Seanad Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 27 Nov 1946

Vol. 33 No. 2

Public Business. - Intoxicating Liquor Bill, 1946— Second Stage.

Question proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

Minister for Industry and Commerce (Mr. Lemass)

As Senators will have noted, the intention of this Bill is to enable Bord na Móna to provide facilities for the sale of liquor at some of their turf camps. It is intended to permit the board to sell beer and stout to their workers at such of their camps as are situated at a distance from suitable licensed premises. Senators are, no doubt, aware that most of the bogs to be developed, under the scheme which was outlined in the White Paper circulated in connection with the Act recently passed, and, indeed, many of the bogs at present developed by the board, are in isolated areas. It is desirable that the camps should adjoin the bogs in all cases. It has been found by experience that the lack of facilities for obtaining refreshment and recreational opportunities which are usually available at centres of population imposes a real hardship on men living in those isolated camps. That position is likely to be intensified as these camps are established in more remote localities. As Senators can well imagine, community life of itself is irksome to most of the workers and we think that everything should be done to provide for their ordinary needs. Particularly during the harvesting season, their work is very heavy and it is unreasonable to ask men who have done hard work from dawn to dark on a turf bog during the harvest season, to walk four or five miles, or more, for a drink at the end of the day. The provision of these facilities will be a considerable contribution to the contentment of the workers concerned.

I would like to make it clear that the powers which the House is asked to confer on the Minister for Industry and Commerce by this Bill will not be used at random. I indicated in the Dáil that it will be a condition of the grant of a licence to the board or to an officer of the board to sell drink at a turf camp, that the camp should be situated at a distance from a suitable licensed premises. If there is a suitable licensed premises within a radius of, say, two miles from the camp, then a licence will not be given. It is not desired that there should be a conflict with existing private trading interests. There was a suggestion that the sale of drink in the camps should be let by contract, that private trading firms should have the opportunity to obtain that business. I did not agree and would, in fact, strongly oppose any such suggestion. I think it is desirable that, if there are canteen facilities provided within the boundaries of the camp, they should be provided by the board through its officers, under conditions which they think it reasonable to impose, and that the element of private trading for private profit should not be introduced. If the licences for the sale of drink were let out by contract and private firms operating for private profit were engaged in the businss, their concern would be to sell as much as possible and make the business as profitable as possible. I think it is far better that, if facilities have to be provided, they should be provided by the camp authorities under such restrictions as they think will not conflict with the maintenance of proper conditions in the camp and the general welfare of the workers.

Arrangements will be made to ensure that the general conditions applying to the licensed trade in the locality, including the hours during which liquor may be supplied, will be observed. These hours will not be exceeded, but may be less than the hours during which licensed premises may open. It is the intention of the board to confine the facilities at their camps to the sale of beer and not to extend them to the sale of spirits; and, generally, to make provision as limited as, in their opinion, will serve the purpose they have in mind.

The device which the Bill provides for the issue of licences to the camp superintendent or canteen manager employed by the board effectively secures that there will be no proprietary interest in the licence. It will be held by the board's officer ex officio so long as he is in charge of the camp or canteen. If he loses that post for any reason; if he is disemployed, promoted or transferred to some other position in the board's service, then the licence issued to him will be cancelled and another licence will be issued to his successor. In that way, no proprietary interest whatever will be created. When the bog becomes exhausted and the camp can be closed, the licence can be cancelled, also, without difficulty.

The procedure adopted in this Bill is based somewhat upon the precedent of the Act passed here to permit of the sale of intoxicating liquor at airports. Under that Act, licences are issued by the Revenue Commissioners on the certificate of the Minister for Industry and Commerce. That is the device adopted here. The effect of that device is to change the procedure set out in the Licensing Acts for the issue of licences, but otherwise it is intended that this Bill will form part and parcel of the whole licensing code. The intention would be that no person, other than those resident in the camp, would ordinarily be served with liquor at the camp canteen, but an exception might be made in the case of officials of the board going to the camp for supervisory purposes or other persons attending at the camp, in the company of officials of the board, for business purposes. Ordinarily, however, sales will be permitted only to residents of the camp——

Mr. Sweetman

Suppose the Minister and I go there?

Mr. Lemass

I suppose we shall be going on business. I feel sure that the House will agree with the purpose of the Bill—the provision of limited facilities at camps in isolated areas where a number of workers will be congregated for whom the opportunity of obtaining a drink at the end of the day will make for general contentment. The procedure adopted in the Bill may be open to question but I think that it is the most practicable in all the circumstances. A great deal must be left to the determination of the Minister for Industry and Commerce. I have used the term "suitable licensed premises in the vicinity of the camp". I want to make clear that I could not avoid inserting the adjective in that sentence. If facilities suitable for the number of workers resident in the camp are provided by private traders in the vicinity of the camp, a licence will not be given. If there is a suitable premises within a radius of about two miles, a licence will not be given. The camps at Newbridge or Edenderry would not require wet canteen facilities, because licensed premises in the vicinity of the camps are available. It would be in respect of camps distant from any town, with no licensed premises in the neighbourhood, that licences would be issued.

