We have a provision in this Bill against which I spoke very strongly and I think it necessary that public attention should again be drawn to it. It is that section of the Bill which does away with the verification of bottles for the sale of stout and beer. It was said by the Minister for Justice and by the Minister for Lands, when dealing with this section, that they were doing away with the four weights and measures inspectors in the glass factories because it was an unnecessary expenditure and the Minister sought to put a halo around his head because he was going to save over £4,000. We can guess the sincerity of that by the fact that since then the same Department has appointed a completely unnecessary Parliamentary Secretary at a cost of——
Intoxicating Liquor Bill, 1959—Fifth Stage.
Mr. Ryan
The Deputy may not discuss that matter on this Bill. Nothing may be discussed except what is in the Bill. It is the Fifth and Final Stage and only what is in the Bill may be discussed.
Mr. Ryan
I appreciate that, but I am discussing something which is essentially relevant to the question——
It is not relevant; it has no relevance whatever to this Bill and may not be discussed.
Mr. Ryan
But the provision in the Bill, according to the Minister's statement, has been put in to save the taxpayer £4,000 and the very next day the Minister appointed a Parliamentary Secretary at a cost of——
The Deputy may not discuss the actions of the Minister in relation to any expenditure except that which is in the Bill. The provisions of this Bill only are open for discussion, and if the Deputy persists in that line, I shall have to ask him to cease speaking.
Mr. Ryan
Very well; I am bound by your ruling, Sir——
The Deputy is bound by the rules of order.
Mr. Ryan
I appreciate that, and I have indicated that I appreciate it. It is important that the public should be made aware that bottles may possibly go on the market now which are under measure by reason of the section in the Bill which does away with the verification of bottles. The only way in which the bottles can be checked is by the weights and measures inspectors in the factories. The Minister for Lands suggested slightingly that it was a waste of time to be checking empty bottles coming off the machines but the alternative is that the weights and measures inspectors must go around the country checking whether or not the bottles which have been put on the market are correct. It is quite apparent that in the result it will cost far more than the £4,000 which it is alleged is being saved under this Bill.
The cost of the system which is being done away with is 6/- per annum per publican in the country or a cost, as I pointed out, of one-seven-thousandth part of the price of a bottle of stout per drinker per annum. That is what the Minister is saving and what he is substituting is inspection by weights and measures inspectors of bottles in public houses. Alternatively, the weights and measures inspectors will have to purchase a number of sample bottles from publicans at the cost of about 10d. a bottle and take the bottles to their laboratories to check. It must be apparent to anybody who bothers to think about it that the system which the Minister is proposing is wasteful and unnecessary and that it is undesirable to remove what is a very cheap form of insurance, a charge of one-seven-thousandth part of the price of a bottle of stout per consumer per annum. That is what the Minister is doing away with and I hope that in another place this amendment of the law will be withdrawn.
It is significant that other countries which have not got the system we have here are crying out for it and it is not unlikely that in neighbouring states, verification of bottles at the point of manufacture will be introduced. We are doing away with that. It was suggested by the Minister that since the manufacturers would still be required to put a mark on the bottle, it would ensure the bottle would contain the measure stated on it. In the factory, nobody knows whether the bottle is of the right size or not until it comes off the mould and now, instead of the bottles being checked at the point of manufacture, they will have to be checked from Ballyfermot to Ballydehob. It is quite possible that some 10,000 bottles per day could be distributed and people could be getting short measure, all because of an alleged saving of £4,000.
This is really the dream of the bureaucrat for years—doing away with something which arose by accident. It was not intended in the Dáil in the 1920s that the measures should be checked by weights and measures inspectors but subsequently an interpretation of the law said that bottles came within the ambit of the Act and needed to be verified. I believe it is a very cheap form of insurance and I believe the price we are paying is worth-while. I sincerely hope that before it is too late the Minister will withdraw this amendment of the law.
