This amendment has been tabled as a result of the agreement reached in the Seanad. I was asked by the Seanad to consolidate all the sections dealing with the hours of opening and closing. They are all set out in this amendment.
Intoxicating Liquor Bill, 1942—Report and Final Stages.
Government amendment No. 1:—
In pages 2 and 3, Section 4, to delete paragraphs (A) and (B) and substitute the following:—
by the deletion of sub-sections (1), (2), and (3) thereof and the insertion therein of the following two sub-sections in lieu of the said sub-sections so deleted, and the said Act and in particular sub-sections (4) and (5) of the said Section 2 shall be construed and have effect accordingly, that is to say:—
(1) Save as is otherwise provided by this Act, it shall not be lawful for any person in any county borough to sell or expose for sale any intoxicating liquor or to open or keep open any premises for the sale of intoxicating liquor or to permit any intoxicating liquor to be consumed on licensed premises:—
(a) on any week day, before the hour of ten o'clock in the morning or after the hour of ten o'clock in the evening, or (subject to the exceptions hereinafter mentioned) between the hours of half-past two o'clock and half-past three o'clock in the afternoon, or
(b) on any Sunday—
(i) in the case of the county borough of Dublin or the Dublin Metropolitan Area, before the hour of half-past one o'clock in the afternoon, or between the hours of three o'clock and five o'clock in the afternoon or after the hour of seven o'clock in the evening, or
(ii) in the case of any other county borough, before the hour of one o'clock in the afternoon or between the hours of three o'clock and five o'clock in the afternoon, or after the hour of seven o'clock in the evening, or
(c) at any time on Christmas Day, Good Friday, or Saint Patrick's Day.
The exceptions referred to in the foregoing paragraph (a) of this subsection are:—
(i) that between the hours of half-past two o'clock and half-past three o'clock in the afternoon on any week-day the holder of an on-licence attached to premises situate in a county borough may receive on such premises orders (accompanied or not accompanied by payment) by post, telegraph, or telephone but not otherwise for intoxicating liquor to be consumed off the premises and to be delivered by such holder at the residence of the person so ordering the same or at a railway station but not otherwise and may so deliver the intoxicating liquor so ordered, but the person so ordering such intoxicating liquor shall not for the purposes of any other section of this Act be a person to whom intoxicating liquor may be lawfully sold or supplied on such premises between the said hours on the said days, and
(ii) that between the hours of half-past two o'clock and half-past three o'clock in the afternoon on any week-day the holder of an off-licence attached to premises situate in a county borough may receive verbally or otherwise on such premises orders (accompanied or not accompanied by payment) for intoxicating liquor to be consumed off the premises and to be delivered by such holder at the residence of the person ordering the same or at a railway station but not otherwise and he may so deliver the intoxicating liquor so ordered and may open and keep open the said premises for the purpose of receiving such orders and may expose on such premises intoxicating liquor for sale on such orders.
(2) Save as is otherwise provided by this Act, it shall not be lawful for any person in any place not being a county borough to sell or expose for sale or to open or keep open any premises for the sale of intoxicating liquor or to permit any intoxicating liquor to be consumed on licensed premises—
(a) on any week-day—
(i) during a period of summer time, before the hour of half-past ten o'clock in the morning or after the hour of half-past ten o'clock in the evening, or
(ii) during any period which is not a period of summer time, before the hour of ten o'clock in the morning or after the hour of ten o'clock in the evening, or
(b) at any time on any Sunday or on Christmas Day, Good Friday, or Saint Patrick's Day.
With regard to the hours set out in the amendment for opening in Dublin on Sundays, we had a good deal of discussion on that matter on former Stages of the Bill. The playing of hurling and football in Dublin entered largely into the discussion. The proposal in the amendment is that public houses in Dublin be permitted to open at 1.30 p.m. I would appeal to the Minister to go back to the 1 o'clock opening. I am reliably informed by people interested in the games that the opening of public houses at 1 o'clock on Sundays would not seriously interfere with the G.A.A. The 1 o'clock opening would also ensure that the assistants would get the benefit of the Shop Hours Act in the sense that they would get an extra half-day in consequence of having worked four hours. They will get no recompense for working three and a half hours. That is a very important consideration for the assistants generally, and I would appeal to the Minister to take it into consideration. From the employers' point of view, the 1 o'clock opening has this important feature: that the licensed clubs in the city are permitted to open at 1 o'clock on Sundays. It is contended, and I believe there are substantial grounds for the contention, that these licensed clubs represent serious opposition to the ordinary licensed trader. The Minister and the House can see that licensed traders have a serious grievance if their clientele is taken away from them before they are allowed to open their premises. I put it to the Minister that these are important considerations that ought to be considered by him. In view of what I have said, I think he ought to reconsider his attitude on this matter. The 1 o'clock opening is an important matter both from the point of the employers and of the assistants.