If it is agreed that facilities should be provided at those camps, then, I think that the method proposed in the Bill is the most suitable. It ensures not merely that there will be proper supervision of the conduct of the canteen but that the board will be able to take steps to provide for the operation of the canteens within their camps in a way not detrimental either to the comfort or convenience of workers who do not want to avail of the canteen and in a way which will not affect the general efficiency of the board's operations.

Mr. Sweetman

The House will generally agree with the principle upon which this Bill is based—that there should be adequate facilities for men employed in the turf camps in the way of wet canteens. With that principle in regard to camps situated in isolated areas, I am in agreement. Apart from anything else, where there are adequate facilities, there is less tendency to abuse. When facilities are adequate, excess is less likely than when people have to adopt hole and corner methods to get what they want. While I entirely agree with that principle and, because I agree with it, will support the Second Reading of the Bill, I am afraid the case made by the Minister was one for a Bill which is not the Bill before us. The case made by the Minister—a very proper case—was in respect of a camp at such a place as Sheean, which we visited on an excursion during the year. There were no facilities within a reasonable distance of that camp. My objection to the Bill is in respect of the device utilised to make it operative. We, on these benches, have frequently said that one of our real anxieties is the manner in which more and more power is being drawn from the courts to the Executive. This is another example in a small-way of the manner in which the power of the court to stand as arbiter as between the private individual and the all-powerful State is being removed and is being put into the hands—I do not say this in any offensive way—of unknown civil servants. We all appreciate that Ministers cannot personally act in every matter which comes before their Departments. The function of the court in any democracy is to serve as a weighing-scales and secure that, as between citizen and citizen, there will be fair play and that, as between the State and the citizens, there will be the same fair play.

The Minister could have achieved, as I hope to persuade him on Committee Stage, what he wants in another way, without cutting across the function of the courts. It is common knowledge that some establishments here have a great many branches. There are all over the city licensed premises belonging to the same company. The court recognises that and grants to the managing director of the company concerned the licence, which he holds for the company and appoints himself manager of the several premises. The same procedure could have been adopted here. The managing director of Bord na Móna could have been permitted to make application for the licence and to proceed in the same way. I know that the Minister's objection to what I propose to suggest will be that there would be frequent changes. If that device were adopted, there would not be frequent changes. It is not a new device. It is the principle underlying the Intoxicating Liquor Acts. Instead of proceeding as set out in Section 2, it could be provided that the Circuit Court, instead of the Minister, would have to be satisfied as to the necessity of the licence. The population of Crumlin, for example, is growing day by day. It is the Circuit Court which must be satisfied that, as a result of that growth of population, there are not sufficient facilities for the sale of intoxicating liquor and that a transfer of a licence from the older part of the city may be permitted. Why should not the Circuit Court be satisfied by Bord na Móna that there are not adequate facilities in respect of a particular camp? Why should Bord na Móna be put in a special position? Why should not Bord na Móna satisfy the court that it would be right and proper that a licence should be given in respect of a camp at Sheean, that licence being given to the managing director of Bord na Móna, who would appoint a manager of the canteen? In that way, you would not be cutting through the Intoxicating Liquor Acts. You would be giving local, private traders an opportunity of going into court and making the case that there were already sufficient facilities provided by private enterprise near that camp and that it was not necessary for Bord na Móna to set up a canteen. It would be for the court to stand fairly between the public enterprise of Bord na Móna and the private enterprise of traders and make a decision. In that way, you would give more satisfaction to local private traders than is possible under the Bill as framed by the Minister.

In Kildare, private traders have spent a great deal of money in recent years in enlarging and extending their premises in order to provide facilities for men coming to the turf camps near them. It would be only reasonable that these traders should be given the opportunity of saying in open court that they were already providing facilities for the men at the camps. The objection could not then be raised that they had not got an opportunity of stating their case. The precedent quoted by the Minister I do not regard as entirely parallel. An airport is not in the same position as a turf camp. There will not be many airports. Because of the necessity for space, these ports will be miles away from the premises of private traders. The people to be provided for may be birds of passage. That is not a correct parallel with the turf camps which have been erected.

The Minister stated, for the first time, that no spirits would be sold in those camps. That is not contained in the Bill. If that had been provided for in the Bill—Senator O'Dea will agree with me in this—the licence could have been limited to that of a beer dealer. The Bill provides that not only beer and stout but also those drinks which go by the description "hard" should be provided by the canteens of Bord na Móna. I just want to stress the fact that I am in favour of proper facilities being provided, but I think that the manner in which the Minister is ensuring that does not give a fair chance to the individual who has already an established business of showing that he is providing facilities, and of having his claim in that respect determined by an independent person such as the Circuit Court judge.

