I would ask the House to take amendments Nos. 1, 3, 18, 19, 23, 25, 29, 31 and 34 together.
Leinster House Building Work. - Intoxicating Liquor Bill, 1962— Committee and Final Stages.
Section 1 agreed to.
SECTION 2.
I move amendment No. 1.
In paragraph (a), line 12, to delete "during a period of summer time" and substitute "from 1st May to 1st October".
In dealing with this Bill, I wonder would it be too much to hope that the Whips of the various Parties would be taken off, so that members could speak their minds freely and without fear and vote according to their consciences? I wonder could that be arranged?
The Senator will come to the amendments. We are now discussing the amendments.
I was suggesting that as a prelude. Would it be possible to hear from the Leader of the House whether it is acceptable?
I suggest that the Senator come to the amendments.
I regret that we cannot have a free vote on this. I know the uneasiness that is felt on all sides of the House at many of the provisions of the Bill. Amendment No. 1 sets a pattern. In other words, it tries to ensure that some rather surreptitious extensions of the drinking hours are not allowed to creep into the Bill. The summer period has now been extended to include the period beginning about 25th March this year and ending on 25th October. It sets a pattern in future Bills to extend the 11.30 p.m. closing still further. Consequently, I am suggesting that the summer period should be restricted to 1st May to 1st October.
The excuse given for the different periods and the slightly longer hours in summer is the perennial excuse of the tourist trade. If there is any validity in that excuse, which I doubt, the tourist trade should be amply satisfied by a standard recommendation of 1st May to 1st October. It would also get over the anomaly of having to change at definite periods whenever Summer Time changes. It is 25th March to 25th October this year.
The Senator's statement covers the winter closing, too.
May I say that I feel Senator Quinlan should not press these amendments because they would lead to difficulties if we were to accept them. First of all, I want to make it clear that there is nothing surreptitious about what is proposed here. The proposal is simple and straightforward. What I am proposing is not at all put forward on the basis that it would be to the advantage of the tourist industry. The proposal to extend the 11.30 p.m. closing to the period of summer time is put forward primarily in the interests of rural Ireland, of the farmers and the farm workers.
In the months of April, May and October, farming activities necessitate farmers and those engaged on the land working to fairly late hours at night and, indeed, in many cases, working as long as the light lasts. It is, in the main, to facilitate the people of rural Ireland that this proposal is brought forward. The decision to make this change coterminus with official summer time is based on a very sensible and practical reason. If we were to adopt Senator Quinlan's proposal we would create a very chaotic situation in parts of rural Ireland where they still adhere to "old time", as it is known.
We would have the situation in the month of March, for instance, that for the purposes of the farmers who adhere to "old time" the public houses would be closing at 11 p.m. When summer time would operate as from 25th March the pubs would be closing, by their time, at 10 p.m. That would last for a few weeks and then, if Senator Quinlan's amendment were to operate, the closing time of the pubs from the point of view of the farmers would be changed again to 10.30 p.m. Over the course of a couple of weeks the closing time of the public houses for the people of rural Ireland, the farmers and the farm workers who go by "old time", would change three times. I suggest that is the sort of thing we should avoid if at all possible in licensing laws.
The suggestion that the changes become operative on the date that Summer Time changes is, I think, a sensible and practical one. The whole business of extending this late closing to the months of April, May and October, is very largely to facilitate the people of rural Ireland and those who work on the land.
I would prefer if the blame were put on the tourist trade rather than on rural Ireland, because it shows how much out of touch the Minister is with rural Ireland and its welfare, if he believes that the hardworking farmers want to stay in the pubs until 11.30 p.m. In point of fact, such hardworking farmers have to begin work again at 7 o'clock in the morning, and cannot afford to squander their time in public houses. The movement of Summer Time standards has been pretty generally accepted and most farmers now operate according to Summer Time. Indeed, if we value our rural community, in that I wish to see them make the contribution they can and I feel confident will make to our country's prosperity, then they need far more than inducements to go to the public house. I think we should thank God that the younger generation of farmers are so good and have such a sensible outlook on this that they do not need this 11.30 p.m. closing. I do not think any farmer worthy of the name would be seen in a public house at this time.
It seems quite clear to me from all I have heard in the course of this debate that people who really know rural Ireland and the requirements of the farmers and their workers are in favour of this extension. Particularly in Dáil Éireann, it was rural Deputies, in the main, of all Parties who supported this proposal. I cannot help but say this and I hope Senator Quinlan will not object to my saying it. It seems to me that he is determined to prevent a hardworking farmer or farm labourer who is working late in the evenings from getting a well-earned drink when he ceases his work.
I do not wish to delay the House unduly on this. I think I have made my point on it and consequently, so as not to hold up the House on this, I shall withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I would ask the House to accept the following grouping of amendments with amendment No. 2—Nos. 4, 7, 9, 21, 24, 26, 28, 30 and 32.
I move amendment No. 2:
In paragraph (a) line 13, to delete "half-past eleven" and substitute "11.20".
This grouping of amendments is concerned with the introduction of this new principle of drinking-up time— as if the ten minutes allowed by the Bill were something new. In point of fact, all the evidence I have got shows that publicans have at all times stopped serving drinks some ten minutes before official closing time so as to allow the people to finish up their drinks within the prescribed time. Consequently, I can only regard the additional ten minutes, as it has been done, as a further lengthening of the drinking-up time. Therefore, we are now going to 11.40 p.m., that is, 20 minutes to midnight, for over eight months of the year. In short, we are almost back to the bona fide hour of 12 midnight. We have only another 20 minutes to go.
What has been done, in effect, is to throw the public houses wide open so that the bona fide hours will become the effective hours of the country. I think that is bad. It shows a bad principle. It is a type of extension we should not give. Consequently, I am suggesting in these amendments that the official licensing hour should finish ten minutes earlier, that is, at 11.20 at night. Then you would have a ten minutes drinking-up period so that prosecutions do not begin until 11.30 p.m.
There is a further practical point in this, I believe, inasmuch as finishing at ten minutes after 11 p.m. is rather an odd hour. A publican will have to instal some special type of clock that will ring out ten minutes after 11 p.m. if he is to enforce the law. As it is, 11 o'clock rings out and you get good value for it. You get 11 strokes of the clock. That gives ample notice and reinforces the publican's call to people to leave the premises.
Again, the same holds at 11.30 p.m. You have only one stroke there but still it does give the point. I am more concerned with the principle of it. I do not like to see the period lengthened by such devices. Consequently, I move this amendment.
This proposal, really, was introduced by me by way of amendment in the Dáil. It was done in response to a demand from all parts of the House. The main Opposition Party suggested it. The majority of the members of the Labour Party supported it. It seemed to me quite clear that the Dáil, at any rate, as a body, was almost universally in favour of this proposal.
I want to put this aspect of the matter to the House: I mentioned it before. There are enshrined now in the licensing laws provisions about compulsory endorsement. If a publican commits a breach of the law, in the case of the first offence nothing happens. He gets, as it were, one free offence. A second offence is endorsed on his licence and the endorsement lasts for a period of two years. The third offence is endorsed on his licence and the endorsement lasts for a period of four years. The fourth offence also is endorsed on his licence and the endorsement lasts for a period of six years. When, at any stage, a publican has three endorsements extant on his licence, he loses his licence.
It was put to me very strongly in the Dáil and elsewhere from various interested sections of the community that these provisions were penal and could lead to hardship. I was asked to alter them. Having gone into the matter very carefully, I said I could not agree to alter the provisions with regard to compulsory endorsements. The rigid enforcement of the licensing laws to a large extent stands or falls by this system of compulsory endorsement.