As far as the Minister is concerned, I would like to point out that I provided for 1 o'clock opening in the original Bill, and it was really in deference to the wishes of the G.A.A., accompanied by the assistants' representatives, that I went on to 2 o'clock. Some of the assistants came to me with representatives of County Dublin Board G.A.A. We had much discussion and I thought we had arrived at agreement. I should like to see uniformity as far as possible. But, there was opposition to that and I think that, after a very long discussion, we came to the agreement which is set out in the section. I should like to see uniformity in regard to week-days and Sundays. I thought we were compromising between the G.A.A position and the clubs by providing for an extra half-hour. When I brought in the Bill, I aimed at 1 o'clock because of the points which had been made about the opening of clubs on Sundays at that hour. I was then approached with representations that 1 o'clock opening would ruin the hurling game in Dublin, and that there should not be any opening before 2 o'clock. As far as I am concerned, I am in the hands of the Seanad with this amendment. It merely carries out what they have decided.
The amendment as put down now by the Minister is the amendment agreed upon on the Committee Stage when the Bill was re-committed. As a matter of fact, I put up all the arguments which have been advanced by Senator Foran in favour of 1 o'clock instead of 1.30. It was fully discussed, and although I opposed it as strongly as I could, the general trend of opinion seemed to be that they would not agree with 1 o'clock. They agreed to fix the opening hour at 1.30. I did my best to get 1 o'clock carried but I saw the feeling of the Seanad and I did not press my arguments any further. The hour of 1.30 having been agreed, the Minister has brought in this amendment to clear up the whole position and to carry out exactly the wishes of the Seanad on the last day. As a matter of fact, I was expecting more support from Senator Foran.
Senator Campbell was opposed to 1 o'clock on the last occasion, and, in any case, the general feeling was that 1.30 would be a much better hour. I did not expect that there would be any discussion here to-day because the Minister has merely brought in an amendment to clarify the position. That being so, I think we ought to agree without entering into further discussion. The hours of 1.30 to 3 and 5 to 7 appear to me to meet everyone's wishes and I think we ought to be able to get along without further discussion.
I am sure it was interesting to you, Sir, and to other members of the association, to hear the references to the Gaelic Athletic Association. I feel sorry, at all events, that the employers and assistants could not meet each other on this question so that there would be unanimity instead of seeking to get the question settled in the Seanad. It is perfectly clear now that the assistants are asking to work half an hour longer. I am speaking now subject to correction from Senator Foran or anybody else, but that is how I understand the situation. The reason they are asking to be allowed to work an extra half hour is, I understand, that they may be entitled to an extra half day off in the week. I wonder if I am stating the position correctly?
I have nothing to do with that at all.
If such is the case, even at this late hour I would be very anxious that employers and employees should discuss this matter. The employers of to-day were the employees of yesterday, and the employees of to-day will be the employers of tomorrow. This question affects the trade as a whole.
The Minister made it perfectly clear and I thought, generally, that we accepted the proposition, that we were not discussing the Intoxicating Liquor Bill as we might discuss, say, a Trade Union Bill.
Exactly.
I could not discuss this Bill on such a basis. It is unfortunate that another measure seems to cut across this one. I feel that we should deal with that measure if it is necessary to deal with it when this one is out of the way, but that we should reverse our decision—many of us believe there should be a three hours' opening—in order to avoid another issue which ought to be dealt with separately, seems to me an absurdity. I hope the House will not change on that alone. If the House changes because it thinks that additional facilities and longer hours are required on Sunday, that would be a legitimate reason. I would much prefer that we should go back to three hours, but I am not proposing to do so now. It was debated at great length and we reached this measure of agreement which the Minister has carried out absolutely accurately and in the way in which it was agreed.
There is another factor, the workers. The employers——
On the Report Stage, Senator, only one speech may be made. If, however, it is a point of order, or of personal explanation, I will hear you.
I do not think the position as represented by Senator Foran is the exact one. On the Committee Stage, during the tea adjournment, certain consultations took place and the general agreement was that the hours should be from 1.30 to 3 and from 4.30 to 7. That amendment was brought in and the Government supporters solidly voted against the Minister's amendment with the exception of Senator Byrne, who supported it in conjunction with five people on this side of the House. We do not disguise the fact that we are anxious to see that the workers will get the compensation to which they are entitled. There is no use in blinking the fact that certain interests became pretty busy between the Committee Stage and last week, as a result of which there has been a complete reversal of opinions expressed on the Committee Stage. The whole change of front came about because certain people have more regard for the interests of employers than those of the employees. I am not including in that the temperance advocates and pioneers.
Such as yourself.