Mr. Honan

I have some knowledge of this business and I think that the Bill, in its general layout, is quite all right. What I am anxious to know is what facilities or amenities will be provided for the men in the camps who do not take intoxicating liquor. It is likely that there will be very many young fellows employed there. Will facilities be provided for them to get a cup of coffee or a cup of tea with a sandwich? I should also like to know if a hall will be provided for amusements, so that the men in the camp can have an opportunity of playing cards or other games. I think it would be a very good idea if that were done. The Minister has been very fair in not interfering with established businesses, where they exist. As I have said, I hope that amusement facilities will be provided and also refreshments for those who do not drink beer or stout. It is important that young people should be able to amuse themselves at night. Otherwise, life in the camp would become very monotonous for them. If amusements are provided for them, then they may not spend very much of their time in the canteen, and that, of course, would be all to their benefit.

Miss Pearse

I am interested in this Bill. I know that there are many people outside the House who are very uneasy about it for fear the proposal it contains might throw unnecessary temptation in the way of such young people as Senator Honan referred to. I should like to be assured that whatever facilities are provided for those young people will be in a place that is completely separated from what one may call the ordinary wet canteen. There should be a place provided for those who do not wish to take intoxicating drink, a place where they can amuse themselves or, perhaps, take a bottle of lemonade or coffee or tea. Otherwise, there might be the danger for some of those young people who would go into the canteen, not for the purpose of taking drink but for the sake of being in company and for a bit of conviviality. Steps should be taken to see that there would be no need for them to do that. I would urge that a place should be set apart for them which would have no connection with the canteen, a place where they can enjoy themselves and, as I have said, get a cup of coffee or a cup of tea. I was pleased to hear that spirits are not to be sold in this canteen. I hope that my suggestions with regard to the men in the camp, whether they are young or old, who do not take drink, will be carried out and that they will have a separate place in which to enjoy themselves.

Professor Johnston

For once in a way I find myself thoroughly in sympathy with the measure proposed by the Minister. I think that life in these turf camps must be pretty grim, and it is only right that the workers should have every amenity to cheer them in their somewhat lonely occupation. I think it is quite absurd to pretend that the ordinary individual does not like a drink occasionally. Most people, I think, are convinced that a reasonable amount of Guinness, or other drink, is good for one. I think that the method proposed in this Bill is one which not only solves that problem, but, perhaps, gives a headline for an approach to it on a wider basis. In particular, I welcome the proposal that the element of private profit is, in this case, taken out of the sale of alcoholic drink. I would like if it were possible to apply the same principle to the sale of intoxicating liquor generally. However, that would carry me beyond the scope of this Bill.

I think it is in order to refer to a precedent, in connection with this kind of proposal, which occurred in England. I am not against referring to British precedents when I think they favour a course which I personally approve. During World War No. 1 there was a munition establishment somewhere in the neighbourhood of Carlisle. The whole operations of that concern were thrown into chaos by reason of the fact that there was excessive drinking going on, which resulted from the fact that there were too many publichouses there which had a vested interest in encouraging excessive drinking. For the sake of public order and to promote efficient work, the Government of the day had to take control of the drink traffic. It had to do so in the form of establishing its own canteens for the sale of intoxicating drink to the workers. In that way it did away with all the social abuses associated with excessive drinking there. I believe to this day these publichouses are still functioning under public control and are doing useful social service. I wish the same principle could be applied to the sale of intoxicating drink generally.

Mr. Quirke

There may be a good argument against this Bill, but if there is we have not heard it so far. I was amazed to find Senator Sweetman, a public representative, as I suppose he is coming from a bog area and finding fault with the Bill. He suggested that this was wrong with it and that was wrong with it, and that, because certain people had spent a certain amount of money in improving their premises in the County Kildare, therefore no reasonable argument could be put up for providing these canteens.

Mr. Sweetman

I never said that.

Mr. Quirke

The Senator did not say that, but that is exactly what he meant.

Mr. Sweetman

The Senator is adopting his usual habit of twisting everything I say.

Mr. Quirke

I have not had as much practice in twisting as the Senator or the members of his Party, but I am sure that if I follow their example I will become good at it.

Mr. Sweetman

You have done a good deal of it since 1922.

Mr. Quirke

If you keep twisting a little more you will soon be around to our point of view, and perhaps that would be good for the country. The suggestion has been made that, under the provisions of this Bill, private property and vested interests are going to be interfered with. Anybody who knows anything is well aware that the people who are responsible for the running of these bogs are not going to look for trouble. As the Minister has pointed out, no canteens will be set up where proper facilities are available locally. The Minister mentioned a radius of two miles. To my mind that radius of two miles is somewhat on the generous side. It is a little bit too far to expect a man to walk after a hard day's work if he wants to have a drink in the evening. However, the Minister's statement was not too definite, and I take it that, unless adequate provision is made within a radius of two miles, he will allow a canteen to be set up on the bog. I did not interpret the Minister's statement as indicating that no spirits will be sold in the canteens. I think some Senators did say that no spirits will be sold there. I am inclined to think that, if workers on the bog want spirits, they ought to be able to get them.