I think the system of compulsory endorsement is the most effective weapon the courts have for ensuring that the law is obeyed. Having said I could not agree to alter the proposal with regard to compulsory endorsement, I nevertheless had to admit that there was some force in the argument that a publican could get into trouble, almost inadvertently, in the period immediately after closing time, in the five, six, seven or eight minutes immediately following closing time. It was suggested to me that it would be a very severe hardship for a publican to lose his licence because of an almost inadvertent offence committed in that period.
It was pointed out to me that the law as it stood was anomalous in this respect. A publican, hotelier or restaurateur would be entitled to serve drink one second before closing time and would at the same time, be expected to see that that drink was consumed and out of the way on the dot of closing time. Therefore, I am putting forward this proposal to meet that situation and to meet those two aspects of that situation.
I am putting forward this proposal to remove the difficulty from the point of view of the publican whereby he would, though making an honest endeavour to clear his premises, nevertheless commit a technical offence, as it were, and be in danger of losing his licence. I am putting it forward also to obviate all this bad feeling that arises between the customer and the publican about rushing the last drink. It is a sensible provision. I think it will do a great deal to make these matters, as Senator McGuire said on the Second Stage here, a little bit more civilised.
There is, then, very serious objection to Senator Quinlan's amendment. The danger about drinking-up time is that it will come to be regarded as merely an extension of the opening hours. The law must be enforced very rigidly to ensure that the serving of drink will stop at the official closing time and that the ten minutes will not be utilised for any purpose except the consumption of those drinks which have been served.
Senator Quinlan's amendment would get us into this difficulty, that the public have got used to the 11 p.m. or 11.30 p.m. closing or the 2 p.m. closing on Sunday, or whatever it is, and would regard that as the time until which they are entitled to be served, so that if we were to attempt to take this ten minutes away, and make it a period in which only consumption could take place, the law would almost certainly be widely broken in that ten minutes. It is better, and my principle throughout this legislation has been, to give a little where there is an insistent demand and the risk of the law being broken on a widespread scale. I think I might hope to convince Senator Quinlan that it is really better to give this ten minute period after closing time, even though it is an extension, rather than to bring it back to the ten minutes immediately before closing time and have the risk that it would be widely disregarded and that drink would be sold in that time.
I do not think the Minister is correct when he says his amendment in the Dáil was introduced at the request of the main Opposition Party. It was accepted but with reluctance by the main Opposition Party as an alternative to their suggestion that there should be half an hour after closing time during which it would not be obligatory for the district justice to endorse the licence in respect of a second offence.
That is correct.
I have no faith at all in this ten minutes drinking time. Prior to 1960 it was admitted that there was no respect for the licensing laws, that the licensing laws were on the Statute Book but that they were not in fact enforced, and that nobody seriously suggested they should be enforced. The object of the 1960 Act, and the object of this Bill as I understand it, is to tidy up the licensing laws and to ensure that they will be enforced and above all that they will be respected by all sections of the community.
It is asking too much of human nature, too much of the Irish temperament and too much of the intimate relationship that exists between the publican and his customer to say that a publican may be open between 11.30 and 11.40, that drink may be consumed, that the lights may be on and that the publican or his assistant may be behind the counter but that the publican may not, or shall not, sell drink during those ten minutes. In other words, two men go in for a drink. One of them bolts his drink and the other merely sips his drink. Is the first man expected to stand there with his friend who is sipping his drink and just look on? That is not reasonable and it will lead to ten minutes' illicit trading. It is the thin end of the wedge which will lead again to disrespect for the law.
Having said all that—I am probably out of order, and these remarks probably would be more appropriate on the section—I think there should be a closing time of 11.30 p.m. and that there should be half an hour between 11.30 p.m. and 12 midnight during which it would be an offence to open for sale, expose for sale, sell, consume or whatever the five offences are, but that during that half hour it would not be obligatory on the district justice to record a conviction on the licence. Bear in mind that he should have the authority to do it; he should have jurisdiction to endorse if he thinks it is an habitual offence and if he thinks the publican is showing disrespect for the law and is continuing to trade during that half hour. While he would not be obliged to record a conviction, substantial monetary penalties should be provided and imposed.
Really, I have as much objection to the amendment as I have to the section as it stands because either of them will introduce what I suggest will be ten minutes' illicit trading during which the law will not be and could not be enforced unless the Garda Síochána were augmented in every town to the extent that a Guard could be standing in every public house in Ireland.
I thoroughly agree with the Minister in regard to the extra ten minutes. In every rural public house there is a notice which states that the last drink will be served at 11.25. That law has been the cause of many disturbances when a customer then replies "There is a law drink and is told by the publican that he cannot serve drink after 11.25. The customer then replies "there is a law which says that you must serve drink up to 11.30." I have known publicans to lose customers because of that. Every publican will appreciate the ten minutes that is being given for consuming drinks which have been served and I am quite satisfied no publican will serve drink between 11.30 and 11.40. I think it is an excellent provision and I congratulate the Minister on bringing it in. He has done a good day's work by providing the ten minutes' grace.
I do not know whether I am either for or against this period of ten minutes or any number of minutes. Since my first recollection of the notice exhibited in public houses I have always been impressed by the geographical extent of the publican's power for social succour, as it were, by the magic words "on or off the premises." Here we have the question of ten minutes. The publican or his assistant, or his assistants as the case may be, are inside the bar. A customer is finishing the last drink. Here is the temptation that I see will lead to illicit trading—to use Senator Fitzpatrick's phrase—when it comes to the question of purchasing intoxicating liquor for consumption off the premises. If you are given ten minutes in which to finish your drink there is nothing to prevent you from saying to the barman at 25 minutes to 12: "Give me half a pint to take away." That would be an offence under the existing law. It is an offence that would not be too easily detected.
Admittedly, handing out a dozen or a half dozen in the brown paper wrappings to which we are all accustomed would be easily detected. But assuming a Guard walks in at 11.40 p.m. and the brown paper parcels are in front of the customer who has his drink finished, who will be able to say on behalf of the State that the drink in the paper wrapping or the half pint that might well be concealed in the hip pocket was bought before 11.30 p.m.? Viewed in that light, the ten minutes provides a loophole for evasion of the law—a very pleasant loophole indeed for people who might like to change their minds at the last minute and purchase something to take away. By and large, it is probably a good thing, but it has that inherent danger.
I want to make a point I overlooked when speaking earlier. I say this after very full consideration. This provision will lead to an increase in perjury in our courts. Now, for the first time, a man may be drinking or be in the bar of a public house and an offence may or may not have been committed, depending on whether or not the drink he is consuming was purchased before closing time or ten minutes afterwards. Unless a member of the Garda Síochána is standing there and sees the drink being sold, there is no one to say whether that drink has or has not been sold before closing time, except the publican and the man who is drinking it. I venture to suggest that, human nature being what it is, people caught breaking the law in those circumstances will be sorely tempted to swear themselves out. We should not pass a law such as this which it is virtually impossible to enforce.
In moving this amendment, I was accepting Section 7 of the Bill as being a fact, that there was to be a drinking-up time. I was merely moving that this should be taken off the existing hours rather than made an addition. I was taking the stand, which I think has been supported by the evidence of some speakers here, that already publicans in their own interest had been applying this, that they had been refusing to serve drink five minutes or ten minutes before closing time. I welcome the assurance of the Minister about the rigid enforcement of this Act and also about the rigid enforcement of the provision being made for compulsory endorsement, even involving an offence committed a minute after this period. With those assurances, I think I have made my point sufficiently clear and consequently I do not propose to press the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendments Nos. 3 and 4 not moved.
I move amendment No. 5:
In paragraph (a), line 19, before "(subject" to insert "or Limerick or Waterford".
I must draw the attention of the House to a grouping. We are taking Nos. 5, 6, 14, 15 16 and 27 together.