They are quite entitled to try to shorten the hours and, as a matter of fact, I approve of their attitude. But the employers themselves were agreeable to four hours provided they were permitted to open at 1 o'clock. They made the case that if they got half an hour's extra trading between 1 and 1.30— trade which ordinarily went to the clubs—they would be in a position to meet the extra cost of the time-off granted to the assistants. If that is the position in future, employers and workers are agreeable on that point and I do not see why the House should not accede to it. I think that is the main reason why they are advocating a change so as to make the hours 1 to 3 and 5 to 7. There is no use in Senator Conlon pretending, or trying to give the impression that he was not acting on behalf of the employing class when he moved his amendment. Of course, we do not make any secret of the fact that we are anxious that justice should be done to the workers in this industry, and that they should have ample compensation for the time they are compelled to work on Sundays. I think it was Senator Lynch who pointed out last week that if those people had to work for three hours and 50 minutes they would be entitled to no compensation, but an extra ten minutes would entitle them to compensation. In reality, some of those people have to work much longer. I am reliably informed that, in one house close to Nelson's Pillar, 300 pints have to be filled and ready on the counter when the doors open at 2 o'clock on Sundays. The assistants get no compensation for the extra time they have to work outside of the regular opening hours. The only time that counts, as far as they are concerned, are the hours set forth in the Bill. Senator O'Donovan made the point that those people are working after hours, but my information is that they are working before hours as well. For that reason the Seanad should agree to the suggestion made by Senator Foran.
I wonder whether Senators are really serious in discussing this matter again. I do not even know whether we are in order in doing so. We seemed to have reached unanimous agreement on the last day, and now we are discussing the possibility of going back on that decision. I cannot see any consistency in supporting an amendment to have an opening from 2 o'clock to 6 o'clock, a continuous four hours, as Senator Campbell has done, and at the same time criticising the Bill as giving increased facilities for drinking. The Senator cannot have it both ways.
Neither can anybody else.
It is inconsistent to support longer opening hours on Sundays and yet to criticise this Bill for creating greater drinking facilities. I maintain that on the last day we were practically unanimous in regard to those hours. I speak for the general public, as I interpret their wishes, and, as I said on the last occasion, I speak also for those amongst the grocers' assistants who are members of the G.A.A. I supported an earlier amendment that the opening be from 2 o'clock to 3 o'clock only, and that was not agreed upon. Now, after full agreement the last day, we are wasting our time discussing this proposal to-day. I hope we will not waste any further time on this discussion.
Amendment put.
The Seanad divided: Tá, 30; Níl, 7.
Tá
- Baxter, Patrick F.
- Brennan, Joseph.
- Byrne, Christopher M.
- Concannon, Helena.
- Conlon, Martin.
- Douglas, James G.
- Fitzgerald, Desmond.
- Goulding, Seán.
- Healy, Denis D.
- Johnston, James.
- Johnston, Joseph.
- Kehoe, Patrick.
- Kelly, Peter T.
- Kennedy, Margaret L.
- Lynch, Peter T.
- McGee, James T.
- McGillycuddy of the Reeks, The.
- Magennis, William.
- O Buachalla, Liam.
- O'Callaghan, William.
- O'Donovan, Seán.
- O'Dwyer, Martin.
- O Máille, Pádraic.
- O'Neill, Laurence.
- Parkinson, James J.
- Nic Phiarais, Máighréad M.
- Quirke, William.
- Robinson, David L.
- Stafford, Matthew.
- Tierney, Michael.
Níl
- Campbell, Seán P.
- Crosbie, James.
- Foran, Thomas.
- Hogan, Patrick.
- Keane, Sir John.
- Lynch, Eamonn.
- Tunney, James.
Tellers:—Tá: Senators Goulding and O'Donovan; Níl: Senators Campbell and Foran.
Amendment declared carried.
Government amendment No. 2:—
In page 3, Section 5, to delete paragraphs (a), (b), and (c) and substitute three paragraphs as follows:—
(a) by the deletion from subsection (1) thereof of all words after the words "save and except", and the insertion in that subsection of the following words in lieu of the said words so deleted, that is to say, "if such premises are situate in a county borough, between the hours of 9 o'clock and 10 o'clock in the morning on week days, or, if such premises are not situate in a county borough, between the hours of 9 o'clock and half-past 10 o'clock in the morning on week days during a period of summer time and between the hours of 9 o'clock and 10 o'clock in the morning on week days during any period which is not a period of summer time,"
(b) by the insertion in subsection (2) thereof, after the words "off-licence is attached", of the words and brackets "(other than premises to which a wine retailer's off-licence within the meaning of the Finance (1909-10) Act, 1910, and no other off-licence is attached",
(c) by the deletion from subsection (2) thereof of all words after the words "save and except" and the insertion in that subsection of the following words in lieu of the said words so deleted, that is to say, "if such premises are situate in a county borough, between the hours of 9 o'clock and 10 o'clock in the morning on week days and between the hours of half-past 2 o'clock and half-past 3 o'clock in the afternoon on week days or, if such premises are not situate in a county borough, between the hours of 9 o'clock and half-past 10 o'clock in the morning on week days during a period of summer time and between the hours of 9 o'clock and 10 o'clock in the morning on week days during any period which is not a period of summer time".
This is a consequential amendment. Section 3 of the 1927 Act provides that all licensed premises which do a mixed trade may open for non-licensed business between 9 a.m. and 10 a.m. on weekdays and that premises with an off-licence may open for such business during the afternoon closing hour. The purpose of this amendment is to allow such non-licensed business to be carried on in such premises between the hours of 9 a.m. and 10.30 a.m. in summer time.