There is another aspect of the same amendment which is most unfair. Within the framework of the law, as it is intended to amend it, in so far as I can read it no prosecution will lie against a manufacturer of bottles of short measure but the prosecution will be against the innocent publican. It may be that I am wrong and I should like to be assured if the prosecution will lie against the manufacturer. I do not believe that the manufacturers of bottles in this country would deliberately put bottles of short measure on the market. There would be no profit to the manufacturers in doing that because it costs as much to make 16 bottles to the gallon as 17 to the gallon, but there is the possibility that bottles of short measure may get on the market. If a publican innocently buys one, the prosecution should not lie against him and it appears that it would be no defence to him to say that he bought the bottle in the ordinary course of trade. On that account, I should like to see this matter changed before it is too late.
Has it occurred to the Minister that when people are buying their pints, the froth takes up one inch or more of the pint? In that case, is it not right that pint glasses should be somewhat larger or marked so that people will get their full measure?
I do not know whether or not there is anything in the Bill about froth.
We were talking about fraud.
I do not think there is anything in the Bill about fraud.
I am putting it to the Minister that people's eyes are being "wiped" because of the depth of froth and it should be a matter for the weights and measures inspectors as it is their job to prevent fraud.
The only comment I should like to make at this late stage is that before this Bill is put into operation, the Minister should examine the situation in relation to Sunday evening opening. If the Minister or the Parliamentary Secretary went to the trouble of getting a Gallup Poll as to the most suitable opening hours on Sunday he would discover that the public, the trade and everybody else concerned would be unanimously in favour of 7 p.m. to 10 p.m. on Sunday in preference to 5 p.m. to 9 p.m.
I wish to know what the Government's intention is with regard to bringing this Bill into operation, whether it will remain with the Minister to appoint a certain day or whether there will be a day in the distant future settled upon in order to achieve the change-over with a certain ease; in other words whether the situation will be the normal one where the Bill, having passed through the Seanad and having been signed by the President, automatically becomes law or whether, after the Bill is signed by the President, a date will be fixed on which the Bill will come into operation.
Secondly, I want to urge the Minister to consider the penalty clauses again. On fresh examination of them I think that while, in dealing in a certain way with the licensed trade, they might be an adequate preventive, they might in another way lead to abuses. I would much prefer to see a situation in which people might drink and break the law rather than that anybody should be in a position to purchase freedom for himself to do so. The temptation is there if the penalty is high and it is something that might be examined. I am not suggesting for one moment that the police would be susceptible but there is always in every community somebody who might and somebody who might be able to have an overbearing influence. Accordingly, where a penalty is too high its preventive objective should be considered side by side with the real danger that exists, even if that danger is only an isolated one.
I should like, thirdly, to join with Deputy Belton in calling for the review of the afternoon and evening opening of licensed premises. I do not at all approve of the hours of 5 p.m. to 9 p.m. I know certain difficulties will obtain in relation to sports fixtures at that time but both from the point of view of the publican's family and families some members of which would be attending public houses, the whole of the afternoon free would be very desirable.
If there is to be an opening session in the evening on Sunday it should begin after the ordinary mealtime and after the ordinary times of religious services held throughout the country, and I would suggest the hours of 7 p.m. to 10 p.m. or 7.30 to 10 p.m. on a Sunday evening would be more suitable. Fixing the hours at from five to nine is just taking a chop off the afternoon and taking another chop off the effective entertainment time in the evening and in the end not giving full value to anybody. It is a matter that should be considered.
Lastly, I should like some further consideration to be given by the Government to this question of the £200 attaching to the application of a six-day licence owner to the Revenue Commissioners for a full licence. If the Government, for some peculiar reason, cannot see their way either to remove or reduce that ceiling considerably, then it should be spread over a period or attached by way of an annual sum to the annual licence fee.
I do not intend to say any more on this matter; there will be another time and another place when I propose— and I hereby give notice—to deal with the Minister's assertions that allegations which I made in the House were not substantiated. Permit me to say at this stage in reply that any allegations I made in this House were fully substantiated and were withdrawn in Court at the request of the Attorney General without giving the district justice an opportunity of deciding whether a prima facie case had been established or not.
Surely that does not arise on the Bill.
It is in the code that prevails.