In moving to restore the midday closing hour between 2.30 and 3.30 to Limerick and Waterford—a privilege they have enjoyed up to this—I refer the Minister and the Seanad to the very clear-cut recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry into Intoxicating Liquor whose report was published in 1957 and which was the basis of the 1960 Act. They say on page 11 of their report:
.... We have departed from it in one respect, namely, the retention of the mid-day closing hour in the four county boroughs; we are satisfied that this interval is a good provision and we would be glad to recommend its application to the whole country if we considered it feasible to do so. Having regard, however, to the number of mixed trading premises in towns and villages, we felt that enforcement would be too difficult.
Therefore, the Commission came out fully in support of this mid-afternoon closing. This has been left to remain in Cork and Dublin. I cannot see any reason why the same right should not be given to the publicans in Limerick and Waterford. It gives them an opportunity to get rid of objectionable customers who have decided they are going to spend the day hanging around the bar. By law, they are compelled to put them out, which is a very excellent provision. Now such characters cannot be pushed out, except in Dublin and Cork. Again, we have the fact, which probably many other speakers will elaborate on, that in Waterford 85 per cent. of the publicans have demanded that this provision should be made. What is the reason why the Minister has gone against their recommendation and also what is the reason why Limerick should be subjected to having continuous opening?
Amendment No. 6 in my name is not as extensive as the amendment Professor Quinlan has moved. It deals only with the city of Waterford. This provision of a compulsory closing hour for the county boroughs of Dublin, Cork, Limerick and Waterford between 2.30 p.m. and 3.30 p.m. was introduced into a liquor Bill in 1927 by one of the Minister's predecessors in office, Kevin O'Higgins. It was then a completely new proposal. I can remember the discussion about it. It was fought very hard on behalf of certain people and all kinds of dire disasters to the owners of public houses were predicted. However, the Minister persisted and it became the law that the public houses had to close between 2.30 p.m. and 3.30 p.m. in Dublin, Cork, Limerick and Waterford.
I am not able to say of my own knowledge or that of people I have spoken to how precisely it worked outside Dublin. I am perfectly certain that in Dublin it worked extremely well and that all kinds of people, including the people who frequented public houses themselves, were glad of it. Most emphatically, the wives of certain people were glad of it. Practically every wellwisher of public houses was glad of it, too. It was really a social effort, an endeavour to break off the constant sitter and compel him to adjourn. It also had the effect of giving a break to the publicans themselves and those who worked with them and for them. It was highly successful in Dublin. It applied, as I have said, to Dublin, Cork, Waterford and Limerick. In the present measure, the Minister proposes that the provision should no longer apply to Waterford and Limerick and henceforth public houses will close between 2.30 p.m. and 3.30 p.m. in Dublin and Cork, but not in Waterford and Limerick. In the latter two cities they will remain open all day on weekdays.
The amendment I am now speaking on, the amendment in the names of Senator Fitzpatrick, Senator McGuire and myself, deals only with Waterford. Perhaps we should explain why we have not moved with regard to Limerick. First and foremost, we have received no representations with regard to Limerick and I notice the Minister in the other House stated—I accept his word, of course—that the publicans in Limerick city are anxious that the public houses should be open between 2.30 p.m. and 3.30 p.m. on weekdays. As far as Waterford is concerned, a very large majority, 85 per cent. of the publicans, have actually signed a round robin asking that the law should remain unaltered in Waterford; that is, that there public houses should close between 2.30 p.m. and 3.30 p.m. That being so, I fail to understand why the Minister would not leave the status quo. On the one hand, he argues that because the Limerick publicans want the public houses open, they should get what they want; on the other hand, he argues that, although the publicans in Waterford want the public houses closed, they should be compelled to open.
My interest in the matter arises from the fact that I have been for a great many years connected with a particular part of Waterford. I am interested in Waterford. I do not know of any circumstances in Waterford, whatever they may be in Limerick, which would make it better for the city, better for the public of that city, or even better for visitors to the city, that public houses should be open all day. The merits which this particular provision had, and which the Minister thinks it still has for Dublin and Cork, would appear to me to be applicable also to Waterford. The effect of the Minister accepting this amendment would be that the public houses in Waterford city would continue to be closed on weekdays from 2.30 p.m. to 3.30 p.m.
I find myself in agreement with the proposal that afternoon closing should be maintained in Waterford. I think I can understand the reasons for most of the changes embodied in this Bill, but this proposal to abolish compulsory closing between 2.30 p.m. and 3.30 p.m. in Limerick and Waterford is completely beyond me. I just do not understand it. I know the circumstances in Waterford. I have been there for the past month. I know that the publicans and their staffs and, as far as I know, their customers feel very keenly about this. They think the 2.30 p.m. to 3.30 p.m. closure is suitable to them. They think it provides a very useful break for a publican and his staff, a break in which to get their meal, return to their homes and see their wives and children. They are completely at a loss to know why the Minister should persist in taking out compulsory closure in Waterford when that action is against the wishes of the people involved.
I hope the Minister will meet us in this matter. I do not think it would be any reply from him to say that he is not compelling the publicans to stay open between 2.30 p.m. and 3.30 p.m. in Waterford. That is not an answer and I hope the Minister is wise enough to appreciate that that is not the answer. The law should continue to provide that public houses shall be closed in Waterford from 2.30 p.m. to 3.30 p.m. on weekdays. That is what the publicans and their workers want. I hope the Minister will see the good sense in not forcing this down the throats of the Waterford publicans, will meet them in their wishes, and agree that this midday break should continue in Waterford city.
I do not want to say very much on this matter because the case already has been made with regard to Waterford. I do not know enough about Limerick to make any comment on the position there. The only comment I should like to make is that the general treatment of this whole legislation has been rather one based on a complete distrust of the licensing trade. I do not say the Minister is guilty of that, but a great deal of the criticism and a great many of the suggestions in relation to other sections of this Bill have been made in an atmosphere in which the traders concerned are apparently regarded as people who cannot be trusted. The idea seems to be that licensed traders are people who want to sell as much drink as possible to people who, very often, should not be sold any drink at all.
I believe the licensing trade is constituted of very decent people. With one or two exceptions, they are very much to be trusted, and I think their advice ought to be taken wherever it is given in a sensible way. I think this is a sensible way. I am old enough to remember when this provision first came in. There were people who thought it went a bit too far, that it was a provision which aimed at treating adults as children. I think it has proved one of the most successful methods of getting people out of public houses in the middle of the day and preventing all day drinking, especially on Saturdays, when many people draw their wages. When I was a young man, fathers of families very often came home on Saturday night, having drawn their wages and spent the rest of the day in the public house, blind drunk and with not a penny for the support of their wives and children. The midday closing put an end to that practice. I do not believe we would see very much of that nowadays, even if the public houses did not close, because drink is so expensive.
On the principle that we ought to take the advice of the traders, when that advice is wisely and sensibly given, and I think it is in this case, I should like to support this amendment.
First of all, my approach to this whole matter of licensing laws is very largely influenced by my desire to adhere to uniformity wherever possible. I have said that I would be justified in departing from uniformity if it could be clearly and unequivocally shown that such a departure was absolutely necessary to meet some particular case or was unmistakably in the public interest. If that alone were the reason, then I think there is a strong argument on principle for doing away with the midday closing altogether in Dublin, Limerick, Cork and Waterford.
Or for extending it throughout the country.
Or for extending it throughout the country—one or the other. Nobody has seriously suggested that it should be extended throughout the country. Surely the logical approach then is to consider its abolition in the four county boroughs where it still exists. My initial approach would be to abolish it completely in these four county boroughs. I agree fully with Senator McGuire that the times, circumstances and social environment which made its introduction necessary and desirable in 1927 no longer prevail. How could anybody argue that this midday closing hour is necessary, for instance, in Dundalk, or Drogheda, or any other reasonably large industrial town in the country? Waterford is no different from these places and I think the proposal to abolish this closing in Waterford and Limerick particularly is unanswerable on the basis of making our laws uniform throughout the country.