Amendment put and agreed to.
Question—"That the Bill, as amended, be received for final consideration"—put and agreed to.
Question proposed: "That the Bill do now pass."
When we discussed this Bill, on the last day and an amendment by Senator Conlon had been put, I was twitted with not saying "Tá" in a loud voice as a sort of Greek chorus to his rather tragic "Tá". I am not so much interested in what one of our newspapers called Seanad cheese-paring. I have always tried, as far as I could, to see that the law would correspond as closely as it possibly could to what one could get people to obey. I remember some years ago, when there was a Traffic Bill before the House in Committee, certain Senators with an elaborate solemnity reduced the pace at which buses would be allowed to travel from 35 miles an hour to 30. With great enthusiasm, on the Report Stage, I got the speed limit back to 35. I thought it was better that the limit should be kept as close as possible to what you might expect people reasonably to obey. The majority of Senators, and certainly the general public, knew that what subsequently would happen was that buses would travel at 50 and 60 miles an hour, quite regardless of the law. I often wonder whether the expression "more honoured in the breach than in the observance" was not devised by some clever person to try to describe the relations that existed between a large number of people in Ireland and the intoxicating liquor laws. I cannot go into cut and dried percentages as Senator O'Donovan did, because I imagine there are about 1,000,000 people involved, and it is very difficult to get accurate information, but there are undoubtedly large numbers of people in Ireland who unhesitatingly set out to break the liquor laws and succeed in doing so.
There are large numbers of people who, while not particularly anxious to break the licensing laws, if they find themselves in company where it is easy to do it, will do so unhesitatingly. There are large numbers of people who, for private reasons, do not wish to break the liquor laws for fear that it would damage them in some way or other, but who hold them in contempt and derision; and there is also a large number of people who do not care either way, and who take no particular interest. To none of these people is it an anti-social act to break the liquor laws. We know perfectly well that the liquor laws are ridiculed all the time in pictures and cartoons, and laughed at in articles in papers and magazines, and that they are the subject of jokes and sketches and plays. For the last eight weeks there has been a one-act play performing in one of our principal theatres of which the high-light is this idea. It depicts a respectable publican and two of his cronies having a quiet time drinking in the pub after hours. There is nothing in that, of course, to arouse the interest of the audience. It is quite ordinary and commonplace. But after a bit the peaceful scene is disturbed by a knock and by the entrance of a Civic Guard. Instantly, of course, the interest of the audience is aroused, and this Civic Guard enters to interfere with respectable, quiet citizens going about their ordinary, lawful occasions. The audience immediately takes sides, and I have not the slightest doubt in saying that down to the last teetotaller they are 100 per cent. in favour of the publican. This publican—I always regard the publicans as a comparatively simple sort of people who take their wives and families out in the pony and trap on Sundays—displayed great guile, acquired, no doubt, through years of association with the public. He places a large glass of foaming porter adjacent to the elbow of the Civic Guard, and proceeds to tell a story about some friends of his who had a terrible journey across a desert, describing, with horrific detail, blazing sand and the stifling heat, the exhaustion of the men and the lack of vegetation. The audience, while they listen to the story, fix every eye on the Civic Guard to see the first indication of the arm of the law being undermined.
Sure enough, he very quickly gives a sigh, and we see him pass his finger between his neck and his collar and shortly afterwards pass his tongue over his lips. The whole audience, with a sigh of relief, realises that there is nothing left but to give him the coup de grace. The thing is over when the Guard seizes the glass of porter, drains it down, and asks if there is any objection to giving them a few bars of “Galway Bay.” However, that is the end of the play, and the audience are perfectly certain, as you would expect them to be, that the Civic Guard has been ruined in his loyalty to his duty and to the State, and that a perfectly respectable publican has won out, and that their attitude towards these unsuitable licensing laws has been entirely vindicated.
The liquor laws that we have here are, as everybody knows, a hang-over from the British days. They are only to be found, as far as I can discover, in the old world, in dependencies, colonies, dominions, and places of that kind, wherever the flag flies, or, metaphorically speaking, wherever the map is coloured red. They are the most British of British laws. I am not one of those who would worry about that particularly, if they were good laws. I have never felt that my patriotism suffers very much because people play foreign games, or that my love of country would deteriorate in any way if telegram forms or pillar boxes had retained their pristine colour. But for those who do feel very strongly on the subject, it must seem at some stage that if the things that have been said here, and the things that have been implied, are true—and I do not admit that they are—all that stands between them and the inevitable debauchery of the Irish people are these particular licensing laws.
It is a strange thing that we have never looked at the question of licensing laws from the viewpoint of their effect on the Civic Guards. We know, of course, that very large numbers of Guards have to be employed to defend these laws against the people and that considerable sums are spent every week in carrying out these duties. It is a great credit to the Guards that it is taken for granted that they will always do their duty, but it must be a tremendous strain on them. I do not suggest that the attitude of the Civic Guards to the licensing laws should be the basis for the laws that we should enact, but I do feel that it would be rather a sounder basis than the fact that some individual person had been personally incommoded during his Saturday night peregrinations on a tram-car.
