Perhaps I had better explain to the Seanad, as I did in the Dáil, why this Bill has been brought in at this particular time. In the ordinary course, it would not have been introduced during the emergency. Some time ago, however, a Bill was passed extending the Dublin City boundaries. It was passed in rather a hurry and the Howth traders came to me and said they had not got a proper chance to make their case against the passing of that Bill. They said that their interests were affected by it and that it would not be consistent with democratic practice if people whose interests were affected were not given a chance to make their case. I thought that was reasonable and said that, if that Bill were made effective, I would go into the whole question. I did not promise them any relief, but said that, at least, they would not be able to say that they did not get the opportunity to have their case stated. When the Bill was ready, the Minister for Local Government at the time did not intend to name the appointed day for the inclusion of Howth for some time; but when it was decided to go ahead and to introduce the managerial system, the appointed day for Howth was fixed. Then I felt bound to bring in this Bill: it was not done in order to deal with Howth, but that was the occasion for its introduction.
From the time when I became Minister for Justice, the Commissioner of the Gárda Síochána was constantly pressing me to do something about the abuse of the bona fide system, particularly in Dublin and in certain country districts in connection with dances— that is, all-night drinking. I confess that I would not have done that if I had not been compelled to do so by the Howth case. I knew what I was in for; I had some experience of it before, and I think that no wise or discreet person would tackle a Bill of this kind if he could avoid it. My main object was to deal with what had become a glaring abuse. The very name bona fide traveller means a traveller in good faith, and we all know that at least 90 per cent., if not more, of the people who drank during prohibited hours were not bona fide travellers at all.
In the Bill as introduced, I proposed to do away altogether with that system, except on Sundays. On Sundays I thought it was only reasonable that people who would be genuine travellers should have facilities to get drink—people on a journey, or going to football matches, or cycling, or doing something of that kind. Consequently, I had no intention to interfere with the Sunday trade. On other days of the week, I intended to do away with the bona fide traffic altogether. Every one knows what happened: the Dáil objected—all Parties, my own as strongly as any other—with the result that a compromise was agreed to. It was decided to have a complete close-down on drinking between 12 midnight and 6 a.m.: under no circumstances would licensed premises be allowed to open during those hours.
I have been asked in the Dáil and elsewhere why the Gárdaí did not enforce the law and see that only bona fide travellers were served. The position was that, if a person came the required distance—three miles in a country district or five miles in a borough—the Gárdaí could not prove that they went out for the purpose of getting drink, and they were required to prove that. When a person travelled the required distance, it worked out in practice that he was entitled to a drink, as otherwise you would have to ask his motive, and that proved to be practically impossible. I think it was only those people who were known not to live the required distance who would be found to have broken the law. That was never intended. In future, everyone will know that there can be no excuse for drinking in licensed premises after 12 midnight or before 6 in the morning, and that the Gárdaí will be obliged to deal with that. To that extent this Bill is a great improvement on the existing licensing laws.
There were other changes introduced in the Dáil, although I tried to restrict them as much as I could. My idea was not to grant extra facilities, but to stop abuses. I considered the Act introduced by my predecessor improved the licensing code very considerably. That Act was passed after a commission had examined the licensing code and made certain recommendations. Like every other Act, it has been on trial, and anything found wrong in it has to be remedied. This certainly was an outstanding defect—this so-called bona fide system. I expect everyone is aware that in the Dáil the closing hour for the cities and the country districts, on weekdays, has been altered. I resisted the change in the Dáil as much as I could, but when I found that many members in the House were against me, members of my own Party as well as members of the chief Opposition and the Labour Party —when I realised that they were in favour of an extension, I had no option but to agree to an extension.
Deputies especially from the country constituencies urged that the week-day hours in the country were altogether unsuitable. They pointed out that, in the summer, farmers and farm workers generally remain in the fields until 9 o'clock or 10 o'clock, which would be really 8.30 o'clock, and, when they reach the villages or towns, the public houses are closed and they cannot get a drink. It was also pointed out that most public houses in country districts are general stores as well, and that country people might want to get provisions and possibly get a drink at the same time. Even if they do not want a drink, the public house is closed for general purposes. I found I had no option but to agree. I did not want to put it to a division—it might be too risky to do that—so I agreed to compromise, making the hour 10.30 p.m. on weekdays.