I have been persuaded that it should be retained in Dublin and Cork. I have been reluctantly persuaded to do that because special circumstances prevail in these two larger cities which do not apply elsewhere, but there is another aspect of this matter. In both Limerick and Waterford, there are mixed businesses. Prior to the introduction of the 1960 Act, these mixed businesses were able to remain open to do business during the midday closing hour because of the bona fide provisions, but, with the abolition of the bona fide provisions, these people suffered a very real hardship. They were no longer able to remain open for any kind of business during this hour. Therefore, they were put in the aggravating position of finding their customers, people who normally came to them during this period to purchase groceries and so forth, particularly country people coming into the town, ceasing to patronise their premises and going to other establishments. That was definitely unfair and that situation arose clearly as a result of the abolition of the bona fide provisions in the 1960 Act. It is to do justice in that regard that this provision is put forward.
As I say, I do not think there is any longer any social justification for this midday closing hour. I think we can, without any qualm at all, safely contemplate abolishing it in these two places. That argument does not arise in relation to Dublin and Cork. As we all know, there are, in effect, no mixed businesses in either of these cities.
A lot of play has been made with the fact that Waterford publicans, or a substantial majority of them, do not want this midday closing hour done away with. The Limerick city publicans certainly do. There is no volume of opinion anywhere in Limerick which wants the midday closing hour retained, in Limerick city at any rate, but I readily admit that there has been a fair volume of opinion from the Waterford publicans to the effect that they wish the midday closing hour to be retained in that city.
I invited in the other House Deputies and others to supply me with some evidence that the public want this midday closing hour retained in Waterford. That invitation has not been accepted by anybody. There is a Deputy from Waterford—I think most Senators will know the person to whom I refer—who has been very active in this matter.
We know him all right.
He has been as active as any Deputy has been over any matter for a long time. I submit that, if he had been in a position to supply me with evidence that the public in Waterford wanted the midday closing hour done away with, he would have inundated me with evidence in that respect. He did not, nor has any Senator here produced any such evidence. All we have, in effect, is a suggestion by the Waterford publicans that they do not like this; that they would like the midday closing hour retained. I submit that is not good enough.
Has the Minister any proof that the public want it changed?
If you propose something and you do not find public reaction against it, you can safely assume the public want it. We all know that we have a very active public opinion in this country.
It is not always expressed in public.
If a politician or anybody else proposes to do something the public do not like or are not in favour of, they will very quickly let them know. No public reaction against the proposal has reached me and I am entitled to assume that, by and large, the public are either in favour of what I am doing or are indifferent. I think that, on the whole, my approach to the matter for the reasons which I have advanced for doing this are sufficient to entitle us in this case to ignore the comparatively self-interested proposals by the Waterford publicans.
I do not want to suggest that I would, without any sort of consideration, brush aside a reasonable demand from a substantial body of publicans. I agree with Senator McGuire that, by and large, the publicans, the licensees of this country, are a decent and respectable body of men and that we should have regard to their wishes and interests in so far as we can but I think we must take a different view in relation to Waterford city for the reasons I gave.
I also want to say to Senator Hayes that I have evidence myself that all the Waterford publicans do not favour what the apparent majority have put forward.
The Minister in dealing with the case of the Waterford publicans and the publicans in general has been extremely laudatory of their decency and standing but, at the same time, he has been charmingly illogical. In the main, I think the result will be, as far as he is concerned and the Government on whose behalf he speaks, that the Waterford publicans will not get what they want.
The situation, as I see it, is this. We have evidence before the Seanad both from the Liquor Commission and from the Dáil. The Liquor Commission had evidence before them and on that evidence their findings were that this closing hour should be retained in Waterford city as well as in Dublin, Cork and Limerick.
The Minister asks why not have the same thing in Drogheda and Dundalk. Quite obviously, to throw his own kind of argument back to him, the people of Dundalk or Drogheda, since 1927 up to the time of the recent Liquor Commission sittings, did not ask for it. If they and similar places throughout the country, such as Kilkenny, Sligo and Galway, had asked for it, I think we could normally assume in this Bill that they would have a closing hour and all of these places would be burning incense on the altar of this new goddess of uniformity. The Limerick people, according to the Minister, do not want it and, accordingly, it is not being retained for them. The Waterford people, in so far as Waterford is represented by the owners of licensed premises, want this midday closing hour retained.
The Minister says that when you do not get public reaction to some proposal or other, they are either not against it or indifferent. I think that prima facie on that basis the only voice that is heard in relation to the proposal is the voice of those people most directly concerned—the owners of licenced premises in Waterford. The Minister would do well to hearken to that voice. It does not interfere with this great principle of uniformity. Incidentally, I do not agree with Senator Quinlan's contention that this hour was an excellent time for getting rid of the objectionable drunks. At the same time, I suppose Senator Quinlan would hasten to refute the counter allegation which I now make that his proposal contains the implication that the only objectionable drunks are in Dublin and Cork, where it is necessary to retain the hour.
On the question of mixed trading, I do not think the Minister is being quite serious. As I say, he is being charmingly illogical about all this because in another section of the Bill, there is provision for allowing people who have for sale groceries or any other kind of goods, except the excellent goods in bottles, to open an hour or an hour-and-a-half before the ordinary opening hour. Therefore, the argument that this is in case of mixed traders in Limerick and Waterford does not stand up to very close examination.
On the question of public reaction, that is all very well as a logical syllogism laid down on paper or spoken solemnly in an academic assembly but the experience in this country, at any rate, is that the first reaction one gets from a public who would normally be reticent is the reaction in the secrecy of the ballot box. Somebody did suggest at one election where there was one great issue and there was nobody taking any great interest: "Wait till the election and then you will know because people who are loath to tell you to your face what they think of you do not mind giving you a kick in the tummy in the ballot box." That is where it all happens. As Senator Hayes says, the only evidence here is the evidence the Minister himself has in relation to mixed trading. I could see the point in leaving Limerick out. It is a short gateway to the tourist world from Shannon leading to Counties Kerry and Cork, but again after a time when this becomes law and they will not have the hour they might find themselves engaged in the nostalgic recollection of other days in Limerick as depicted by Percy French:
Were those guns in Limerick now placed on the city walls we would bid King William breakfast with his own black cannon balls.
I understand the Minister did throw out some suggestion in the Dáil that he might consider the case of Waterford and I sincerely hope it is not the timing of the Bill coming to the Seanad alone that now precludes his having another look at the section and has determined him apparently to stand firm.
The first case made by the Minister is uniformity. The whole Bill as produced is haunted and obsessed by uniformity. There might be some case to be made for uniformity, if by bringing in uniformity, you get rid of an abuse. I do not think that case can be made for this section. It does not get rid of any abuse. On the contrary, if the midday closing hour is abolished in Waterford, the danger is that an abuse will creep in and that people will drink more than they can afford to drink or than they might otherwise do.
If uniformity is really the case for this section, why did the Minister not extend it to Dublin and to Cork? Is the answer that the licensed vintners' association in Dublin is very powerful, powerful enough to say to the Minister: "We will not have this closing hour abolished", while the association in Waterford is not so powerful? The argument about uniformity simply does not carry and it is not really being put forward very strongly by the Minister in support of this proposal. I think the Minister's real case is based on mixed trading but again, as Senator Lindsay has pointed out, that argument will not hold. In the first place, there is nothing to prevent the mixed traders of Waterford carrying on their licensed business between 2.30 and 3.30, if the Minister so desires. As a matter of fact, since 1927, mixed traders all over the country—and practically every publican in rural Ireland is a mixed trader—have had the privilege, if privilege it is, of opening for non-licensed trade at 9 o'clock in the morning whereas they could not sell intoxicating liquor till 10.30 in the morning, and this Bill we are now debating does not disapprove of that.
