I move amendment No. 1:
In page 2, lines 43 to 45, to delete subsection (2).
This amendment is, in effect, related to amendment No. 45.
Intoxicating Liquor Bill, 1962— Committee Stage.
SECTION 1.
It is con-sequential on amendment No. 45. They can be taken together.
I think they can. We can leave this one over until we deal with amendment No. 45.
We will take it then with amendment No. 45.
Shall we take it then that amendment No. 1 is agreed?
Amendment agreed to.
Section 1, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 2.
Amendment No. 2 not moved.
I move amendment No. 3:
In paragraph (a), after "Cork" in line 19, to insert "or the boroughs of Waterford or Limerick".
I move this amendment on behalf of Deputy T. Lynch. The Minister proposes in this Bill to take away the hour's afternoon closing in Limerick and Waterford. I cannot understand the reason for this. The Minister made some kind of case on Second Reading which I found it rather difficult to understand. He appeared to argue that this is being done in the interests of uniformity and that by bringing Limerick and Waterford into line with the rest of the country, outside of Dublin and Cork, he was in some way extending the principle of uniformity introduced in the 1960 Act. I do not understand that argument in this instance because it seems to me that uniformity was adhered to rather better so far as this hour's closing was concerned when it applied to the large urban areas comprising the four cities of Dublin, Cork, Limerick and Waterford. As I mentioned to the Minister on Second Reading, I understand that there is no demand whatever from Waterford for the abolition of the hour's break in the afternoon, and that the publicans there want this hour's closing in the afternoon to be maintained.
I quoted to the Minister on the Second Reading of the Bill the remarks made by his predecessor and also by the Minister for Lands when this suggestion was made at the time the 1960 Act was being discussed. I just want to remind the Minister again of the views of his predecessor on that occasion. If he would look at the Dáil Debates of 24th March, 1960, column 1070, he will read what the then Minister for Justice, Mr. Traynor, said in referring to this hour's closing:
This feature of the licensing laws was introduced as far back as 1927. It has been regarded by almost all shades of opinion as being one of the most valuable features of the licensing laws inasmuch as it brought about a break in drinking. Without this closing, certain individuals—I do not suggest that everybody indulges in it—could go into these licensed premises in the early morning and continue drinking without cessation.
Later on, in the same column, he is reported as saying:
...I would not be prepared to accept an amendment that would bring about an abolition of the closing for one hour which is provided for in the licensing laws. It would be a retrograde step and one that would not commend itself, I believe, to the vast majority in the House or to the vast majority of people outside.
The Minister's predecessor, only two years ago, went on record in this House as saying that precisely what the present Minister is doing would be a retrograde step and one which he was convinced would not have the support of the vast majority of the people outside this House.
I agree with the views expressed by the Minister's predecessor. I think that the action of the Minister in providing for the abolition of the hour's break in Waterford and Limerick is a retrograde step. I hope the Minister will have second thoughts on this as he had in relation to other aspects of the Bill.
The amendment to this section stands in my name. I appeal to the Minister, now that we are starting the Committee Stage of this Bill and as we and he have been in the front line with two other Bills all last week and all today, to——
——take the easy way out——
——meet us in a different spirit on this.
Or spirits.
"Or spirits" is right. I said this before about this Bill. I wonder who wanted this Bill. How does a Bill like this ever come to life? How is a Bill like this ever hatched? Who started it? Who wanted it? Who wanted this measure? It was a portion of my business, representing the constituency of Waterford and living in the City of Waterford, to find out, for a start-off, what the licensed trade there think about this step.
I want to say that I heard many Deputies, even on my own side of this House, talk about the licensed trade as if it were something to be ashamed of. I am not a licensed trader but I can say that the majority of the licensed traders of this country are all fine, decent and respectable men. This large group of the licensed trade in Waterford came together—oh, more than nine-tenths—and they are not people who will come together over things: it is a highly competitive business. However, there are nine-tenths of them all of one mind in this connection. They want this hour left to them.
In the last Bill, the Minister's predecessor defended this hour. The publicans, especially in places like Waterford, want it from the point of view, as they say, of breaking up the morning session. They want it also for the purpose of tidying up their premises—and that is a good thing: they are trying to give a better service to the people.
