applies to a public house licence in respect of the restaurant.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Traynor

I move amendment No. 10:

In page 12, to add to section 14 the following subsections:

"( ) If, on the hearing of an application for the grant of a restaurant certificate, within the meaning of section 12 of the Act of 1927, in relation to any premises it is shown to the satisfaction of the Court that a declaration has been made under subsection (1) of section * of this Act and that the premises have been acquired, constructed or altered in substantial accordance with the terms of the declaration, it shall not be open to the Court to refuse the application on any ground other than that the premises are not bona fide and mainly used as a restaurant, refreshment house or other place for supplying substantial meals to the public.

( ) If, on the hearing of an application for the grant of a limited restaurant certificate, within the meaning of section 12A of the Act of 1927, in relation to any portion of a premises it is shown to the satisfaction of the Court that a declaration has been made under subsection (2) of section * of this Act and that the premises have been acquired, constructed or altered in substantial accordance with the terms of the declaration, it shall not be open to the Court to refuse the application on any ground other than that that portion of the premises is not bona fide, and mainly used as a restaurant, refreshment house or other place for supplying substantial meals to the public.

( ) In this section references to declarations are references to declarations that are in force."

This is consequential on the last amendment in the same way as Section 14 of the Bill is consequential on the amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Traynor

I move amendment No. 11:

In page 16, line 10, after "in this" to insert "subsection and in subsection (3) of this".

This is only a drafting amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Traynor

I move amendment No. 12:

In page 16, line 29, after "application under" to insert "subsection (2) of".

This is also a drafting amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Amendment No. 13 has been dealt with and the amendment to amendment No. 13 in the name of Deputy Blowick has also been dealt with.

Mr. Traynor

I move amendment No. 14:

In page 17, line 28, to delete "thereof" and insert "of the licence".

This is also a drafting amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Traynor

I move amendment No. 15:

In page 18, line 40, after "the Act of 1910" to add "or of a wholesale dealer's licence for the sale of spirits, beer or wine under the Act of 1910."

The object of Section 31 was to implement a recommendation of the Commission that cider should not be retailed in ordinary shops. To achieve this, it proposed that a cider off-licence could be held only by the holder of a spirit retailer's off-licence. Publicans and beer retailers do not need a special cider licence and the net effect of the section would be that only retailers of spirits or beer could retail cider.

Recently, however, it was brought to my notice that the main distribution channels for cider are the wholesale dealers in spirits, beer or wine and that, at times, particularly in the Winter, these wholesale dealers would be asked to supply traders with fairly small quantities of cider—four and a half gallons or less—which a wholesaler is not entitled to supply unless he also has a retail licence. Many if not most of them would be able to meet such demands even under the section as it stands, since they happen to be retailers of spirits or beer as well as wholesalers, but the difficulty arises with the wholesaler who has no trade in the sale of spirits or beer in retail quantities but who has a trade in the sale of cider in retail quanities, especially, as I have said, in the Winter. It is to preserve the existing rights of that class of trader that the amendment is introduced.

Amendment agreed to.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Amendment No. 16 has been dealt with.

Question: "That the Bill, as amended, be received for final consideration" put and agreed to.

Fifth Stage ordered for Tuesday, 31st May, 1960.