It extends it.
It approves of it and extends it because under this Bill the publican who could open to sell groceries at 9 o'clock in the morning while not being able to open for the sale of intoxicating liquor until 10.30 in the morning, can now open to sell groceries at 7.30 in the morning. Therefore, that argument does not hold. It may be a little inconvenient for these people and I cannot help thinking, if it is not the timing of the Bill coming to the Seanad, then it must be the influence of a small but powerful section in Waterford who have persuaded the Minister to abolish this hour for their convenience and only for their convenience.
I understand that 75 per cent. of the publicans in Waterford have signed a petition which is in the Minister's hands asking him not to abolish this hour and I understand that since that petition was signed and delivered, there are other publicans in Waterford who have come round to the same way of thinking as the majority. The Minister has asked why he has had no representations from the public of Waterford against the proposal. As far as I know, there is no association of drinkers in Waterford and I hardly think there is an association of drinkers' wives in Waterford. You simply do not get organised representations unless there is an organisation to formulate them and put them before the Minister. Such representations are possible only where there is an organised body or at an election. I strongly urge the Minister to reconsider this matter. If he cannot go that far, I submit he should give an undertaking that there will be another Liquor Bill in 1962 to rectify the position.
Before the Minister replied, I had more or less made up my mind to support amendment No. 6. The Minister said he had got certain information from certain people in Waterford to which he had to give serious consideration. I should like him to say whether, after a period of, say, six months, he still sees a strong public demand against this hour of opening in Waterford, he would be prepared to bring in a slight amendment to change the situation. If he gives such an undertaking, I will be prepared to support the Bill as it stands.
I do not think the Minister is correct in stating that nobody has seriously suggested this provision should be extended to the country as a whole, because in the report of the Intoxicating Liquor Commission——
I meant what was said in the course of the debate on this Bill in the Dáil and so far in the Seanad.
I misunderstood the Minister then. The strongest recommendation we have got is from the Intoxicating Liquor Commission who said they would value some of the representations they had got from all sections in respect to the provision of this afternoon closing hour as a means of controlling drinking in the country and controlling this type of irresponsible person who insists on hanging around a public house for hours on end. This was the one and only way of getting rid of such a character. It was also a way of allowing the publicans to have their midday meal in peace.
The only objection to it was that the timing—2.30 p.m. to 3.30—could be improved. Something like 1.30 to 2.30 p.m. might have been better. It has already been whittled down by this Bill through the fact that ten minutes are allowed as drinking-up time. Accordingly, there is, in effect, a period of only 50 minutes at issue and of course the Sunday closing hours have been whittled down so that between 12.30 and 10 p.m. there is only a period of one hour and 50 minutes closing. I suppose in the interest of uniformity we will have the Minister coming back later to get rid of even that period.
We must be very careful in considering the thin end of the wedge in this matter. It is not a matter of national importance whether the Waterford publicans have their hour or not but it is a trend in legislation which must be stopped. The Minister has already gone on record as saying he would be delighted to remove this closing hour in respect to Dublin and Cork. Therefore, we can expect to have this provided for in the next Bill. We must stand on the principle involved, therefore, and must fight this.
Above all, we have some rather startling statements on democracy from the Minister as to what public demand is. If a demand by 85 per cent. of a section of the population in Waterford is not to be taken seriously, whereas no demand by a corresponding section in Limerick is to be taken seriously, I cannot see how that logic works. The Minister says that the public want the provision retained. He does not know whether they do or not. Many crimes are committed in the name of the public but I ask the Minister: what does he mean by the public here? Does he mean the majority of the citizens of Waterford? If that is the case, I do not think the Minister would dispute with me that the overwhelming majority of the citizens of Waterford are strongly opposed to this provision. Without a doubt, all the women would be strongly opposed to it.
How can the Senator speak for the women?
Secondly, all the children of Waterford would be against it. Ninety-five per cent. of those who drink would be opposed to it. In short, only a very tiny minority, probably one-half per cent., or one in every 200 of the population, would ask for this. I would therefore ask what the Minister regards as a public opinion in respect to Waterford. What does democracy mean and what does representation mean any longer, if that is the standard we are to adopt? The husbands of most of the women in Waterford do not frequent public-houses, so it is not a matter for them. Most of the men do not either, so it must go by default, unless we are to consider the advice of the despicable characters who go into a public-house at 11 a.m. and still cling there with a sense of grievance that they are thrown out at 2.30.
May I make a suggestion? If Senators felt it desirable, I should be prepared to make a suggestion along these lines: if these amendments are withdrawn, I will give an undertaking to let a year go by and if it becomes apparent that there is abuse arising from this abolition of the closing hour—I am not quite sure what machinery we would use to measure that abuse—but if Deputies——
Send a deputation there to drink during that hour.
——or the City Fathers considered that, in their opinion, the opening hour led to abuse and was undesirable, then I would undertake to endeavour to persuade the Government to bring forward a simple amending measure to deal with the situation. I want to sound this warning: it is not easy to persuade the Government to give time for a measure which would be designed to do only as little as that. If that were satisfactory to Senators, I would undertake to let the Bill go through as it is now and in a year's time, if it can be shown by somebody interested that abuse had resulted, I would undertake to approach the Government with a view to amending this portion of the Bill.
I wish to thank the Minister for that and I suggest that the amendments should be withdrawn because I consider the Minister's approach very fair indeed. If we look at the matter in a year's time, I feel sure there will be no need to change it. I do not expect the abuses Senator Quinlan mentioned will arise. Publicans are well able to get rid of an undesirable character. They can do it very easily. They have done it in the past and I feel quite sure under the new Act their problems in this respect will not become any more difficult. I feel sure they will not have to wait until 2.30 p.m. to get rid of undesirable characters. I am prepared to accept what the Minister offers.
Wait a minute. The amendment is down in my name and I should like to say that I admire the Minister's skill in argument and the delightful way in which he garbs quite illogical arguments in the vesture of frankness. His position is really this: whatever he thinks about Waterford, he must get this Bill through in its present form, as I pointed out when we were confronted with discussing this measure without the Dáil being in session, and the Minister is prepared to take almost any step to get this Bill through as it is at present. He then makes an offer which, with all respect, has very little in it. First, this amendment is not being suggested —at least it is not being suggested by me or by Senator McGuire or by Senator Fitzpatrick—because we think if the public houses in Waterford were open, there would be wholesale abuse. I think no such thing. What I think is that Waterford has been enjoying this closing hour for the past 35 years and I see no reason why, nor has the Minister given any reason why, that should cease. Uniformity has been introduced for the purpose of preventing any form of bona fide traffic. This has nothing whatever to do with that and this hour has nothing whatever to do with uniformity either.
The Minister has stated that the only evidence we have is based on the self-interest of publicans. Surely that word "self-interest" is a very unfortunate word for the Minister to use because what the publicans in Waterford are asking is that their public houses should be closed for six hours a week, that they should continue to be closed and that they should continue to lose six hours trading and presumably six hours possible profits a week. If throwing away trading and possible profits is evidence of self-interest, the word begins to have a different meaning from what I learned and, I am sure, what the Minister learned.
He also tells us that the publicans are not in agreement. Of course they are not in unanimous agreement. Would it not be a first-class miracle if the publicans of Waterford were prepared to sign a paper to the effect that they all wanted the same thing? Would it not be contrary to the course of nature and to the course of Irish nature in particular? The Minister must think we are all very foolish.
May I conclude with another point? The Minister says that there is no difference between Waterford and Dundalk or Drogheda. Of course there is a very important difference. Waterford is one of the county boroughs and Waterford city councillors have votes for the Seanad. The Minister should remember that.
They also have the big bottle of stout.