After all, it is for the people that we are trying to legislate. I appeal to the Minister, without any rancour or wise-cracks, to give very careful consideration to this matter. When this Bill became talked about I discovered that many constituents of mine, not just one or two, had very strong feelings about it. On my way to my office I pass through a big built-up area. I meet many people on my way to work and on my way home. I meet the mothers and the wives and even the sisters of many Waterford workers. They say to me, in effect: "Now that our men have a 40-hour week they are finished on Friday and come home with their money in their pockets. If the mid-day closing is abolished they will go out on Saturday morning—not too early, maybe at 10.30 or 11 a.m.—for a few pints or a few `half-ones' and if the public houses remain open they will not come home." It is a fact that some of them will not come home.
I am sure there are men sitting on the Minister's side of the House who are engaged in the licensed trade just as there are on this side of the House. I am sure they will tell the Minister that what I have said is true. There is another aspect, also. Thank God, we have some very good industries in Waterford. They often work round the clock. There is a danger that when the men come off night duty and are not going on the following night they will go in to have a few, too, and that if the hour's closing is not there they will stay in the public house or a great many of them will stay there.
I appeal to the Minister to be reasonable about this matter. This is not legislating for the whole country. This hour has existed for a very long time. I am speaking for Waterford and for the licensed trade there. This has always existed when it was Dublin, Cork, Limerick and Waterford. The licensed trade, as I said, came together and signed a memorial—I put that memorial in the Minister's hands and he has it—asking that Waterford should be included in the Bill, asking that in paragraph (a) after "Cork", line 19, to insert "or the boroughs of Waterford or Limerick".
I am speaking for Waterford. I appeal to the Minister to leave in Waterford (1) because the wives and mothers and sisters of the workers ask for it; (2) because, I should have said, the people who work in the public houses want it and (3) because the publicans want it.
I just wish to say a few words regarding Limerick. First of all, the position is by no means straightforward in Limerick. I received memoranda from various groups of people interested in this question and from the three most important groups including the Limerick Licensed Vintners' Association. That association in their memorandum called for two things: first of all, they wanted a 10.30 p.m. closing all the year round and they wanted the midday closing hour abolished. The Limerick barmen's union in their memorandum wanted the midday closing hour retained. I have also had representations from other groups and individuals.
While there are mixed feelings on the matter there is a general feeling that there should be no extension of the existing opening hours and on that principle I have added my name to the amendment. I think there is a case for the retention of the midday closing because by and large the general feeling is that there should be no extension of the opening hours. There is one peculiar circumstance in regard to Limerick, that is that exemptions are granted to licensed premises in close proximity to markets. In Limerick, there are important cattle markets and the licensed premises in proximity to the markets have been granted exemptions allowing them to open. I have made extensive inquiries into this matter and, as I say, on the principle that there should be no extension of the opening hours, I am supporting the amendment.
I am supporting Deputy Lynch's amendment not because I am completely in favour of it personally but because I am a representative of the Waterford constituency which includes the city and county. I am quite sure that when Deputy Lynch put down this amendment, he was interpreting the views of organised licensed vintners in Waterford and, I could add, he is interpreting the views of organised trade union bartenders in Waterford. I could not tell the Minister what the ordinary consumer in Waterford wants but I should like to say——
That is what I would like to know.
I know. I am going to deal with that. In another section of the Bill, the Minister does not ask what the consumer's view is, where it says in the Bill it is permissible to open at 12 o'clock rather than 12.30. Provided all the publicans, or the majority of them, in the area agree and provided there is no objection from the clergy, he is prepared to accept that as the majority view. I suggest that is reasonable to say that if the organised publicans and the organised employees' representatives have a certain view, he must consider that as indicating the view of the people in the area. I do not want this for the county. Let me be clear that if this amendment is defeated, it will not cause me to shed tears. I am prepared to vote for the amendment because I try to represent public opinion as I see it and the only public opinion I have got is from the licensed vintners and the trade unions in Waterford. The consumers not being organised have not given me any mandate to speak on their behalf.
Speaking for the Limerick vintners, I want to thank the Minister for coming to their aid and abolishing this 2.30 to 3.30 closing hour. In Limerick, we have markets five days of the week and that is the only hour at which farmers have an opportunity of getting a drink. I am thankful to the Minister for abolishing this closing hour and I hope he will stick to it.