I have been opposed to these penalty clauses on the publicans because, human nature being what it is, it is unwise to give anybody the power to wield that stick, because I have seen it abused in County Dublin by certain members of the Gardaí. It is too much power to give to any man who is not fairminded and capable of doing his duty impartially. We can be thankful that 99.9 per cent of our force are impartial but we must have regard to the remaining small percentage. It would be too bad if a decent man, for no good reason, were to be hounded down because of the penalty clauses. It would mean that if there were a few prosecutions against him, whether he was a married man or not, he would have to close up. I believe the existing law is sufficiently effective to deal with that situation without taking a licence from anyone.
In regard to the amendment dealing with restaurants, it would be utterly impossible for any publican to conform to it without spending a good deal of money. Public houses in other countries have these facilities and while I welcome the amendment in principle the publican, even if he has a considerable amount of money at his disposal, may not have the opportunity, due to the construction of his premises, to open another room for this trade even at a seaside place.
I do not wish to interrupt the Deputy, but he may not reopen a discussion on an amendment.
I have nothing further to say.
I merely wish to ask the Minister as this stage whether he has given or intends to give further consideration to two sections of citizens to whom the general provisions of this Bill will cause inconvenience and even hardship. First of all, I refer to those employed in public houses who, as a result of the Bill being forced through this Dáil by the Minister, will undoubtedly have their social and domestic conditions worsened. In certain parts of the country, and in the city of Dublin, they will be able, through strong trade union organisation, to protect their actual working conditions to some extent, but their social and domestic conditions must inevitably be worsened by the deliberate action of the Minister, the Government and the majority of this House.
Family life will, in my opinion, be very seriously disrupted as a result of this Bill coming into operation. The Minister expressed fond, but I am afraid, illusory hopes in this House in regard to the laws relating to the sale of intoxicating liquor which have been so widely abused and so widely ignored in the past. The Minister should look again at what he has done in regard to the extension of the drinking hours, particularly the official extension of drinking hours on Sunday evenings.
It is expected that road traffic legislation will come before the Dáil in the future. Having regard to the evidence from many countries in the world of deaths and accidents to people through road accidents as a result of indulgence in intoxicating liquor, the Minister, between the enactment of this legislation and the passing of road traffic legislation, should re-examine the provisions of this Bill. I should like to conclude by saying to the Minister—I want to be sincere in this —that in this matter he is not his own master.
The only matter open for discussion at this Stage is what is in the Bill. The Deputy has rambled round a great many matters.
I sympathise with the Minister in his experience in having to introduce this Bill and I trust that he and the Government he represents will not have too much to regret in forcing it through the House.
This Bill contains most comprehensive legislation. Unfortunately, it is like most other Bills passed in this House, legislation by reference. The Minister very kindly, for the guidance of Deputies, when introducing the Bill, circulated an explanatory memorandum explaining the contents of the Bill. Later, when the Bill passed its Committee Stage, a second explanatory memorandum was circulated explaining in detail the amendments made on Committee Stage. If the Bill passes through the Oireachtas, is signed by the President and comes slap-bang into force, what will the impact be on the publicans and on the public?
I want to make this suggestion to the Minister: he should ensure that every publican in the State receives a pamphlet explaining the opening and closing hours contained in this new legislation. The public who frequent licensed premises should have an opportunity of knowing the hours by some method of display. In the ordinary course, most people will shake their heads, laugh and say: "Well, they will very soon find out."
That would be grand if it were ordinary legislation with ordinary penalties, but here we have a very severe penalty for a second offence, namely, endorsement. I do not disagree with it. We have endorsement for a second offence. Therefore, there is an onus on the State to bring to the notice of all publicans the actual hours of trading under this legislation so that they may not come into court and plead ignorance if prosecuted for offences in relation to breaches of the licensing laws. I think the pamphlets should be circulated through the Gardaí to all members of the licensed trade before the Bill is signed by the President.
They will make their own time. The Deputy need not worry.
That is what I am afraid of. I am afraid that the publicans will not have an opportunity of knowing the actual hours with which they must comply. If it were made known by way of the pamphlets through the Gardaí, we would be in a position to enforce the legislation from the moment of its enactment. Solicitors who practise in the district courts know the usual rag-tag and bobtail defence that is put up. Ignorantia legis neminem excusat, ignorance of the law excuses no man. It is often very mitigating. It would be a very good thing if the Minister could see his way to issue such a pamphlet as I suggest. It could be circulated at very little cost through the Garda to all the publicans in the Garda sub-districts.