My proposal for a compromise with regard to bona fide traffic was to make the closing hour 11 p.m. —that every public house would close at 11 p.m. until 6 a.m.; in other words, that they would open at 6 in the morning and remain open until 11 at night. The idea of fixing 6 in the morning is to facilitate people attending fairs or markets, and there is hardly any danger that people would get out of bed so early in the morning merely for the sake of having a drink. I gave way again, however. I did not carry my 11 o'clock proposal; I was forced to make it 12 midnight.
So far as the weekday closing hour is concerned, I was glad for one reason that it was altered to 10.30, because it lessens the gap between the closing hour, in the boroughs and the bona fide closing hour outside the boroughs. One of the big grievances of the Guards and, indeed, those of us who live a bit outside the cities, is that after the city public houses close, especially on Sundays, there is a rush out to the country districts. The worst elements of the city population went out there and created violent and disgraceful scenes. I think everyone living in the cities is aware of that. I believe that by lessening the gap between the closing hour in the boroughs and the bona fide closing hour outside the boroughs, you lessen the likelihood of these people travelling into the country districts for the purpose of getting more drink. In that way I was reconciled to the 10.30 closing hour and to the bona fide traffic being allowed to be carried on until midnight.
Most of the scenes I have referred to occur on Sundays. The hard drinking, the really dangerous drinking, occurs, in my opinion, from midnight into the small hours. People sit for hours drinking. We know that has been going on to a very large extent. The noisy rowdy element is confined mostly to Sunday afternoons. The public houses in the cities close at 5 o'clock and there is a gap of three hours, as the outside public houses do not close until 8 o'clock. The result is that we have this exodus and these scenes. The only way that I could see of correcting that was by lowering the gap and fixing a later closing hour in the boroughs. I had to do that or else reduce the bona fide hours, and I did not think that would be reasonable.
I proposed, therefore, that the public houses in the county boroughs should open from 1 to 2 and 4 to 7. We had a long debate on the matter. There were all sorts of objections to that proposal so far as Dublin was concerned. In the case of Cork, Limerick and Waterford, representations were made by the licensed trade and by the Parliamentary representatives to the effect that what would suit them would be an opening from 1 to 3 and 5 to 7. That would do two things. It would do away with the big gap between the closing hour in the boroughs and the closing hour for the outside districts, and it would also help to cater for the crowds who would come in for big sporting events, such as the people who attended football matches on Sunday evenings. In Dublin we have a lot of big football matches. These matches are over about 5 o'clock, the hour at which the public houses close. I think that the people who attend these matches are entitled, if they wish, to discuss the match over their drinks. The earlier hour, 1 o'clock, was fixed for the following reasons. The bona fide traffic starts at 1 o'clock—1 to 7 in the winter and 1 to 8 in the summer— and the clubs and hotels are also entitled to serve drink from 1 o'clock. A good many people like to have a drink before dinner, and there is no reason why they should not be considered.
There was an objection to the proposed 1 o'clock opening in Dublin. The assistants, a very well organised body, objected to it. I would like to have all the county boroughs on the same footing, I would not like to have any distinction between them, but in the case of Dublin there appeared to be a difference. A deputation of the assistants waited on me and pointed out that they were all members of the Gaelic Athletic Association and that the hurling section of that association depended on them. I knew that to be true, and I was very sympathetic with their point of view. Consequently, I agreed in the case of Dublin to change the opening hour from 1 to 2. I stuck out for the principle of the split hours, even on Sundays. The assistants do not like it, but the Commissioner of the Gardaí is very keen on it. He asked me not to depart from it and he pointed out that he could see all sorts of difficulties and far more drunkenness if there was a continuous opening of more than three hours.