Listening to the speeches made by Senator Johnston and other Senators one would imagine that the men working on the bogs were somewhat different from the people who live in our cities and towns. I think I know as much about those working on the bogs as most other members of the House. I can say this, that the general run of people working on the bogs are as well able to take care of themselves as any of the people living in our towns and cities are. If a reasonable argument can be put up for preventing the men working on turf production from getting any kind of intoxicating liquor which they may desire, then the same argument can be applied to the people in the towns and cities.

To my mind, until we have a definite drive to bring about a state of prohibition in this country no reasonable argument can be put up for preventing the men on the bogs from getting a drink if they want it. I would say that probably 49 per cent. of the men on the bogs would want to have a pint or, perhaps, two pints of stout in the evening after their work, but suppose there is someone working on the bog who, because of stomach trouble or other ailment, feels that he should not drink stout—his doctor may have ordered him not to drink it—why should he be prevented from having a half of whiskey if he wants it? There may be 19 out of 20 who would prefer the pint of stout, but a man of the type that I speak of should be able to have his half of whiskey if he finds that it is better for him.

A good deal can be said in favour of the argument put forward by Senator Miss Pearse that suitable provision should be made for those who do not want to take intoxicating drink. They should be able to get a cup of coffee or a cup of tea. I have no doubt that those in charge of the camps will make suitable provision in that regard. Members of the House who made a tour of the bogs about 12 months ago had an opportunity of seeing for themselves the provision that is made in practically every camp for amusements. Halls are provided in which concerts are held and in these concerts the workers themselves participate, and their efforts are quite commendable. I would like to stress this, that the men who are working on the bogs are not the wild men that they are supposed to be. They are quite well able to look after themselves.

I think it is quite necessary that the facilities to be provided for workers under this Bill should be provided. As regards certain camps, where local publichouses were available practically beside the camp, it was nothing unusual to find that men wanted to go to those particular camps rather than to those which were five or six miles away from a publichouse. I think there is something in the suggestion that if a man has to travel four or five miles for a drink he may feel that he should do himself well, so that instead of taking one or two drinks on one night he may decide that it would be as well if he took enough drink for two or three nights. In that way abuses could take place. On the other hand, I believe that, if drink were available in a canteen at the camp and if a man knew that he could get a drink when he felt he wanted one, there would be no danger whatever of abuses taking place. I think the abuses in such cases would be few and far between. I think the Bill serves a useful purpose, and that it should have the wholehearted support of the House. I can quite understand, of course, that people should have doubts as to what may happen in certain circumstances, but if the board is to be responsible not only for the running of the camps but for placing a man in charge of each camp, then I feel sure there will be no reason for complaint. For these reasons, I think we should give the Bill our wholehearted support.

Mr. Baxter

Every time he launches into a debate in this House, Senator Quirke reminds me of the man who heard that somebody said something about him, and who waylaid this poor, unfortunate man, jumped out from behind the fence and hammered him for saying that something which, probably, he never said. That is Senator Quirke's technique; that is the kind of approach he makes in reply to Senator Sweetman's very reasoned and fair examination of the Bill. There was no necessity for Senator Quirke to get so hot and bothered——

Mr. Quirke

It is a good job there is agreement in the Opposition, for once.

Mr. Baxter

——and to pretend there were certain arguments against the Bill. There never were. Whatever opposition there was to the Bill it came from Senator Miss Pearse, who sits behind Senator Quirke, and she made her case in a calm, reasoned way. Most of us have been to the bogs and we know what they are like. We want the work there to continue to progress. I am quite convinced that you must make the conditions for the men as tolerable as possible. Senator Sweetman did not oppose this Bill at all. He says it is quite reasonable that these men should have certain facilities provided for them. He said nothing against the men working in the bogs. I do not know to whom Senator Quirke was replying. There was nothing said about the men, and the Senator need not try to be their champion when there is nobody talking against them. The Senator should improve his technique in this respect in the future.

It is only right that a Bill of this type should be fairly examined. Senator Sweetman made a case which, I think, is quite reasonable. His suggestion was that it is not the Minister who should have the authority to grant the licence—that that should be done by the Circuit Court judge. Senator Quirke did not deal with that point at all.

Mr. Quirke

Senator Baxter would be wise if he did not deal with it either.

Mr. Baxter

Senator Quirke carefully and deliberately avoided dealing with it. Nobody objects to Bord na Móna getting a licence to serve intoxicating drinks and nobody suggests they are not competent to supply this service. There would be general agreement that it would be more conscientiously done by them than if it were handed over to private enterprise. What is objected to is the method by which they are to be given this authority.