That should be the job of the Vintners Association.
There may be publicans who are not members of that body. I appreciate it is a wise suggestion, but, unfortunately, there are publicans who, in fact, are not members of the Licensed Vintners Association. It would cost them some money to circulate these pamphlets, whereas the Minister has a method whereby he can distribute the pamphlets very cheaply.
There is only one other matter to which I would like to refer. I do not know whether it is in the Bill or out of the Bill. I refer to the question of bars in hotels. I think that by some section it is in the Bill or may be in the Bill, but according to another section we have no such thing as bars in hotels. It might be no harm if the Minister took a note of this. That is a very bad thing. I can never see any reason for not having public bars in hotels.
Deputy P.J. Burke talked about the dishonest Civic Guards; he said that they were less than one per cent of the whole. But there is also the dishonest waiter who does not have to display his measure in the presence of his customer. In fairness to waiters, I must say that the dishonest waiter is very rare, but there is always the black sheep; and there is always the temptation, when measures do not have to be displayed, to tilt it against the customer. There is an old saying that when you go to church, you should see the clergyman; I think when you go in for a drink you should always see the bottle. We shall not be able to do that if there is no public bar.
I suggest to the Deputy that we leave the hotel bar now.
The snag is that there is no hotel bar. It is a pity there is not uniformity. It is a pity we have not public bars in all hotels.
There is just one matter to which I want to draw the Minister's attention. There are in existence at the moment a large number of area exemption orders for the summer.
That is another day's work.
Many of them will not expire until October. I suggest to the Minister that, if he has not power under the Bill, he should take power to bring the Act into force on a certain date. The best day would be when we change over from summer time. If the Act comes into operation on 1st August it will upset the trade at seaside places where exemption orders are in existence.
They cannot be interfered with.
Would they be outside the Bill or inside the Bill? I call now on the Minister to conclude.
I am sorely tempted to follow some of the arguments raised here today, many of them irrelevant. In the main, the matters discussed today were already discussed in detail on earlier Stages of this Bill. During the course of the discussion I gave adequate answers, in my opinion, to practically every point raised. Despite that, these points have been raised here again today.
As to when the Bill will become effective, I should imagine it will come into operation in the normal way that any Bill passed by this House becomes effective. There has to be a period of something like five days between the passing of the Bill and the signing of it by the President. Presumably the same pattern will be followed in this instance.
I believe the Bill makes a fair attempt to deal with the very difficult problem of the hours of opening for the sale of intoxicating liquor. I believe the Bill has been improved in its passage through the House. I believe too, it will prove to be a good measure but, in that regard, only time will tell. Licensing legislation here, as elsewhere, needs to be adapted to changing circumstances. I am hopeful that we have made a fair attempt at settling the question of stabilised general hours of opening for some time to come.
Whether the Bill proves to be a good measure or a bad measure, one thing is certain; nobody can accuse this House, the Government, or myself, of having acted hastily and without full consideration of all the issues involved. When the Bill was introduced it was accompanied by an explanatory memorandum in, as Deputy O'Donnell said, non-legal language. We went out of our way to ensure that the explanatory memorandum would be written in language easily understood by the ordinary man in the street. The memorandum was used to a considerable extent by Deputies in the course of the debate, but not to the extent I should have liked to have seen it used.
On the Committee Stage we issued a second explanatory memorandum. When we arrived at the Report Stage we issued a third. From that point of view I am satisfied that in relation to the Intoxicating Liquor Bill every Deputy was as well informed as he could be on any measure piloted through this House. There was obviously a general appreciation of the issues involved. Controversial matters were debated fully, perhaps sometimes to the point of being over argued.
I should like to draw attention to one matter on which every Deputy who took part in the debate spoke so that it seemed as if all Deputies were speaking with one voice. I refer to the necessity for a uniform, impartial enforcement of the licensing laws and for their strict observance by the licensed trade and the public alike. I want to assure the House and, through the House, the general public outside, that the Government and I, as Minister for Justice, are determined that laws made in this House will be enforced.
