I move the Second Reading of the Intoxicating Liquor (Amendment) (No. 2) Bill, 1929. It was introduced in the Dáil by two Deputies from Cork City, one of whom is the Lord Mayor. The object is to enable the hours for the opening of licensed premises on next Sunday and Sunday week to be changed—not to be increased—from two to five, to five to eight, so that people can get refreshments. There was a serious shortage of food in the City of Cork on one occasion when there was a very big demonstration there. The Cork Deputies are now making provision that such a state of affairs shall not occur again. I stress the fact that there is to be no increase in the hours of opening and that the change is proposed to suit the convenience of the people. I trust the House will see its way to pass the Bill.
Intoxicating Liquor (Amendment) (No. 2) Bill, 1929—Second Stage.
I second.
I want to raise a question that does not arise on the Second Reading, because I am very doubtful as to the wisdom even of passing the Second Reading of a Bill of this nature.
There was a Bill passed in 1927 dealing with the sale of intoxicating liquor. It was piloted through the Dáil and the Seanad by the late Minister for Justice. A great deal of discussion took place on the question involved here, the hours during which public houses should be open in the four county boroughs and in the rest of the country. The question raised in this Bill was discussed very fully on the Second Stage, the Committee Stage and, subsequently, on the Re-committal of the 1927 Bill. Certain amendments were accepted by the House and by the Minister, notwithstanding the pressure that was brought upon him regarding the four county boroughs. That pressure was to the effect that the four county boroughs should be placed in the same position regarding gatherings, such as football matches, hurling matches and so on, as the rest of the country. The Minister resisted that very strongly and gave reasons for his resistance. The Bill was then passed. A few weeks ago a Bill was introduced by Senator Hooper dealing with the Sunday on which the Centenary Celebrations were to be held in the City of Dublin. It was pointed out on that occasion that this was one day in a century, that there was an immense concourse of people expected, and that the facilities to enable people to get food would be inadequate unless the public houses were also available. Very great stress was brought to bear upon the exceptional circumstances that were likely to prevail. It was pointed out that the event was a very exceptional one, and a special Bill was passed dealing with the one day in the City of Dublin.
Now Cork, not to be behind Dublin, seeks to have a similar Bill passed in respect to a somewhat similar celebration that is to take place in Cork on Sunday, the 14th July. It is said that somewhat similar conditions may prevail in Cork if anticipations are realised. Cork is not satisfied with that. Cork says: "We will go one better than Dublin. Dublin has shown the way, but we want not only the occasion of a great centenary celebration of a religious character but a sports event which is to take place in the following week to justify an alteration in the law." There will be many sports events of a similar kind in the county boroughs during the summer. Why we should be specially requested to pass a Bill dealing with an occasion of that kind for Cork for one day alone I cannot understand. It seems to me to be entirely cheapening the legislature, to be using it for very local and very selfish purposes, and to be more or less asking the Oireachtas to treat itself as a cricket club, a football club or a debating society which might alter their rules and practices for one occasion. The legislation I refer to was passed after very serious discussion indeed. There was a great deal of public agitation. The authorities and the Minister for Justice stood firm in insisting on the hours that were fixed in the original Bill. Of course there was no anticipation then of these very special occasions such as the Centenary celebration, but there was anticipation, and the point was discussed upon various Stages of the Bill, of the crowds that would gather at football matches and the like.
I think that this Bill ought not to pass the Seanad in its present form. Even if it is to pass the Second Reading, it ought to be passed only on the assumption that Sunday the 14th is retained in the Bill and that Sunday the 21st shall be excluded. If the promoters of the Bill are prepared to concede that at this stage, I, for one, shall withdraw opposition to the Second Reading. But unless they do that, I shall certainly oppose the Second Reading, and I hope the Seanad will agree with that point of view.
I just wish to say that I was talking to the Deputy who moved this Bill in the other House. I understood from him that if the point of objection mentioned by Senator Johnson was persisted in, there would not be any serious objection to amending the Bill in that direction.
Cathaoirleach
Then Senator Johnson can move an amendment if he wishes on the next stage.
Of course, I cannot give any guarantee to that effect.