I do not know that there is any comparison between the case made by the Minister with regard to the airports and the case made for these turf camps. It seems to me that the Bill is so wide you could have these premises anywhere, in Cavan or Mayo, even apart from the bogs operated by Bord na Móna. I see nothing in the Bill that would prevent me getting a licence for a hut in a bog in Cavan, if I could get around the Minister. Perhaps some of the lawyers in the House will clear up that point. I do not see Bord na Móna mentioned anywhere in the Bill, and perhaps the Minister will explain why that is so. I believe there should be some reference to the bogs operated by Bord na Móna, to whom this authority will be given.

Senator Sweetman makes the case that where a permit is to be granted for the establishment of a wet canteen, if we may so classify it, the people who have an interest in the sale of intoxicating liquor in the area ought to have an opportunity of going to court and making a case there as to why there should not be an extension of licensing facilities in that district. A number of us in the House have experience of applications for new licences in certain districts and we are aware the clergy of the district have gone into the court and given their views as to why the licence should not be granted. I have knowledge of such an application before a Circuit Court in my county, and a licence was refused in a very wide district where it could well be argued that there were no facilities.

The Minister, later on, and perhaps Bord na Móna, may have to meet a kind of criticism that may not be fair because of the procedure that will be adopted in giving this authority to the Minister. I seriously suggest it would be much sounder from the point of view of the status of Bord na Móna to alter the procedure so that it would be open to anybody and everybody who can see objection to this being done to go to a court and make a protest.

I think the Minister is justified in taking this step. I am quite satisfied that some men working in a bog will take a bottle of stout or a pint of beer if they can get it, and some will not. It does not matter whether the temptation is near or far, if men do not wish to take it they will not be tempted. But, if men take it and have to go a long distance to get it, they will take more when they go there than if it were close to them. They will probably stay out at night, will not get proper rest and will not be as efficient next day, and probably next evening they will be off again and their capacity to work will not be nearly so good as if this extra travel were not put upon them. Then again, they are not a good influence amongst the other workers.

Psychologically, this is a much better approach to the whole problem. These men are isolated and the work can only be done in isolation. You must make the conditions as tolerable as possible. That would be my defence of the step the Minister is taking, but I cannot make a defence of the methods he is adopting. I believe that, under the Minister for Justice and through the procedure in the ordinary courts, this authority ought to be given to Bord na Móna and, from every point of view, that will turn out to be the much more satisfactory way.

Mr. Foran

Is the Minister in earnest when he says that the people working on the bogs cannot get spirits? My reason for asking that is that pubs are notorious places for leprechauns and spirits are an aid to seeing them. Where are the profits from these canteens to go? There is no provision made in the Bill in that respect. I am entirely in favour of the Bill, but, so far as these licensing facilities are concerned, there will be a very definite profit and, when that profit is made, who is to benefit by it? Is it the consumer or the camp in general? I would like some information on that point, because I think it is important.

Reference has been made to the facilities already provided for camp workers and, as one of those who had the pleasure of going around the camps, I must say I was very pleased to see the facilities provided for the enjoyment of the workers and particularly for sports in all these camps. Judging by what I saw, there is a very high standard of sport, and amusement facilities generally, among these people. I do not know that the setting-up of a canteen, where these people can get a normal amount of drink, will in any way hamper efficiency in the sports field or in the field of work. I think it will help in both cases and, consequently, I am in favour of the Bill.

I am not in favour of Senator Sweetman's attitude to the Bill. He seems to be concerned mainly with bringing grist to the lawyers' mills. He complains that the Minister will have power to license these facilities for canteens. I think he ought to have. I do not think it ought to be within the power of anybody in the neighbourhood of a pub to oppose the setting-up of these facilities in a turf camp, thus putting everybody concerned in providing a facility which is desirable and necessary, to enormous expenditure. I hope the Minister will tell us what he intends to do with regard to the profits which will accrue from the setting-up of these canteens on the bogs. I believe the workers themselves should derive some benefit from these profits.

Mrs. Concannon

Before Senator Foran rose to speak, I was about to ask the Minister what will be done with the profits. I would like to make the suggestion that these profits should be earmarked for the benefit of the workers and should be utilised in providing amusements and other advantages for them, such as billiard tables and, perhaps, a library. I certainly think that Bord na Móna should not be permitted to take any profit out of these canteens; they should not be allowed to keep the money, as would happen in an ordinary licensed business, and I suggest it should be earmarked definitely for the benefit of the workers.

I am in favour of this Bill and I do not think the Minister has any great need to justify it. It arises logically from our attitude towards prohibition. We do not believe in prohibition. We believe in temperance and we believe spirituous liquors are not diabolical things at all. It is the abuse of them that is the trouble. If we can train our people to a right use of spirituous drinks, we will be doing a good day's work. I believe strongly in that.