I also come from the Limerick constituency and I should like to impress on the Minister that for many years we in the licensed trade have been agitating for the abolition of this hour. In my capacity as chairman of the Limerick licensed trade, I went before the Commission and gave evidence to the effect that that was what we publicans in Limerick wanted. I congratulate the Minister for taking cognisance of what we have been saying for many years.
As the Minister's predecessor was mentioned, let me say that his predecessor was not threatened with what exactly licensing hours meant for Ireland. That is why we have this Bill being brought in, to try to put things in some kind of balance that will suit everyone. While we have always maintained that Limerick is a city of some significance, we in the licensed trade regard it as a large market town. Our markets are held practically every day of the week and with the introduction of the last Act, we had the farcical situation in which a certain number of publicans who were adjacent to some of the markets went to court and obtained permission to trade during the 2.30 to 3.30 period. The result was we had one publican 50 yards away from another open from 2.30 to 3.30, while the other was closed. The people put out of the one that was closed went to the one that was open and naturally enough stayed there. We also have the position where banks close early on Saturdays. There are large cattle and pig markets in Limerick and farmers want cash during the day and publicans are there to relieve them——
Of the cash?
Of the cash and the thirst. If people are worrying about the opening or the closing, there is nothing to prevent anybody from closing.
Hear, hear.
And if people outside Limerick, or in Limerick, wish to close from 2.30 to 3.30, there is nothing in the Bill to prevent them. As far as Limerick is concerned, I want to impress on the Minister that I speak as a licensed trader who for years was chairman of the licensed trade in Limerick and that we definitely want the 2.30 to 3.30 opening.
I should like to make it clear that what I have put down here is Waterford county borough—it is the city of Waterford area. The city of Waterford was the area in the other Act. When the Minister's predecessor, as I mentioned before and as Deputy O'Higgins mentioned, was here with the other Act in 1960, he said this hour must be continued in the four county borough areas of Dublin, Cork, Limerick and Waterford. We make no case for Limerick. If the Limerick publicans and the workers in the licensed trade there wish to remain open, that is their business. I am speaking—and I am glad I am joined here by Deputy Kyne— for the city of Waterford and I would appeal to the Minister to allow Waterford to stand in the Bill. It would be a great start off to our consideration of the Bill if the Minister would do that.
I do not represent either Waterford or Limerick but I believe there should be a closing hour throughout the Twenty-Six Counties, with the exception of seaside and tourist resorts where you have large numbers of people coming and going and where you might get inclement weather, often without protection for the people. I believe there should be a closing hour everywhere, with that exception, because the absence of it could lead to abuse by what I would call the session drinkers. These session drinkers are people who live by their wits, who do nothing with the possible exception of spending a few hours at the dogs, and I think this closing hour is the only way we have of persuading them to go home to dinner. The only way is to shut them out. I would emphasise that this is a serious matter. When the last Bill was being introduced there was a lot of talk about uniformity. It should be adopted here now.
Mr. Ryan
I would endorse the wise remarks of Deputy Sherwin, notwithstanding the fact that I do not represent either of the places involved here. This is a vital matter of national interest. This midday closing in large urban centres has operated for some 35 years. If there are in Limerick the peculiar circumstances referred to by Deputy Coughlan, the remedy is to prohibit the exemptions which are granted for market days in Limerick so that the same law would apply there in respect of all persons.
What about cashing cheques for the markets?
Mr. Ryan
If there are difficulties in that respect through lack of facilities for cashing cheques, surely the cure is not on licensed premises. I am surprised that a member of the Labour Party should at this time suggest that trade and commerce should be conducted on licensed premises.
I want to facilitate the public.
Mr. Ryan
In the heartless days before the industrial revolution when traders tried to compel their workers to cash cheques in their places of business it was the Labour people who quite rightly took action to stop that type of abuse.
There is no connection whatsoever. This is a case of a farmer cashing a cheque from an auctioneer.