I am not as knowledgeable as Senator O'Reilly about big bottles of stout, although I think the first public house I was ever in was in Waterford. The argument in favour of leaving the publicans of Waterford what they have got and what they want to keep is overwhelming. I think the Minister recognises that but the truth is that because of the way the Government transacted their business in the other House, the Minister cannot accept any amendment. As far as my experience goes, a promise that a Government in office will bring in a one-clause Bill to reclose public houses in Waterford for six hours a week is worth precisely nothing. I suspect that the Minister knows that and I think he said it when making the offer.
I wish that Senator Hayes would accept the fact that it is not the position that nothing can be done now about this Bill. We are considering the Bill on its merits and if Senator Hayes can persuade a majority of the Senators to accept an amendment and vote for it, we shall have to go ahead with it, irrespective of the fact that the Dáil is not in session. The Bill is being considered on its merits and there is no question whatever of any other influence.
If we want to discuss the Bill on the merits, let us take off the Whips and let us come to the opinions of the House.
There are no Whips in this Assembly. I never met a Senatorial Whip in my life and I should not know one if I saw one.
When we are considering this Bill on its merits, the only thing we can do is to continue to examine it and continue to persuade the Minister to change his mind. I was hopeful that the Minister, when he obviously desired to intervene, was going to make a fair offer but I thought he took the good out of his offer by asking that there should be any evidence of abuse under this new arrangement. I think nobody said that the opening of the public houses from 2.30 to 3.30 p.m. in Waterford would lead to abuse. It is no answer for the Minister to say, as he did earlier, that there was no evidence of public opposition to this change.
May I ask the Senator if there is not evidence that there would be abuse, what then is the argument for retaining it?
The will of the people.
The people most directly involved, the publicans and workers in public houses, think that the 2.30 to 3.30 closing is a good arrangement. They want it to remain.
For their own convenience.
As regards the question of public reaction, let me put it this way: if you are taking something from the public, something they at present enjoy in Waterford, then you could expect reaction. But you are not taking something from the public but proposing to give them something, an extra hour's drinking during the day in which they are not particularly interested and which as far as I know they do not particularly want. You cannot expect an outcry from the public about this. It is impossible for Senators or Deputies to say that the public demand that this should be the position. As a sensible man, I am sure the Minister understands that. There would be great merit in his answer if the situation were the other way round, if he were proposing to take away something and said that there was no public reaction. That is not the position here.
I think the Minister would like to facilitate the people of Waterford, and those primarily interested in the matter, the publicans and the workers in public houses, but he is in the difficulty that he wants the Bill to go through. Judging from the notice of motion we have got from the Leader of the House, supporters of the Government want this Bill passed as quickly as possible and want it in operation as quickly as possible. Equally, we are in the difficulty that we want to get this concession and if the Minister would give us a more satisfactory assurance it might suffice. I do not know what Senator Hayes would think about it but it would ease my mind if the Minister said: "Let this Bill go through and I shall undertake to introduuce a short amending Bill in the next session of the Dáil to put back this closing hour from 2.30 to 3.30 p.m. in Waterford." That would make the situation as far as I am concerned——I do not know what Senator Hayes thinks about it——
I said what I thought about that.
In the concession the Minister offered earlier he was asking for evidence of abuse in a year's time but nobody suggested there would be any abuse.
I am really astonished to hear both Senator Hayes and Senator Murphy say they are not worried that there may be abuses. I think that takes away the case now in favour of the amendment. I genuinely thought the reason for putting down these amendments was that Senators were concerned that if this closing hour were done away with, there would be abuses and that it would be an undesirable thing. Now we are right back to the point where all that is concerned here is the convenience of the majority of the Waterford publicans and I think that the Seanad could not possibly be asked to accept these amendments and ask me to depart from the principles in the Bill. There is no question of hardship involved, only the convenience of a very small group of publicans in Waterford city as distinct from any other city in Ireland.
I shall mend my hand in regard to my offer, if I may. If there is no question of abuse, I will ask the Seanad to let the Bill stand for a year and if after a lapse of a year, the Waterford city publicans, as a body, are still anxious to have the midday closing hour restored, I shall be prepared to reconsider the situation and consider going to the Government along the lines suggested.
I want to make one very short point on the question of what the general public of Waterford think. In my respectful opinion, the only unfettered representatives of the people of Waterford who have spoken about this matter are violently in favour of the retention of the hour. Deputy T. Lynch—his name has been all but mentioned—I presume, wants to maintain his popularity in the city of Waterford. It is to be presumed that before he came out violently in the Dáil against the abolition of the midday closing hour, he went around the city and found out what the people thought. He fought this proposal tooth and nail.
If, as the Minister seeks to suggest, the majority of the ordinary people of Waterford, outside the publicans, are in favour of the proposal, Deputy Lynch is committing political suicide. I think he is too shrewd to do that. I am not certain but I think Deputy Kyne was also in favour of the retention of the midday closing hour. As I say, I am not certain—I speak subject to correction—but if that is so, two out of the three Waterford Deputies are in favour of the retention of the midday closing hour, and the other is under the Party Whip and cannot open his mouth.
I think it is now apparent to the House that if the Minister were a free agent—I say this with all deference to Senator Ó Maoláin—and if time did not count, he would have accepted this amendment.
I could have accepted it in the Dáil.
I think the Minister gave some sort of undertaking that he would at least consider it. It was not very definite.
This is a more persuasive place.
This House is prepared to be reasonable with the Minister and to meet him, but I think he should give an unqualified undertaking to bring in an amendment to this section. I feel there are other little things in the Bill which he will be coerced to amend before very long.
Senators will realise that no Minister could possibly commit the Government in that fashion. I seriously suggest that I am going very far. I may even be going further than I should due, as Senator Hayes said, to the over-persuasiveness of the House. This House seems to be able to get me to do things I would not do for anyone else. I think it is a fair compromise I am offering if, as I say, after a lapse of a year, or even not a year——
Six months.
Perhaps at Easter of next year——
The calendar year.
If next Easter the Waterford publicans as a body are still substantially in favour of the reintroduction of the midday closing hour, I shall reconsider the position and approach the Government.
As a man once said to me in Waterford in Irish: "Away linn."
We have been discussing this matter on the basis that it is only the publicans' interest and the workers' interest which are the factors that compelled us to put down this amendment. I should like to say, as I said on Second Reading, that I feel that an extension of hours in bars and lounges, unless very carefully considered, would be conducive to uncivilised drinking. In that spirit, and because I felt that any extension of hours is, in fact, conducive to uncivilised drinking, my name was added to the amendment.
Will the Minister give a similar assurance in connection with Limerick?
Yes. I think I have given that assurance but I do not think it means anything, because I know beyond a shadow of doubt that the Limerick publicans want it done away with. Limerick is completely different, but if they change their minds, we will consider it.
We have evidence that the hour is tied up with the five-day week.
We will consider both together next Easter.
Many men are now available on Saturdays to cash their pay orders, which were previously cashed by their wives. There are many complaints that the husbands spend far two much of their pay orders on Saturdays. I think that an hour's break early on Saturday might be very beneficial in that respect.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendments Nos. 6 and 7 not moved.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
It is now proposed to take amendments Nos. 8, 10, 11 and 12.
I move amendment No. 8:
To delete paragraph (b), lines 23 to 29 inclusive.
This was the only section of the Bill I spoke against when it was introduced in this House. Since I spoke, I have more reason than ever to believe that something will have to be done in regard to the Sunday hours. I have not met any publican, or any member of the public, who agrees with the Sunday opening hours.
A publican and his wife should have a certain amount of recreation, and the recreation most publicans like is a football game. To be successful in a country place, publicans must be keen on sports of all kinds, and definitely they are very keen on football. There is more football talked about in public houses than anything else. They hold that they cannot go to a game now, that they have been completely debarred from having that recreation on a Sunday evening. Furthermore late closing on Sunday nights debars them from taking their wives and families to a show, or to a picture, in the winter time, and perhaps to the seaside or some other form of recreation in the summer time.