I expect that there was some misunderstanding in supposing that whiskey would not be sold. Whiskey is a very wholesome drink. I do not drink it myself, but I believe that good whiskey is a very good thing, in moderation. I am reminded that when I was a girl there was a man working for my family and he took his whiskey neat. When someone thought it would be a good thing if he were to mix it with water he said that he would not do so; he had an iron stomach and the water might rust it. For that reason he drank his whiskey neat. We gave him good whiskey and he lived to a ripe old age. I have nothing to say against whiskey. I think whiskey is a very good thing, if taken in moderation, and if these camps contribute to our taking a right view of intoxicating drinks, I feel they will be playing a good rôle in the education of our country.

Mr. S. Ruane

Every fair-minded person will agree with the idea at the back of this Bill, that is, providing the people engaged in the laborious work of turf production with facilities for getting a drink at the end of their day's labour, without having to travel a long journey. But the method of approach seems to be far more laborious than is necessary. I do not see why private enterprise should not get an opportunity to cater for the workers in this matter as it is allowed to in the case of other undertakings. For instance, private enterprise looks after various social functions, such as race meetings, dances and other gatherings. If licensed traders were given an opportunity of tendering for these canteens on the bogs, the successful contractor would have to carry out his duties as a publican and obey the provision of the ordinary licensing law. He would be responsible for supplying all kinds of drink, soft and hard, and he would also have the responsibility of providing light luncheons, teas, coffee or bovril for such of his patrons as are of a temperate turn of mind. I think that would be a solution of this matter and it would give the licensed traders an opportunity of competing. Without doubt, the best or the most reputable trader would be selected and the idea at the back of the Minister's mind would be carried into effect without drawing Bord na Móna into the licensed trade. I thoroughly approve of the idea behind the Bill—to afford facilities for refreshment to men engaged in this necessary work—but I think that the method of approach is wrong.

Mr. Kehoe

I have no intention of opposing this Bill. I am very pleased with the way in which everybody has received it. That is very flattering and I should hate to strike a jarring note. I am not interested in the legal jargon as to how the Bill will be put into operation but I should like to say a few words—they will be very few—as to the principle behind the Bill. This is a Bill designed to make it more easy for the turf workers to get refreshments after hours of work and to allow them to get such refreshment in proximity to their place of work. A two mile limit has been mentioned. The fact that they would have to walk two miles would not be a bad thing, because, if they over-did matters, they would have sufficient time to walk the effects off. I question whether enabling them to get liquid refreshment on the premises will make for temperance. As we are providing facilities for people to get more drink, I should like to plead, with others who spoke on the question, for amenities for those neglected members of the population known as teetotallers. I plead that amenities "without overflowing, full" be provided for those who do not take drink as well as for those who must have a drink after their day's work, whether it does them any good or not. The teetotallers should be provided with facilities equal to those provided for consumers of intoxicating drink and they should be provided with a place apart from the canteen. "The means to do ill deeds make ill deeds done." Young fellows coming into the turf camp from the country should be afforded opportunities of engaging in their particular recreation without being subjected to the temptations of the canteen. It is a peculiar thing that those men who are described as "hard" should need a drink after their day's work. It is quite possible that they do need it but it is also a fact that a teetotaller suffers a very heavy handicap as compared with the man who drinks even moderately. We all know that a teetotaller is never forgiven any lapse; he is supposed to be impeccable. The other man, who is "hard," is forgiven everything and we are told that the poor devil could not help it.

I may seem to be a kill joy or "pussy-foot" but I cannot stomach some of the arguments on this Bill. Nevertheless, I am not to be taken as opposing the Bill. Far from it. The freedom of the subject demands every possible mark of respect. But my gorge rises when I think of all those Bills which have been implemented and added to simply for the purpose of making the task of the "hard" man easier than it is—and it is easy enough in all conscience. Everybody bows the knee to Baal. I do not want to be butchered to make a topers' holiday or anything like that but I ask the Minister to see that amenities are provided for teetotallers equal to those provided for the others and that they should not be compelled to frequent the canteen where beer or spirits are sold. Incidentally, the contradistinction between beer and spirits leaves me cold. I do not see why the frequenters of these canteens should not be permitted, as in the case of Timothy, to take a little wine for their stomachs' sake.

I join with Senator Miss Pearse and Senator Mrs. Concannon in asking the Minister to make things as pleasant as possible for the teetotallers in those camps, commensurate with the exigencies of the situation, because they will have to contend with many temptation. Their case is hard enough without being subjected to extra temptation. Perhaps I spoke a little more strongly than I had intended to, but I hope that my remarks were germane to the issue.

Mr. Hawkins

Listening to previous speakers on the subject of interference with private enterprise and on the method of applying for these licences, I came to the conclusion that they did not realise where these canteens are to be situated. They had in view, I think, that these camps would be situated adjacent to thickly-populated areas where private enterprise in the intoxicating liquor trade exists. The bogs I know in which work is proceeding and the bogs which are to be developed are very far removed from areas of this kind. The bogs where it is proposed to apply for licences are situated in what one might describe as a wilderness. There should be no danger whatever of interfering with private enterprise, because private enterprise could not exist in those areas. In the case of one bog where it is proposed to set up a camp, it would, probably, be necessary to go to two or three district justices to get a licence in the ordinary way to open a public house.