Mr. Ryan
A man is as easily parted with his money on a licensed premises as he was in the circumstances I mentioned. He might not be parted with all of the several hundred pounds he would get for beef, but, perhaps, he would be parted easily with more than he would otherwise spend. The strong voice in favour of staying open during this hour in Limerick was that of the publican and that would appear to be dictated by the prospective increase in consumption. If it were thought that remaining open during that hour would bring about a reduction in consumption, naturally the persons with the vested interests in public houses would agree to the closing. This has been a very safe law which has been in operation for 35 years. If the closing hour is to be abolished in Limerick and Waterford in 1962 I can see strong agitation during the next 20 years from vested interests in Dublin and Cork to have the same law applied there.
Deputy T. Lynch has drawn attention to the problem that will arise through the increased application of the five-day week, when men with more time on their hands on Saturdays will lie in bed late and move into the towns to concentrate in the public houses. As one who has not all that long abandoned the bachelor state, I can speak with some experience of what bachelors do on Saturdays when they have time on their hands. They tend to congregate in the public houses until 2.30. As the late Deputy Kevin O'Higgins said in 1927, when introducing the midday closing hour, we have to face the fact that it is not milk we are dealing with. The appetite for milk or water decreases with consumption, but with intoxicating liquor the appetite increases and the willpower dulls and a man's inclination to stay on increases as his consumption continues. That is the simple philosophy of this midday break. It is a good one and should not be abandoned. People have very grave reasons for saying that and they are not those advanced by the people from the areas particularly affected here. If difficulties arise in market places to provide the liquid assets for business, the cure is not to facilitate the provision of facilities in public houses. And if exemptions are given in that respect which might give some people an advantage over their neighbours, the cure is to remove these advantages from those enjoying them.
Like Deputy Ryan, I had not meant to intervene because, being a Dublin city Deputy this section does not affect me. However, I found it necessary to rise because of some of the remarks made by Deputy Ryan. I agree entirely with his submission and I think the Minister should take notice of the fact that Ireland is growing up, as far as trade union activities are concerned. These activities are developing throughout the country and when it is suggested to bring Limerick and Waterford within the ambit of the closing hour regulation, that conveys to me the complete development of trade union operations in those centres.
It has been suggested we should leave the seaside resorts alone in this respect. I would submit that we do not leave them open to the type of exploitation which they are experiencing from all sorts of people because of the non-existence of trade union organisations. I know the Minister has, from the beginning, been talking in terms of complete uniformity. We must take into consideration whether or not uniformity is practicable, whether or not our people are ready for it. The Minister would be well advised to have regard to what is happening outside of Dublin and Cork in regard to trade union development. It is right that the other cities should have the ideal of being as good as Dublin. No matter where a person is working, as a bar attendant or anywhere else, if he is affiliated to a trade union, he must of necessity be under the control of a central authority. The break of an hour is observed in Dublin and regarded as a necessity by those who look after the interests of the bar attendants. A similar situation exists in Cork. Now it is suggested that Waterford and Limerick be brought in.
They are in already. The Minister is seeking to take them out.
If you take them out, you are going back instead of forward. I do not believe the Minister wants to impede the progress of the trade union movement. I am satisfied he has tremendous sympathy for its aims and objectives. I seriously suggest to him that would be a most retrograde step. It would give an opportunity to all sorts of people, exploiters who do not want trade unions. As Deputy Ryan rightly said, there was a time in this city when the worker was paid in the pub. We want to get away from all that. The Minister referred to uniformity. When we recognise that Cork, Limerick and Waterford are developing cities, it is imperative that the hour break should apply there as in Dublin.
This break in the middle of the day from 2.30 p.m. to 3.30 p.m. was a wise and worthwhile safeguard, and should be retained wherever possible. It safeguarded many people against long and continuous sessions of drinking. Such drinking sessions lead inevitably to excessive drunkenness, to accidents and to un-happiness, poverty and misery in many homes. It would be a great mistake to remove this wise safeguard against such things.
First, I want to assure Deputy Lynch that this Bill will be dealt with by me in the most harmonious fashion possible. Any amendments or suggestions he or any other Deputy wishes to make will receive my usual courteous consideration.
Hear, hear. Well spoken.
The same as No. 15.
Do not provoke him. He is in good humour.
That is not to go as far as saying, however, they will be automatically accepted.
Or, indeed, accepted at all.