As regards the closing hour, I was anxious to fix 7 o'clock in order to close the gap between the boroughs and the country districts. I could not see how we were to manage it otherwise than by having a break. The final result was that we decided to fix the hours of opening on Sundays from 2 to 3 o'clock and 4 to 7 o'clock. That is how it stands now.
These were the points which caused the most trouble in the Dáil, and there was more talk about the opening hours than about anything else. A number of other points were dealt with which are really Committee Stage points. There were such matters as the famous Guiney case, in connection with which I was accused of having gone out of my way to facilitate a particular individual. There was also the point about firms which had on-licences, which they did not require and who wanted them changed to off-licences. The time for doing that had elapsed, but we provided for it again in the Bill.
There was further, the matter of compulsory endorsement of licences. I was impressed by the case made by the licensed trade that the justices ought to be given discretion, and I think that in practice that system will work much better. When the Bill is passed, I think there will be more severe fines imposed on people who break the licensing laws, and on publicans especially, than were imposed in the past, because unless a justice was prepared to certify that an offence was trivial, he was bound under the old arrangement to endorse the licence. I have been told by some justices that that influenced them very often in fixing the penalties they imposed, because if they imposed heavy fines they could not very well certify offences as trivial, and in some cases while they were satisfied that heavy fines should be imposed, they did not think the offences sufficiently serious to warrant endorsements.
I look to very much stricter action by justices in dealing with breaches of the licensing laws from now on, when they will have discretion. When they find a glaring case, they will, I am quite sure, have no hesitation in endorsing, but compulsory endorsements, like minimum fines and things of the kind, really defeat themselves very often. It is much better to leave it to the discretion of the justice dealing with the case. That principle has been embodied in the Bill and accepted by the Dáil.
The Bill is not exactly what I wanted. I was disappointed when I found I could not do away with the bona fide business altogether. I did not know I should be up against such strong opposition. I knew I would have some tough opposition to face, but I did not think it would be quite as bad as it was. I agreed to practically all the changes put forward, in deference to the wishes of the House, as I believed it to be my duty to do so. As a member of a democratic Government, when I found that practically the whole House wished to have certain amendments made, I had no alternative but to accept them. On the whole, when the Bill passes, I think the licensing code will be much better than it has been up to this, and particularly with reference to night drinking.
In the Dáil, a great many speakers, mostly from the country, insisted that the Bill was designed for Dublin alone, but that is not so. I contradicted that statement about a dozen times, but it was no good. I was told the same thing by the next speaker. I know, however, and everyone from the country knows, that there have been abuses in the country as well as in the vicinity of Dublin. For instance, when there is a dance on a Sunday evening lasting into the morning, the law at present is that no licensed premises can open for bona fide traffic after 8 o'clock in the evening. At one minute past 12 midnight, so-called bona fide travellers can be admitted again and they can keep on drinking as long as they like. That is made illegal now and on no pretext can people remain drinking, so that the Bill applies both to the country and to the areas around the boroughs. In that respect alone, I should say that it is worth while, in spite of the extra facilities given.
Extra facilities have been given, but I do not think they will do much harm. I have not got a lot of experience in this matter although I am not altogether a teetotaller, but I have been told that a "quick one" does more harm than when one takes one's time with a drink. I believe the net result of this extension will be that people will take more time over their drinks, and that on the whole it will not do a great lot of harm. I am sure that teetotallers will not like to hear that from me, but I believe that to be the case. The extra facilities given are of a minor character. The big thing which has been achieved, although it is short of what I wished for, is a complete shutting-down from midnight until 6 o'clock in the morning.
I hope the Seanad will not make many changes in the Bill. Some Senators have said to me: "We will give you back the Bill in the form in which you brought it into the Dáil," but that would put me in a very awkward position, because, although I fought my corner as well as I could, having agreed to the amendments put forward, I should be in a very embarrassing position indeed if my original proposals were passed by the Seanad. I should be in a very difficult position, and do not know what I should do. I, therefore, ask the Seanad to pass the Bill as it is.