Mr. Sweetman

That is impossible.

Mr. Hawkins

The owners of the few licensed premises within a radius of 20 miles could claim that they were near enough to the bog about to be developed, and they could engage solicitors and counsel to oppose the application for a licence. The suggestion has been made that we are making facilities available for intemperance. I do not agree any more than I would agree that a man who removed from a town in which there were few public houses to a town in which there were a larger number would be under greater temptation to become a drunkard. I agree with those speakers who have said that workers who go to those camps are entitled, if they so wish, to have facilities for refreshment. These camps will provide cooking facilities, dining halls and recreation halls, and it is only natural that those men who wish to have a drink in the evening, or at any other time, should have the facilities for obtaining it. I do not think that that would lead to any greater excess than at present. The only serious opposition, if I may so describe it, to the Bill has been offered on the ground that the legal profession are not given the opportunities they might have if the present system of applying for licences were continued. I think that the Minister for Industry and Commerce, who is responsible to this House for the functioning of Bord na Móna, is the proper person to grant these licences.

Mr. O'Dea

I do not agree with Senator Foran or Senator Hawkins that Senator Sweetman's opposition was due to the small loss that would accrue to lawyers because it would be unnecessary to make application for a licence in court. The amount which lawyers receive on such an application is very small. There is, probably, more spent on advertising the application than the solicitor gets for supporting or opposing it. I am against Senator Sweetman's idea. He is looking at the interest of the local publicans. The local publicans are getting trade which they never expected, owing to the setting up of those camps. It must be remembered that no licence can be granted for the sale of intoxicating liquor unless the house was licensed on or before the 1st October, 1902. Therefore, all those licences were granted before there was any idea of developing those bogs. Accordingly, these houses have got an influx of custom which they never anticipated. Even though licences are granted for the sale of beer and porter in the camps, these traders will get a good deal of that custom.

There is another reason why it should be unnecessary to make application in court. The work is seasonal and lasts only during certain months. The licence is, therefore, different from the ordinary licence, which runs from the 10th October to the 10th October the following year. Application for a licence in the ordinary way is, therefore, entirely unnecessary and it is much better that the Minister should have the power he seeks. As he says, he will not give a licence unless the camp is situate, at least, two miles from a publichouse. I am not so sure about going so far as that but that is his intention, and it is, probably, right. I am very glad that there is no intention to sell whiskey in the camp. If people are working hard and want a drink, I think that beer or porter provides much better refreshment than whiskey and leads to less drunkenness and fewer rows. It is rarely that there is a fight when people drink porter or stout. Some people must fight when they drink whiskey and it would be very undesirable if that were to occur in the camps.

Mr. Quirke

There is more fighting amongst people who do not drink at all.

Mr. O'Dea

I do not agree. Everybody seems to approve of the Bill. I do not think that there is any real opposition. I think that the Minister's idea is the right idea—to keep the people in question from travelling distances and drinking too much. It has been suggested that the walk home might do them good but they might not be able to walk and, if they cycled, they might constitute a danger to the public. I like the idea put forward by some Senators that amusements should be provided.

I would like to see a gymnasium in every town and think it would be a very good thing. Billiard tables are very good, but a gymnasium would be better, as there would be more scope for a greater quantity of amusement at a particular time. That would keep the people away a good deal from the drinking establishments that may be set up. I think everyone approves of the Bill and that it is not necessary to say any more in its favour.

Mr. Lemass

I think it is true that there is no opposition to the purpose of the Bill, which is to permit of wet canteen facilities at isolated turf camps. There is some objection to the method of establishing them, but the objections seem to be more theoretical than practical. It was suggested by Senator Sweetman that it would not be necessary to provide for the issue of licences to the camp managers, that we could arrange to issue them to the managing director of Bord na Móna. That is not excluded by the Bill and might, under certain circumstances, prove to be the most desirable arrangement.

The licences will be issued not in respect of persons but in respect of premises, and the Minister must retain discretion as regards the premises. The necessity for retaining that power to grant or refuse a licence is to enable effect to be given to the undertaking that the power will not be utilised so as to interfere unduly with legitimate private trading interests. We could, no doubt, have arranged for the granting of a licence for these turf camps by the district justice. Personally, I do not see the sense in that. Surely this House is as competent to decide this issue as any other tribunal that could be established? Under the licensing Act, the district justice is given powers of decision, but there are limiting provisions in those Acts and the House has decided that public policy requires that no new licences should be issued at all, except in certain circumstances, the existence of which is to be decided by the justices. That is not the case here.

We in our wisdom can decide that it is desirable that, where a number of workers are congregated at isolated camps, there should be wet canteen facilities, and if we decide that we are to have them, why should we not just proceed to arrange accordingly, without going through some procedure in the courts?