Since the Report Stage, I have attended a conference consisting of the Commissioner of the Garda Síochána, his senior headquarters officers and the chief superintendents in charge of the various divisions throughout the country. I addressed that conference in Garda Headquarters and I intimated to the conference what the Government's intentions were, what the intentions of this House were, and what the intentions of every Party practically, with one or two dissentient voices, in the House were, namely, the strict enforcement of this law fairly and impartially. I impressed upon them the desirability of intimating to licensees throughout the country the urgent necessity, even at this stage, of taking note of the fact that this law will be strictly enforced. I am satisfied that those to whom I was speaking understood the position in relation to the attitude of the Government and the House. What I say now should be taken as a warning to the licensed trade, a warning they would be well advised to heed, to start putting their houses in order forthwith.
It would not, I think, be practicable to adopt Deputy O'Donnell's suggestion. It would be just as useful to send out a document of that kind in relation to every Bill passed in this House. As far as members of the licensed trade are concerned, I am satisfied they are well informed with regard to this Bill. I have met a number of members of the licensed vintners' organisation. They are a well organised body of people, well able to make their case. They also understood the case I made to them, and they are fully aware what the penalties will be in respect of failure to carry out the law in this case.
I think the House will agree with me that it is desirable that a law of this kind should be enforced. If we can enforce this law, I have no doubt whatever that we shall be able to enforce many other laws not now receiving the respect they should. If we can initially ensure that the law, in respect of the licensed trade, is carried out, we shall be well on the road to ensuring that our laws, generally, will be respected.
Could the Minister give any indication as to when he would hope to have the Bill?
That will depend on the other House.
The Minister has no hope of having it for the summer months?
I should like to think we could, but I am no better informed than the Deputy himself.
Has the question been answered as to whether the Bill comes into operation immediately it is signed by the Uachtarán or if it comes in on an appointed date to be fixed by Order or in some other way by the Minister?
I dare say we could fix it by Order all right.
What does the Bill provide?
In the normal way, as I announced a few moments ago——
It comes into operation when the President signs it?
When the President signs it.
Do I understand from what the Minister now says that he expects the Bill to hang on in the Seanad until the autumn?
No.
If the Bill is passed by the Seanad, say by the end of July—I understand from what the Minister says now that it comes into operation when it is signed—that would be sometime after the end of July?
It may be that I am more pessimistic about the matter than the Deputy. I should like to think we shall not be delayed in the Seanad. I hope we shall not. I can assure the Deputy and the House that whenever the Bill comes back to this House it will be sent to the President. I understand that there must be an interval of something like five days between its leaving this House and its being sent to the President. The only delay will be the period it is being considered by the Seanad. I had in mind that a number of other Bills, including the Rent Restrictions Bill, are before it in the Seanad. That is why I am slightly pessimistic about the length of time it will take in the other House.
I would suggest to the Minister that it would be very helpful to the trade in general if the Bill were brought into operation by Order rather than on its signing by the President. Great difficulty is envisaged in the licensed trade because of the Bill, and the employers cannot get around a table to discuss matters until the Bill is actually ready to become law. They cannot discuss working conditions and wages.
I am afraid I cannot allow any further discussion on this point.
We are asking a question of the Minister arising out of a definite and important point raised by Deputy O'Donnell. The question raised was whether, in view of all the instruction by way of memorandum the Minister thought well to give members of the Oireachtas as to the Bill in its various stages, he does not think that a certain amount of instruction, even in an elaborate way, would be necessary for both the public and those engaged in carrying on the business? What is being done now is putting a very strong interrogatory to the Minister as to the practical operation of the measure when it is passed. Does he suggest that it ought to be brought in by Order rather than automatically when the President has signed it—that everybody would know in some queer way or other, perhaps by an announcement over Radio Éireann, what the hours are?
That will be provided for.
It would require an amendment in the Seanad.
If I may, Sir.
The Deputy is in order in putting a question.
In 1942, when there was a change in the closing hour from 9.30 to 10.30, the staffs of the houses walked out at 9.30 while the customers could legally stay on the premises. That created a lot of trouble. You will now have the same problem when the hour is changed from 10 to 11.30.