They hold also that it will not result in any greater business for them. The drinking habits in most parts of the country, and especially in the rural areas, are that a man goes to the public house for the last hour or the last half-hour. He has not got so much money to spend. The publican will find himself standing at the counter from 4 o'clock to 7 o'clock without a single customer. I may be asked why he does not stay closed until 7 o'clock. There may be the odd straggler and there may be two public houses in one village. If one opens and the other does not, the one that does not will lose a certain number of customers, and no publican at the present time can afford to lose customers.
I would ask the Minister to do something about the Sunday evening hours. I think that even the amendment we have proposed here does not go far enough. We should have said 5 to 9 p.m. in the summer and 5 to 8 p.m. in the winter. That would more or less leave it as it was. We are asking the Minister to change the 4 p.m. to 5 p.m., at least, to try to meet the general demand, and that of the publicans, to shorten these hours on Sunday afternoon.
In putting down this amendment, our concern was to get back to the 5 to 9 p.m. hours on Sunday. I pointed out last week that I had not met one publican who was in favour of the proposed new hours of 4 to 10 p.m. I do not want to go over that ground again, as it would serve no useful purpose.
It may be said that the public are not concerned or interested. So far as I can see, the public have adopted a "couldn't care less" attitude. It is proposed to give an increase of two hours on Sunday. The public, I think, would be more vitally concerned if the proposal were to reduce drinking hours on Sunday by two hours. But, just as in the case of Waterford, the public are not interested. If they feel like it, they can go into the public house at 9 p.m. or if they feel like it, they can go in at 9.50 p.m. or if they do not feel like it, they can stay away altogether. Therefore, they are not vitally interested.
The people vitally interested in this are the publicans who have to open at 4 p.m. and to stand behind the counter until 10 p.m. or 10.15 p.m. at night. For them, it means a certain amount of inconvenience. As I said last week, I honestly believe that the longer hours will not mean a greater income to the publican. We all hope they will not lead to more drinking or more spending in the public-houses.
I think I would be correct in saying that when the Minister introduced this Bill and introduced extended hours, he did not do so with a view to having a greater volume of money spent on the consumption of drink. I feel that while the Minister is vitally concerned with uniformity—and uniformity is desirable—we are hoping for too much if we hope to have uniformity. Uniformity may be all right in the winter months but there is a certain period in the year—the four summer months, for example— when a great number of people will go to the seaside resorts. The publicans and hoteliers in the resorts, whether seaside or holiday resorts inland, depend on those four months to enable them to pay their way over a period of 12 months.
It is impossible, really, to legislate for such areas and, at the same time, to legislate for areas that are far removed. It could be done by exemption rather than by imposing certain hours in certain parts of the country where they are not really required. Why should the publican in the town, city or part of the country far removed from the seaside resorts be penalised by those extra hours to facilitate the few people who have hotels or bars or public houses at the seaside resorts or the people who visit the seaside resorts? I do not think it is logical.
I feel that the Minister should consider that as the publicans are the people vitally concerned, their voice should be listened to in this case. Their Sunday evenings should not be upset to this extent. They are entitled to a little time to spend with their wives and families. They should not be asked to work the hours of 4 to 10 p.m. when there is no great public demand for them and when they themselves do not want those hours. I appeal to the Minister to accept this amendment and to leave the hours as they are at the moment, that is, from 5 to 9 p.m.
Amendment No. 10 reads:
In paragraph (b), line 28, to delete "four" and substitute "seven".
I believe that the alteration and rearrangement of the Sunday hours are necessary but I do not believe that an extension of the total drinking hours on Sunday is necessary at all. In this Bill, we are granting two hours extra drinking facilities on Sunday. Many people mentioned here the last day that we must take into consideration the opinion of the publicans, of the drinkers, of the Pioneer Total Abstinence Association, of the housewives, the children and other people.
I agree entirely with what Senator McAuliffe said the last day about finding only one person in favour of the extended hours on Sunday. I have been speaking to many people since the Bill was last discussed here. I have not found one person in favour of the proposed hours. Many of us said the last day that we agree that the hours fixed by the 1960 Bill were not entirely satisfactory but that this Bill unnecessarily extends the hours.
We have been talking about uniformity. I certainly believe we should have uniformity of closing hours but I claim that the district justice should have authority to give earlier opening exemptions. Why should the publican of rural Ireland have to stand behind his counter from 4 until 7 p.m., twiddling his thumbs or doing nothing at all, to satisfy certain people? Remember that this Bill is to satisfy Dublin city and the other large cities.
I should like the Minister to give us the reason why the public houses must open at 4 o'clock on Sundays, I have been told it is in order to satisfy certain public houses when matches are over at 4 p.m. on Sunday afternoon. If it is not, then, for the life of me, I cannot understand why the public houses are opening at 4 o'clock in the afternoon.
We should all like to see reasonable trading hours for licensed premises. We should also like to see proper facilities and reasonable hours for the workers. We have introduced, for example, a five-day week. What does this extra extension mean for small publicans? It means that the publican himself and his family will be working perhaps 93 hours in the week. I think it is altogether wrong and a trend in the wrong direction.
The claim was made here the last day—and I still agree with it—that the extension of the hours will lead to more and excessive drinking on a Sunday. I believe that the hours in the Bill should be from 7 to 10 p.m., with power of exemption on the part of the district justice in the case of matches, games, athletic meetings, fleadh cheoil, sports meetings or anything that draws a crowd to a particular town, village or area. In such event, the district justice should have authority to give earlier opening exemptions in the areas concerned. That would meet the case and would satisfy the majority of the people.
The provision in this section in respect of Sunday opening is the main bone of contention. We are all, I think, no matter on what side of the House we may be, rightly aghast at the prospect of the 4 to 10 p.m. opening on Sunday.
Nonsense.
That is not bad enough but we have the earlier opening from 12.30 to 2 p.m. which can be extended, and which will be extended, according to this Bill, to become 12 to 2 p.m. Then you get ten minutes drinking-up time and that means 12 to 2.10 p.m. Therefore, there is only this closing of one hour and 50 minutes on Sunday. The Minister abhors such closings and consequently in the next Bill, in the interest of uniformity or whatever other plea is made, we shall have Sunday opening from 12 noon until 10 p.m. That is where we are heading and it is outrageous to think that this should be the position in a Christian country.
There is one other very important consideration. For years, all Parties have proclaimed their adherence to the policy of ending Partition. It is the goal of all. Therefore in legislation we should not erect that Berlin Wall between us still higher. That is what we are doing in this Bill which is regarded here as an outrage on the Sabbath and which, in the Six Counties, will be regarded with even greater detestation as a frightful example of an outrage on the Sabbath. The public houses in the Six Counties close at 10 p.m. and there is no opening on Sundays. Those people value the Sunday and certainly do not spend it in the environment of a public house.
I should like to ask the Government, arising from their talk about ending Partition and the principle of uniformity about which we have heard so much, will this principle apply to the country as a whole when we become united? Will it mean that whether they like it or not, because half per cent. of the drinkers in the Twenty-Six Counties want all day opening on Sundays—and who cannot think of a better way of spending Sunday—that it will be enforced in the Six Counties? Frankly, people in the Six Counties, whether Unionists or Nationalists, will be very anxious to hear the Minister's answer.
There has been too much talk about Partition and too little facing up to realities and the problems that will arise when Partition is eliminated. Yet here we are, by legislative action fostering yet another division between our people and we have been warned that the problem of Partition is largely one of a union of spirits between the two, so that we should be very careful not to do anything to offend the susceptibilities of our separated brethren in the North. By this gross violation of the Sunday, we are taking another step against the ending of Partition.