Senator Baxter said I mentioned a number of factors that will apply in regard to the issue of licences that are not set out in the Bill. That is true, but if we were to attempt to set out everything, the Bill would be a very elaborate measure indeed. I do not think it is worth while doing that. This is a very small change in the licensing laws. Senator Sweetman looks at me to convey the suggestion that we are establishing a precedent. I do not think we are. I regard this as a small change, and think it is unnecessary to include all the elaborate provisions which would determine the manner in which the Minister would use his discretion, with all the safeguards that would have to be inserted, in view of the fact that we are providing for camps, the location and the number of which has not yet been decided.

Many Senators have spoken as if they did not fully appreciate the problem. There are, it is true, some existing camps located in towns and for the workers in those camps all the recreational facilities of the towns are open to them. But there are camps situated miles away from any human residence, much less from any town facilities. Someone has described a desert as "miles of sweet damn-all". That is all a bog is. If you contemplate "miles of sweet damn-all" and a turf-camp in the middle of it, you realise the problem of making life tolerable for the bog workers in these camps. It is unreasonable to require them to march miles to get a drink if they want it.

This matter of catering for workers in isolated communities or for soldiers in barracks is one upon which mankind has had thousands of years of experience. All that experience suggests that it is wiser to give facilities for obtaining drink at canteens in the camps or barracks, than to require the soldiers or workers to go in groups— as that is how they will go—over distances to get that drink elsewhere. In that way they are more likely to take more and if they take too much they are a far greater menace to the public than ever they would be within the confines of the camp or barracks.

I have said I would not issue a licence in respect of any bog premises if there were available within the vicinity of the camp suitable licensed premises. I want to emphasise the limitations put upon that word "suitable". Senators must think of a camp which will house some 300 or 400 workers, perhaps, at all times, and perhaps up to 700 or 800 in the harvesting season. The fact that there is one public house of the usual type at the country crossroads in the vicinity of the camp would not, in my opinion, justify the refusal of a licence to the Turf Board. Such a public house would not ordinarily be able to provide reasonable facilities for the many hundreds of workers seeking them. If there is a town within a reasonable distance, as there is in regard to many of the existing camps, then I think a licence should not be given. If there is not such a town or if there are only unsuitable facilities or no facilities, then a licence should be given.

I think Senators also misunderstood the fact that these camps are residential camps. Senator Ruane spoke of the advantage of giving the licence to licensed traders, in that they not only provide drink but also light luncheons. I do not think any of the bog workers I saw would eat light luncheons. These are residential camps and the heavy meals they require are provided already by the board. The board makes no profit out of the existing canteens but has a substantial loss and is likely to continue to make a loss in the provision of canteen and recreational facilities, as well as board, for the workers. If there is any profit made out of the sale of drink, it will go towards the provision of those general facilities.

There is something to be said for providing for the sale of liquor at a portion of the premises which is separate from the place where non-spirituous drink is available. At these existing camps there are facilities for tea, coffee, milk and minerals, and they will continue to be available at all camps. I will bring to the notice of the board the suggestion of Senator Miss Pearse and Senator Honan that the sale of drink should take place in a different part of the camp. However, in many cases the design of the premises would not make a sharper separation practicable.

I have said it is the intention of the board to confine the canteens to the sale of beer and stout. I think that is desirable. There will, of course, be some stock of spirits kept but ordinarily they will not sell them. Someone said there are three kinds of whiskey and one of them is "fighting whiskey". I think it would not be desirable to encourage the sale of spirits unduly at these turf canteens. The normal requirements of the workers will be met by stout and beer and most of the country public houses I have encountered in my day have rarely got drinkable spirits in stock.

Senator Baxter said that, under the provisions of the Bill, I could give a licence to anyone to run a public house in a bog. Remembering my description of a bog, if he wants to apply for a licence, I might consider giving it to him, on the understanding that there is no one living within five miles, and if anyone does come to live there, his licence will be cancelled. I do not think there will be many applications under that heading.

I submit that the Bill is a minor measure designed to meet the obvious need of the Turf Board and that its enactment will greatly facilitate the workers in the matter of recreation and will make for their contentment, which I regard as being desirable.

Mrs. Concannon

I am very glad of what the Minister has said in reply to Senator Honan and myself. If it were possible I would like to make that the law in the Bill.

Mr. Lemass

I do not think it would be possible. The Senator will appreciate that we could put in a provision requiring that there be a partition between the portion of the canteen where intoxicating drink is sold and the parts where it is not sold, but then there must also be some obligation to inspect the camps and enforce those conditions. It is provisions of that kind that I am anxious to avoid. I think we can leave this to the discretion of the directors of the Turf Board. They will be much more concerned than we are to see that there is no abuse of the facilities as they are primarily concerned with keeping the workers efficient and getting the bogs worked efficiently. Therefore, we have reason to assume that they will take every possible precaution both in relation to the construction of the premises and the instructions to the managers to see that there is no abuse of the facilities.

Question put and agreed to.

Committee Stage ordered for the next sitting day.