There is another point of view from which I disapprove of the licensing laws, and that is because there are different kinds of trading, and no distinction is made between the trades at all, though there is no point of contact between them. There is what is known as stand-up drinking and also what is described as sit-down drinking. By stand-up drinking I mean the trade which is done in bars, theatres and hotels, and the other kind is the drinking that is done in connection with a cooked meal in a recognised restaurant. There is a tremendous distinction between those two trades, but there are exactly the same laws for both. For one thing, stand-up drinking concerns spirits and beers almost exclusively, and wine is invariably taken in sit-down drinking. There has always been an element of romance about drinking wine. We cannot, of course, always have the conditions laid down by Omar Khayyám, but "a jug of wine and thou" in Jammets or the Dolphin is not so bad when all is said and done.
There is another big distinction which is rather vital from my point of view, and that is that the sitting-down drinking is usually indulged in by people of rather better means than those who engage in the standing-up drinking. Consequently, if you tried to legislate for this trade, which is totally different from the other trade, you would be told that it was not democratic to make a distinction between the well-to-do and the not-so-well-to-do. That whole principle has gone completely overboard because we have already legislated in favour of the better-paid Dublin employee as against the less well-paid country person in the matter of Sunday opening. I do not feel that the question of democracy is concerned where it is a distinct trade. There is also the question of the tourist traffic. If our tourist traffic is to be confined entirely to charabanc trips for the denizens of Blackpool then there is nothing further to be done, but if we look to a rather better tourist trade we should try to provide tourists with such facilities as they are accustomed to at home and in every other country. The Minister was a little wrong in his comment on the tourist. He said in effect, that what was good enough for the Irish was good enough for the tourist.
I stand by that.
I agree with that, but I think the Irish should have the best.
They have that.
I do not at all think they have. Certainly I can remember immediately before the war French touring cars going about County Wicklow. They stayed late in the mountains to get the most they could out of the summer's day, and they came back to the city just as they would to any other city in the world, looking for some place where they could have food, wine, and perhaps music. There is absolutely nothing of that kind in Dublin because the restaurants that have licences cannot open after 10 o'clock. I have dealt with the principal points. I feel sure the Minister will not agree with me, that there are very large numbers of people, who, one way or another, treat the law with contempt. If what I say is true the Minister ought to be the last person to know anything about it, but I think he will agree with me that we are not a drunken people. He will agree with me still further that if we were a drunken people the amount of time that is provided for people to get drunk is ample for that purpose. The Minister may not drink but at least he knows that if I or anybody else desired to get drunk or was inclined to get drunk the time provided by the 10 o'clock closing is ample in which to do so. It cannot be said that time is what I would call the essence of the contract. Our principal fault is perversity, very largely due to our history. Too much puritanism and too much grandmotherly legislation for a people as perverse as we are is, I believe, a very great risk.
I have tried the patience of the House, but I wish to make a few suggestions as to what ought to be the lines on which we should proceed if there is going to be future legislation. First of all, I think the quality of many of our drinks is unnecessarily potent. I believe that we could reduce the potency of these drinks. In other countries they have tried to create a balance either by rationing drink or reducing the potency. I do not think rationing would work here, but we could reduce the potency of the drinks, and in regard to punishment, especially in motor accidents, in which drink is a factor, the expression "under the influence of drink" should not be used but instead we should use "drink taken".
I believe if the punishments were more severe, there would be less people doing things they should not do when under the influence of drink. I think also that there should be a sort of premises test, especially in matters of hygiene. In many public houses conditions of that kind are too revolting to talk about. The premises should be made as suitable as possible. The more splendid the surroundings in all probability the more splendidly people would behave. If there were a test of that kind in regard to premises it might have the effect of putting out of business many small houses that are little better than shebeens. I believe that, provided certain steps were taken, there should be ample supplies, ample time in which to drink and ample accommodation.
A play has been referred to and that play is over to-night, so that there is very little time if Senators want to see it. I do not intend to develop that. I want to say this: that this is a very good Bill in many ways, and the principal way in which it is good, and the principal feature in it is this effort to do away with the awful bona fide or alleged bona fide traffic around the City of Dublin. I believe that it will go a long way to stop that grave abuse. I do not know whether the statements made by Senator Robinson apply to the modern public house. The modern public house is a place of light and gaiety and all the rest, something approaching the German beer garden, except that in the cities it is under cover. I think the Minister made a mistake when he did not go in for more uniformity in Sunday opening. Dual Sunday opening is another good feature in the Bill which will be welcomed by the people generally. It will help family life very much on Sunday afternoons. It is unfortunate that the Minister did not make it four hours instead of the three and a half hours. I hope that when the Bill comes into operation the charges alleged by Senator Robinson will not be as evident as they are now. I hope that when it is law it will be insisted upon and that people will be made to obey the law. I welcome the Bill for the very good features that are in it but, of course, we cannot have matters all our own way.