First, I want to deal with the background to this provision of an hour's break. It was introduced in the first instance in 1927. As Deputy Costello pointed out in the debate on the Second Stage, the situation has changed considerably since that time and I do not think there is now the same need for that provision as there was then. At all events, as I said on the Second Reading, the drinking habits of our people are moderate. We have learned, by and large, how to use drink as it should be used, and the difficult situation which pertained around 1927 no longer applies. Therefore, we should consider the proposal I have included in the Bill strictly in relation to the circumstances prevailing to-day. The midday closing is now very largely an anachronism. The situation to-day is that in most licensed premises we have television and we have a large number of persons watching football matches, races, and so on.
There is no programme at that time.
A considerable number of tourists coming into our licensed premises are not familiar with this idea of closing in the middle of the day. They do not understand and, therefore, licensees have a great deal of trouble clearing their premises in the middle of the day.
What time does Telefís Éireann start?
The Minister might be allowed to continue.
I shall not be put off my stride one iota. I argued here on Second Reading that it would be a good and desirable development that licensed premises should go in more and more for the sale of food and, to an increasing extent, should provide meals as well as drink. Publicans have argued with me that the midday closing in the four county boroughs militates against that development, that they are expected to close and clear their premises just at the time they would expect in the normal way to be doing a brisk lunch business.
Would the next amendment not get over that?
We shall consider that on its own merits. That is the situation with which we were faced. Taking everything into account, I would on balance be in favour of abolishing this midday closing everywhere, first, because I think it is no longer entirely appropriate to our society and, secondly, on the general basis that the more uniform the law is the better, that something appropriate to the town of Sligo, say, should be equally appropriate to the city of Waterford.
Another factor enters the situation particularly in Limerick where the last Act operated to cause a certain amount of hardship and inconvenience. There is a number of mixed businesses in Limerick, I understand, and it was always possible, in the old situation which obtained prior to the 1960 Act, for a person to have recourse to a mixed business house during the period because of the bona fide provision. With the abolition of bona fide trading, these houses and the customers who had recourse to them suffered an inconvenience. To that extent, there was a very good argument in relation to those houses, at any rate, for the abolition of the midday closing.
I want to make it clear that what we are seeking to serve here is the general good and the greatest convenience for the greatest possible number. On the one hand, we have the Waterford publicans saying to us, in effect: "Keep the midday closing. We prefer it." The Limerick publicans on the other hand say: "Do away with the midday closing. We want to get rid of it." I do not think we should go on what either of those groups say. We should try to find what is for the general good. It seems to me that, taking into consideration the principle of uniformity and the modern developments which have made a considerable change in our social circumstances for which this provision was first introduced, the thing to do would be to do away with the midday closing as far as possible.
The situation with regard to Dublin and Cork is different. So far as I see, the publicans in Dublin city are equally divided on this matter. Largely, the publicans in the central city areas in Dublin wish to have this midday closing done away with for the various reasons I have enumerated: television, football matches and the luncheon trade. The smaller Dublin publican, on the other hand, wishes to have the midday closing retained because he says it gives him an opportunity to go for his midday meal, to tidy his premises, and so on. So there is a very difficult situation in Dublin. I think that for the moment anyway we should retain it in Dublin city, particularly as I say, because of the smaller houses which would be caused a great deal of trouble and inconvenience if it were done away with.
The situation in Cork is to a large extent the same, although, indeed in Cork I think the publicans would on the whole be fairly unanimous in favour of retaining it. The same arguments would not apply to Waterford or Limerick. I want to say that if Deputy Lynch is in a position to assure the House that the publicans in Waterford unanimously want this midday break done away with, surely it is possible for them to get together and agree on some closing in the middle of the day which will suit their convenience.
I must say that having considered the whole situation, I am not persuaded that we should accept this amendment by Deputy Lynch and Deputy O'Donnell. I certainly do not think that we should in the case of Limerick. On balance, I do not think it is desirable.
The Minister might lean towards Waterford.
I should like to be clear on this because we must remember this is the second Intoxicating Liquor Bill in two years. When the previous Bill was being argued here in the House, categorical statements were made by the then Minister for Justice and by the Minister for Lands who sat in to assist the Minister in the passage of the Bill through the House. One of the assurances given to the House by the Minister for Lands then was that the official view was that the midday break should be retained. When he was giving that assurance to the House, and when the Minister's predecessor was telling the House it would be a retrograde step to depart from the midday break, the particular matter which was being argued before the House was an amendment put down by an Independent Deputy from Limerick asking to have Limerick relieved of this midday break.