I should like to avail of this opportunity to express my personal appreciation of the very fair and extremely satisfactory way the Minister has acted through these debates. He has tried to help the Seanad, and he has, I think, made it possible for us to try to make improvements in the Bill which, I very much hope, he will be able to carry through the other House.
The speech of Senator Robinson was, to my mind, a very good example of the great advantages that would accrue if we had no Whips in this House on all measures. Though I do not by any means agree with him entirely, I have a good deal of sympathy with his point of view. I was particularly glad to hear from his side of the House a protest against grandmotherly legislation. I hope that we shall hear the Senator again on that subject. He will have quite a lot of opportunities of speaking on it, judging by the extension of Government powers which we are getting from almost every Minister. I am sure that if the Senator speaks again on the subject he will be listened to with eagerness. I agree with him in this, that I would like to see the problem of intemperance or temperance, whatever way one cares to look at it, dealt with from the national point of view by some sincere and capable body of persons, a body forgetting, for the time being, what we have inherited from England in the way of licensing legislation, and seeing whether it is not possible to get the question viewed in a way that would not cause any risk, at the same time not necessarily tying ourselves up to the licensing laws which are a heritage of the past. If you had to start by immediately abolishing the licensing laws I would have to join issue with the Senator on that. I think it would be far too dangerous to do that, and I do not think the Senator really meant it.
I think that on the whole this is a good Bill. I am sure that every member of the House, representing every interest, hopes that the Minister will be able to deal with the so-called bona fide traffic. I think we are unanimous as far as that is concerned. Personally, I would like if the Bill were a bit more strict than it is. We all realise that the Minister has tackled this problem in a fair way. He has not allowed his own prejudices—I do not know whether he is a teetotaller or not —unduly to influence him in dealing with the Bill. Possibly Senator Robinson does not know that there are some people who sit down to meals and drink water. I simply mention that because he did not include water amongst the drinks to which he referred.
I desire to support Senator Robinson on one point, but I am not so satisfied in regard to another of his points. His first point was that the better a public house is—in its appointments—the better will be the conduct in it. In England, the public houses are, for the most part, tied to certain breweries both from the point of view of trade and in regard to the renewal of their licences. These breweries are always putting money aside for replacements and improvements. In this country a licence is issued to a respectable man, quite regardless of the condition of his premises. I feel it is time that legislation was introduced to try to bring about an improvement in the condition of the licensed houses in which our citizens take their refreshments. In England and in France, the premises in which refreshments are taken are conducted in a most orderly way. I hope the Minister will consider in what way pressure could be brought to bear to bring about an improvement in the licensed premises in this country.
I do not agree with Senator Robinson in the point he made in regard to the dilution of the various kinds of drinks served in this country. For example, John Jameson's whiskey, as sold in England, is reduced in strength by 30 per cent. compared to what we get here. That spoils the quality of it altogether. Another thing that leads to a lot of dissatisfaction in England is that you have various kinds of measures. That leads to all sorts of dishonesty so far as the customer is concerned. I think that a change in either direction would be wrong from the point of view of our people.
The Minister has had a troublesome time in getting this Bill through the two Houses to its present stage, but I think that he must have felt repaid for his trouble by the welcome that, in general, it got from this House. It seems to me that in particular he must have felt repaid by the speech that we have just heard from Senator Robinson. It was quite a stimulating speech, just as potent as any of the liquors that we have been hearing so much about. When listening to the Senator I could not help thinking of a certain Abbey described by Rabelais in which there was but one rule: everyone could do as he pleased. In regard to the liquor laws. Senator Robinson pleaded that everybody should be allowed to do as he pleased. But, unfortunately, human nature being what it is, both inside and outside Abbeys, that is not quite possible, and human nature cannot be allowed to do as it pleases. Hence Bills such as the present.
With regard to restrictions on the sale of intoxicating liquors, and especially the very potent ones that are general in this country, I know, of course, that the people of no nation can be made sober by legislation, but people can be helped to sobriety by legislation. The laws can be so framed that temptations may be lessened and restrictions put on abuses such as those that have developed around the so-called bona fide trade. As well as the promotion of such legislation we must also undertake the process of educating our people to respect the law. I do not take very seriously the stage farce to which the Senator referred about the Civic Guard and the bottle of stout. If the publican's discourse had such an effect on the Civic Guard, then it would seem to me that it would have a similar effect on the audience and would have the effect of emptying the theatre. I do not think, as I said, that we should take these quips and jokes very seriously. When I was young we had many stories published in The Shamrock and similar journals about the gauger and of the ruses taken to circumvent his activities. I suppose a modernisation of these stories centres round the Civic Guards visiting public houses during unlawful hours. That does not mean that we are encouraging people to break the laws or are in our hearts on the side of the law-breakers. The laws are of our own making, and are made to be observed.
Senator Robinson thinks that this legislation is a mere copying of English legislation. I do not think so at all, though, personally, I would have no objection to copying English legislation, or good legislation from any other country, if we were likely to get good tips from it. What we should aim at is making laws for the good of our people. By a process of education we should strive to make our people realise that these laws are made for their good, and that they should have respect for them. Though I do not think the Minister is quite satisfied with the Bill as it stands, still I believe everybody must admit that it is going a long way to solve some very serious problems. We all hope that it will have the effect of contributing to the happiness of our people's homes. No woman can be indifferent to that aspect of the question, and in the name of my sisters, I desire to thank the Minister for having introduced it.
I do not desire to delay the House except to pay a tribute to the Minister's forbearance while this Bill was under consideration. While we have some grievance left in respect of the hours, I do not think we have any grievance against the Minister for the manner in which he dealt with this problem. The Bill itself has been worth while, if only for the fact that it cuts out all drinking between midnight and 6 o'clock in the morning. I believe the Bill is worth while for that reform alone. Much of a certain type of crime was due to drinking between those hours. If that has been wiped out now the Bill will have been justified. So far as hours are concerned, Senator O'Donovan accused me of being inconsistent. I was inconsistent in the interests of the industry as a whole. I understand that certain decisions have been taken in regard to this Bill, but I hope they will not be brought into effect. If I have been inconsistent it was in the interests of peace and harmony in this industry. We have no complaint about the licensed grocers and vintners as a whole. They manage their business well having regard to the circumstances in which they have to conduct it, and I am sorry, for that reason, that the hours were not acceded to merely for the reason that it would have placated the assistants, and given them those four hours on Sundays. We have been inconsistent merely for that reason, and I only wish to compliment the Minister on his patience and forbearance and to congratulate him on bringing this very admirable piece of legislation into effect.
I want to say a few words, although I know little about public houses. I am not going to say that I have never been in one, but I do not think I have been in a public house half a dozen times in my life, and even after this Bill I would not care to be subjected to an examination on what the licensing hours are. I would like to say that I do not see why our public houses should not be more of the nature of real clubs instead of being places where people get drink only. If you go into a small village and want a cup of tea or some light refreshment you have great difficulty in procuring it, but you can get all kinds of drink.
I think that is wrong, and that we should try to encourage such places to keep general refreshments as well as strong drink. The public house should be a place into which families should be able to go, something more in the nature of a café or a club in the real sense of the word than a mere drinking place. One would imagine that well-managed places would keep that ideal in view. That seems to be as far as progress is feasible at present. It is at least the direction in which we could work. I do not know to what extent it can be helped by legislation, but public opinion should demand not only mixed houses, but places where the main inducement of the management is not the sale of drink. I think that idea is implicit in the trust houses in England—the manager's profits do not depend on the amount of drink he sells. I imagine here the test would not apply. The guiding influence of the person who runs a public house seems to be to avoid trouble. He has simply to uncork a bottle and pour out the drink, whereas to provide coffee and tea and other things means trouble. I would like to join in the tributes paid to the Minister for the accommodating manner in which he has met the House, and I would like to see the same kindly spirit brought into a great deal of other legislation that comes before us.
I wish to compliment the Minister on the manner in which he has received suggestions and done his best to produce a measure that is best in the interests of everybody. I was glad to hear Senator Robinson's speech. I would like to hear the Senator speaking more frequently. His remarks were very humorous and, at the same time, serious, but I do not know whether he intended to cast any reflection on the Civic Guards in the story which he told about the glass of foaming porter and the publican. Incidents of that sort may occur, but they would be isolated ones and not at all applicable generally. The Civic Guards are a very fine body of men, and I am sure he did not mean to suggest anything else. They are human but, generally speaking, they endeavour and have succeeded in carrying out the law in an excellent manner.
During the debate on the Committee and Report Stages, I moved certain amendments. Senator Campbell made a very nice reference which I greatly appreciate. Some of us might have had our little passages, but that is all over and we are all pleased with the results. I was forced into a certain position. The statement has been made that I was obviously representing the licensed trade. If that were so, I would have no apology whatever to make, but the fact is that I was drawn into a position by virtue of the fact that there are two sides to every story, and there is no doubt that the advocates of the assistants were very well represented here. I held that it was not a question of the hours the assistants would work or what would suit the publicans either, but that we wanted to do the best we could in the general interest. Seeing that that was the position and nobody was saying anything for the other side of the case, I took it up as well as I could. By far the greater number of publicans are people who engage one, two or three assistants and the number of hours at which houses have to be kept open as compared with the number of hours worked by each assistant differs a great deal.
I pointed out that there was a case to be made for those publicans and that the granting of an extra half-hour to a man with only one or two assistants would leave him with no leisure at all. I was doing my best, in accordance with my views, to do justice, and to give fair play to all sections. I hope the Bill will be the means of doing a lot of good. It will close down public houses between midnight and 6 in the morning. There were places around Dublin where houses opened at midnight on Sunday night after closing at 8 the same evening. It is a good thing to have that stopped. I hope that the Bill will become law in practically the same form as it leaves this House. Very little change that would be of any benefit can be made in the Dáil, and I hope the Minister will convey the views of this House there.