No less than two Government Ministers, the Minister's predecessor and the Minister for Lands, fought down that amendment proposed by the then Deputy Russell. The Minister for Justice fought it on the basis that it would be a retrograde step—I have already given the quotation—and the Minister for Lands said, as reported at column 1077 of the Official Report of 24th March, 1960:
In view of the existing provision see no reasonable case made for amending this law which has been undoubtedly accepted and is now, and has been for a very long number of years, well established. The official view still is that it is a good thing in the county boroughs, where you have a large number of industrial workers, to have this break during which they must go and have a meal.
That was the official view recorded in the House two years ago as stated by the Minister for Lands. It seems to me to be an extraordinary thing that inside 24 months there should be a complete upheaval of the official view. When the Minister for Lands talks about the official view, I take it that he means what he says and that he is talking about the view of the Garda authorities and those concerned with licensing law matters in the Department of Justice, in addition to the Minister as head of the Department.
Inside of two years, we have another Minister for Justice telling the House, in effect, that all that was said by his predecessor and the Minister for Lands was so much tosh and nonsense, and that none of the arguments for the midday break which were valid when it was introduced in 1927 is valid to-day. With respect, I disagree entirely with the Minister. I think Deputy Ryan was quite right in saying that the arguments which were valid at the time this provision was first introduced in 1927 are still valid and that it is, as the Minister's predecessor said, a valuable feature of our licensing legislation.
If the Minister is correct in thinking that there is a more settled atmosphere, if you like, in our social drinking habits, I think one of the reasons for the improvement about which the Minister talks is the very fact that this provision was there and that, as his predecessor said, it has been a valuable feature of our legislation for the past 35 years.
I am very pleased indeed to hear the Minister indicate, as I understand, that it is desirable to have this matter approached in an amicable fashion. That will be my approach right through the procedure in relation to the Bill. I do not think there is anything to be gained politically by challenging the people concerned in the whole matter. Having said that, I notice that in his statement the Minister referred to the fact that tourists do not understand the operation of the midday closing hour. May I remind the Minister that there are more tourists in Dublin than in any part of the country because Dublin is the capital city? As James Connolly said: Dublin is Ireland in concentrated essence.
I notice that the Minister adverted to the representations he had received from the Dublin publicans. He indicated that they have divergent views on the midday closing. I was wondering did the Minister have regard to the trade union representations on the mid-day closing. I want to make that point purposely because, as I listened to the Minister, I got the feeling that another Bill might be introduced another day to do away with the midday closing in Dublin. In Dublin, the midday closing hour is, if you like, a condition of employment, and it is with an extension of the conditions of employment that I am concerned. The midday closing hour affords the worker an opportunity of a break to which he is entitled. If things are not regulated in that fashion, no matter what part of the country it is, Dublin, Cork, Waterford or Limerick, it will be a bad day because, as the fellow said: An empty sack will not stand.
The only people who might benefit from the abolition of the midday closing in Waterford and Limerick and who would benefit if it were extended to Cork and Dublin are the people who ensure that they do not employ trade union labour. This is a matter which concerns the trade unions to a great extent. Working hours are regulated. This closing since it was introduced in Dublin and Cork has been found to be satisfactory to the employers and workers, both of whom are organised. In my estimation, the only people who stay open are the wolves and exploiters and we should set our faces against that kind of thing. Let us not accommodate people who are trying to exploit others.
The Minister has said that the reason he left Dublin in was that even if there were a great difference of opinion in Dublin, he considered that Dublin should remain in. I would say that there is no such difference of opinion in Waterford. He asked me if I could assure him that the publicans of Waterford would come together and decide to close. The Minister knows that is impossible in any community. There will always be a few mavericks and the honest people would have no chance against them. The trade would go to the mavericks who stay open. The other people would have to submit.
I submit to the Minister that it looks as if I should plead for Waterford on its own and let the Limerick people sail their own ship. The case of Waterford is quite different from that of Limerick. I have handed to the Minister the memorial signed by 80 Waterford publicans that they want this closing hour retained. I appeal to the Minister to accede to that request and listen to the people who want to remain closed for the reason that they want the long sessions broken up.