I rise to join with Senator Robinson in hoping that some day the whole question of our licensing legislation will be brought under review, and that we will proceed on entirely different lines from what I might describe as the patch-work quilt of licensing laws we have inherited over a period of years from a country where conditions are not by any means necessarily the same as they are here. I would like to join in the tribute to the Minister for the way he handled this Bill in the House, and for the accommodating manner in which he received all suggestions. As regards the Bill itself, I can only say this about it, that the Minister has succeeded in making certain improvements. He has made improvements in regard to the bona fide trade by providing for a complete shut-down at midnight. He has made improvements which will abolish bona fide abuses in the neighbourhood of Dublin. He has also given much more reasonable facilities in the county borough areas on Sundays.
But the fact of the matter is that, despite those improvements, the 1927 Act, in my opinion, was a bad Act, and the best that can be said for this Bill is that it is an improvement on that Act. Even if the Minister had accepted my suggestion that the bona fide traffic should be abolished under all circumstances, and had adopted a system of general opening throughout the country on Sundays, I would still maintain that the Bill was only a slight improvement on the 1927 Act. I do not think we will ever have a really satisfactory licensing code, and one which will have the respect of the public in this country, until we adopt some suggestion such as Senator Robinson has made, and scrap all our patchwork licensing legislation and start afresh on new and more reasonable lines.
I said at one stage during the debate that I wished I had had the luck to bring the Bill in here in the first instance, because, having gone to the other House, I felt that I was a bird alone. At one stage I actually cried out to ask if there was anyone in the House to help me at all. I got the very prompt response that I was trying to do something which was not the business of Parliament—that I was trying to make people saints by legislation. Here, in this House, I found far more extreme views than I have. I would not agree with those either, but I must say that, taking the debate generally here, I found much more support of my views than I found in the other House. If I had got that support in the other House, I would have stuck to my proposal to do away with the bona fide business altogether except on Sundays, because I believe it is a complete farce. It simply meant and means that, I would say, in 90 per cent. of the cases people are drinking outside the county boroughs later than they are really entitled to drink. They went out for no other purpose, but the trouble was to prove that. We could not prove it. To the extent to which it is possible to do that now, the Bill is a great improvement. Personally, I should prefer to have every place open until 12 o'clock, rather than that they should close in one place and remain open in another, because I know that what is called the bona fide trade is not a genuine one. That is why I must admit that I was disappointed— although I did want the 10 o'clock closing in the cities—when the half hour was knocked off in the cities. People have to stop drinking now at 10 o'clock in the cities, but if they go out to a place like Coolock or Templeogue they can drink until 12 o'clock. The fact that there is a two hours' gap makes it more likely that that will happen.
On the whole, I would say that the Bill is an improvement on the 1927 Act, and I am pleased that that is so. When I left the other House I felt that I really had got public opinion on the matter; I do not know anywhere else I could get it, because the members there are representatives of all classes, elected by the people. On the matter of the bona fide business, I felt that I was probably a little bit too extreme, and that there was no use in trying to abolish it when public opinion was against its abolishment. I believe that I would have fared better if I had started here in this House, but, having agreed in the Dáil to let the bona fide trade continue until 12 o'clock, I did not feel justified in turning it down when I arrived in this House, although that was my own personal wish. Similarly, when I go back to the Dáil I will try to get them to accept what was passed here. I do not like the difference between 10 o'clock and 10.30; it rather spoils the Bill, but it cannot be helped. It was well debated here, and there was a division on that point. As far as I can, I will press the acceptance of the amendments put in by the Seanad, and I hope they will be agreed to.
I have to thank Senators for the way they received me. It is not usual to get bouquets thrown at one like that, but this debate particularly ought to be, and I think on the whole was, on a non-party basis; the matter was approached on its merits. My object simply was to deal with a grievance. I was not going to have a general revision of the licensing code, because I realised that a point of view like that expressed by Senator Robinson would have to be adverted to, and if there was anything of that kind being done something more than a Bill introduced by a Minister would be needed; there would have to be a general inquiry, and all the rest of it. All I was hoping to do was to deal with a clear abuse, and that was drinking at night time. It may continue, but I hope it will not. I hope that the Civic Guards and the justices will deal severely with any cases of drinking after hours. Up to the present, there was the excuse that you could not tell whether the person was entitled to be there or not. Now, there is no excuse.
It is quite clear that, from 12 midnight until 6 o'clock, no person has the right to be drinking on licensed premises. I think the play to which Senator Robinson referred would be much better without that sort of thing, and I do not think it is quite true. There may be an odd case where the Civic Guards will do that, but on the whole they do their duty as well as possible. You have exceptions all right; there will be a chance of dealing with those exceptions. I am saying this because I want the Civic Guards and the justices throughout the country to realise that we are in earnest about this matter; we want to put down this nasty sort of drinking that goes on. In conclusion, I want to thank the Senators for the reception they have given me.
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered: That the Bill, with amendments, be returned to the Dáil.