The Minister says he wants this for the general good but it does not matter to the people of Kilkenny, or Sligo or Dublin whether the Waterford pubs are closed between 2.30 and 3.30 p.m. I am endeavouring to have Waterford associated with those closing hours and I think I am entitled to say to the Minister that when there is that demand for the closing in Waterford, they should get it. There is no great division of opinion in Waterford and I appeal to the Minister to let the 2.30 closing hour stand.
I support the amendment. My regret is that this could not be applied in every public house and bar in the country but I appreciate that it would be practically impossible to do that because of the fact that the majority of the premises in the country do business other than the serving of drink. We should try to preserve this break during the day in the case of the four major cities. I think what Deputy Ryan has said is very important in that he gave the original reason for the midday break.
While we should be concerned about tourists, I do not think that we should be prepared to change all or many of our practices for the sake of tourism. I think we are pretty generous towards our tourists and all Departments, except possibly the Department responsible for the tourist industry, are pretty generous towards them. If the tourists do not understand why a public house in Dublin or in Cork is closed, I am not very much concerned. If the Minister or any other member of the House has been in Britain, or the United States or many other countries, he will know that we are not considered very much by the Governments of these countries with regard to the hours in which they sell drink. Of course, there are exceptions where the bars and licensed premises are open all day.
I would say that we have become a little more civilised in our drinking habits but the Minister sought to give the impression that we have become moderate in our drinking. I think he will have difficulty in reconciling that view with the view expressed by the Taoiseach in the Budget debate when he expressed concern at the increase in the consumption of drink. Apparently he and the Minister for Finance were so concerned that they induced the Government to put an extra tax on drink in order to discourage its consumption. I do not think that what the Minister has said measures up to that statement of the Taoiseach.
There are many aspects of this matter which should induce the Minister to retain the break in the four cities. He will appreciate that in the summer months these premises will be open for 13 hours, apart from the preparation there must be before the opening and the work that must be done after closing at 11.30 p.m. I do not think it is unreasonable to ask for the owners, the managers and the employees that there should be the midday break. That break would, apart from its definite value in respect of long drinking, give the publican an opportunity to tidy up the place and make it a little more attractive for tourists.
The Minister says that tourists do not understand this business of premises being closed in Dublin for the period from 2.30 to 3.30 p.m. As Deputy Mullen pointed out, more tourists pass through Dublin and Cork, by reason of their size and population, than through any other city or town, but if the Minister wants to consider tourists, he should try to reconcile that with the fact that he is retaining the afternoon closing hour in the two places that have many more tourists, in summer months especially, than any other part of the country.
The Minister also spoke about encouraging publichouses to go in for serving meals. I do not object to the type of meal they serve or to the fact that sandwiches or other foods are available for people who drink in public-house bars, but I do not think that the Minister should—or that it is his business to do so—encourage public-houses to equip themselves as continental cafés. I believe the public are well catered for in provincial towns and cities in the cafés and hotels they have.
I believe the Minister should retain the hour's break from 2.30 to 3.30 and I would be in favour of having it extended to the whole country, but I know that is impossible.
Would the Minister consider leaving Waterford in? There is really evidence that Waterford wants to stay in.
I have no evidence that the people of Waterford want to stay in.
I told the Minister so myself.
Deputy Lynch told me he met a few people——
More than a few people.
Has the Minister any evidence that they want to go out?
May I interrupt the Minister to ask if he has any evidence that anybody in Waterford wants this?
I have, yes.
I should like to know who they are?
Deputy Lynch was present himself when a Deputy from the area spoke here tonight. He is in favour of it.
That is for the whole area, not for the city of Waterford.
I am not convinced. Apart from the fact that Waterford publicans, apparently, would like to have it retained, I think mainly for their own convenience, there is no substantial volume of public opinion in Waterford in favour of it.
I can assure the Minister that there is.
When the previous Bill was brought in, arguments were advanced that there was not respect for the laws which then existed and that consequently the licensing laws of two years ago were necessary. Now, in retrospect, we can ask was any difficulty experienced by the Garda in getting public houses cleared in Waterford city at this hour? If there was, it would surely have come to light in the interval. It seems there was no difficulty whatever.
While I think we should meet to a reasonable extent the requirements of tourists, it is no argument to say that tourist requirements in Waterford should be a factor in determining our views on this amendment because the Minister has retained this provision in Dublin and Cork which are affected far more by tourist considerations. Those of us who have visited the countries of origin of the tourists find how rigidly they apply their own closing hours and it does not affect the enjoyment of tourists who are prepared to accept the laws of the country they are visiting, assuming they do get reasonable facilities. In the case of Waterford, it would appear that it would be well for the Minister to give favourable consideration to the amendment, and I suggest he should give further consideration to the appeal of those who are in favour of retaining the hour's closing in Waterford city.
Question put: "That the proposed words be inserted."
The Committee divided: Tá, 44; Níl, 61.
Tá
- Barrett, Stephen D.
- Barry, Richard.
- Belton, Jack.
- Browne, Michael.
- Burke, James J.
- Byrne, Patrick.
- Carroll, Jim.
- Clinton, Mark A.
- Connor, Patrick.
- Coogan, Fintan.
- Corish, Brendan.
- Cosgrave, Liam.
- Costello, Declan D.
- Crotty, Patrick J.
- Dillon, James M.
- Dockrell, Henry P.
- Dockrell, Maurice E.
- Dunne, Thomas.
- Esmonde, Sir Anthony C.
- Farrelly, Denis.
- Gilhawley, Eugene.
- Governey, Desmond.
- Harte, Patrick D.
- Hogan, Patrick (South Tipperary).
- Jones, Denis F.
- Kenny, Henry.
- Kyne, Thomas A.
- Lynch, Thaddeus.
- McLaughlin, Joseph.
- Mullen, Michael.
- Murphy, William.
- Norton, William.
- O'Donnell, Patrick.
- O'Donnell, Thomas G.
- O'Higgins, Michael J.
- O'Higgins, Thomas F.K.
- O'Reilly, Patrick.
- O'Sullivan, Denis J.
- Pattison, Séamus.
- Reynolds, Patrick J.
- Rooney, Eamonn.
- Ryan, Richie.
- Sweetman, Gerard.
- Tully, James.
Níl
- Aiken, Frank.
- Allen, Lorcan.
- Bartley, Gerald.
- Brady, Philip A.
- Brady, Seán.
- Brennan, Joseph.
- Brennan, Paudge.
- Breslin, Cormac.
- Burke, Patrick J.
- Calleary, Phelim A.
- Carter, Frank.
- Carty, Michael.
- Childers, Erskine.
- Clohessy, Patrick.
- Colley, George.
- Collins, James J.
- Cotter, Edward.
- Coughlan, Stephen.
- Crinion, Brendan.
- Crowley, Honor M.
- Cummins, Patrick J.
- Cunningham, Liam.
- Davern, Mick.
- de Valera, Vivion.
- Dolan, Séamus.
- Dooley, Patrick.
- Egan, Kieran P.
- Egan, Nicholas.
- Faulkner, Pádraig.
- Flanagan, Seán.
- Gallagher, James.
- Blaney, Neil T.
- Boland, Kevin.
- Booth, Lionel.
- Geoghegan, John.
- Gibbons, James M.
- Gilbride, Eugene.
- Gogan, Richard P.
- Haughey, Charles.
- Hillery, Patrick.
- Hilliard, Michael.
- Kennedy, Michael J.
- Kitt, Michael F.
- Lalor, Patrick J.
- Lemass, Noel T.
- Lemass, Seán.
- Lenihan, Brian.
- Lynch, Celia.
- McEllistrim, Thomas.
- MacEntee, Seán.
- Meaney, Con.
- Medlar, Martin.
- Millar, Anthony G.
- Moher, John W.
- Mooney, Patrick.
- Moran, Michael.
- Murphy, Michael P.
- Ó Briain, Donnchadh.
- Ormonde, John.
- Sherwin, Frank.
- Timmons, Eugene.
Tellers:—Tá: Deputies O'Sullivan a nd Crotty; Níl: Deputies J. Brennan and Geoghegan.
Question declared lost.
The Dáil adjourned at 11 p.m. until 2 p.m. Wednesday, 27th June, 1962.