Not that I think Partition is the main issue in considering this legislation because surely we are adult enough in the Republic to know that we should think of some better way of honouring the Sunday than making provision for what in two years' time will be Sunday opening from twelve o'clock until ten o'clock at night.
Is the Senator against going into the Common Market for the same reason?
No, I——
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
I will not allow any discussion on the Common Market.
The Minister might also realise that in England the Sunday opening hours are from 1 p.m. to 3 p.m. and from 5 p.m. to 7 p.m., as well as ten o'clock closing at night——
Where did the Senator get those hours?
——yet they have a greater number of tourists than we have. The same applies to Scotland where there is no Sunday opening. The Scottish tourist trade is ten times as important as ours and they have attracted tourists without having to pander to them in that way. I suggest we should delete this section and not have it said that an Irish Government wilfully brought in such an outrage on the Sabbath. There is no public demand for it—that goes without saying. Perhaps one in 400 of the population wants it, those who would rot in the bars on Sunday. It has been brought in on the score of uniformity but there is no uniformity in the Bill. Uniformity is a myth. There is closing at 11.30 p.m. but there are so many festivals, sports, outings and so many other exemptions that this mythical character who just thinks of where he can get a drink, can if he gets a specially prepared calendar which shows that from 20th to 26th June public houses are open all night in, say, Tipperary, and from 26th June to 1st July, you may have to go to——
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
We are only discussing Sundays.
Well, Sundays or every other day.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
We cannot discuss any other day.
We should distinguish between the separate problems here in town and country. To my mind, the present hours are far too long and we certainly should not aggravate that situation. These are the hours agreed to by a Commission. Some of the members signed a majority report which recommended those hours. They signed it because they felt that they had to concede extending the hours to prevent certain other abuses. I feel sure that any of those who signed the majority report would not alone not have signed the report but they would have come out actively against it if there had been any suggestion at the time that the Sunday opening, which then was for four hours, should be increased to eight and a half hours. I am very strongly opposed to the section and I appeal to the Seanad to defeat the proposals in it.
I, too, would prefer that there should be no change in the Sunday trading hours from those that operate at the moment. I am not optimistic that, with all the eloquence we could command we could persuade the Minister to agree to that. I think the Minister has been convinced that special provision must be made in regard to the tourist trade. Perhaps the importance of that is exaggerated because from what I know of tourists, if they come from across the Atlantic, they do not drink very much and if they come across the Irish Sea they tend to take their drink in their own hotels where they can get it at any hour because they are residents. Therefore the argument about catering for the tourists is probably exaggerated.
I am prepared to accept that for our own people going to the seaside, and for the publicans providing the very welcome facilities there, special provision should be made. There is something to be said for opening at four o'clock on Sunday afternoon in such places, but in the interests of uniformity, the Minister is proposing to have this opening for all the country. I am all for uniformity as a device to end the evils of the bona fide trade which operated around the county boroughs before the last Act.
Uniformity was built up at that time as a fad and it was a good device to end the bona fide trade. That was primarily related to the question of the closing hours, that if there was a big discrepancy between the closing hours in one area and a neighbouring area, there would tend to be that rush from the bars in the first area of people with drink taken in order to continue the session in the second area. If the discrepancy in the opening hours is as envisaged in the amendment I am moving, I do not think there is any real problem. I cannot imagine the people in Dublin deciding they will rush out to Bray or Wicklow because the pubs will open two hours earlier there. But if it is so, what about it? They are not going out of a pub with drink taken, getting into their cars and driving out.
But they are coming back.
They will be coming back. But if the Minister allows the pubs open until 10 o'clock, they will be coming back with drink at that stage.
They will have gone away from home and they will have to come back at some stage with drink taken.
Has the Minister such a poor opinion of the publicans in Wicklow? I do not think the question of uniformity is of great importance in relation to opening hours. It is because of that, not because I am against the present hours, and in the hope that the Minister might find some way of meeting us, that we have put down this amendment which provides that the pubs in Dublin and Cork will not open at 4 o'clock on Sunday afternoons but will open at 6 o'clock. As far as I know, there is no great demand for 4 o'clock opening on Sundays in Dublin. I may be wrong in that. But we are going to have those opening hours if the Minister has his way.
Somebody may say the public are not interested. They are, because with these longer hours of drinking, they will be vitally affected in their pockets. It is inevitable that if these longer hours go through, there will be an increase in the price of drink to provide for these hours, which are not really desired or required in Dublin and Cork. I do not think the public will thank the Minister for the longer hours they will be given in order to drink on Sundays. From what I know, it will lead to an increase in the price of drink and, in my opinion, what is being done here may inadvertently spark off the ninth-round wage increase.
You are going to have an increase in the price of drink, an increase in certain wages and you are going to start things moving again for the sake of hours which are not really desired and are not necessary, so far as the majority of the population are concerned. The majority happen to live in Dublin and in that most important city, Cork. I do not think anybody will thank the Minister eventually for this opening at 4 o'clock. At this stage, I do not know what I can do to persuade the Minister to think again.
On the contrary, they look on me so highly in Cork that they have invited me down to open their Film Festival.
That is possibly because the Minister looks like a film star. It is not because of the two hours extra he is giving them, hours which will lead to an increase in the price of the pint. I hope the Minister will think again about this problem. He is possibly doing the right thing for the towns and country areas, where there is a certain amount of travelling and where people go out to enjoy themselves on a Sunday. The four hour opening will possibly be welcomed there, but it certainly will not be welcomed in Dublin and Cork. I hope the Minister can meet us in some respect.
I support the general trend of these amendments. I support what Senator McAuliffe said and I also feel that Senator L'Estrange's suggestion of opening hours of 7 p.m. to 10 p.m. might be even more suitable for Sundays, with special facilities for festivals, matches and so on. I support the amendments because I think what was provided for in the former Bill was sufficient and also because I think a great many people do not want these hours. The country publicans certainly do not want them. Their story is: "It gives us no time for ourselves on Sunday." So far as the tourists are concerned, I do not know. As many tourists come here to enjoy the peace and quiet of our country as come to drink on a Sunday. I would ask the Minister to bear that in mind. People bring their families to this country in preference to Continental countries because the hours have been very reasonable and comparatively well kept in recent years.
Traditionally, Sunday is a family day for every section of our people. That is borne out by what has been said by Senator McAuliffe, Senator Quinlan and others. It is the only day on which families have a chance of being together. On the other days, they are working and they have different entertainments, perhaps, on Saturday afternoon. I should like to assure the Minister that there is a great and silent body of opinion that did not send any deputation to the Minister and would never think of doing so. I refer to the women, to the wives, who do not want these extra hours of opening on Sunday. This is a further inroad into the few hours the ordinary working man can spend with his family, if he so desires. It may be said that he need not go to a public house. But, if he does go into a public house at 4 o'clock and finds some of his friends there, it is very unlikely he will return immediately to his family. Perhaps he would be weak enough not to return at all.
If the Minister will not accuse me of preaching to him, I should like to quote from a leaflet I found lately. It does not mention the words "intoxicating liquor" at all. It is a leaflet handed out by an organisation known as the Mothers of the Church of Ireland and, in fact, by the Anglican Church. They devoted this year to improving family life, to increasing and encouraging everything that tended to make family life happier in practically all respects than it has been all over the world. One sentence rather bears out what I have been trying to say: "It is the bond between the members of a family that creates a home and shapes our lives. When that unique relationship is broken or strained, the home itself ends and the lives of those within it are shattered." The leaflet bears the heading: "Your Home Needs You." In all seriousness, I would ask the Minister, when he does bring in an amending Bill, to consider seriously amending this section.
Those who are objecting to the proposed opening period of 4 p.m. to 10 p.m. on Sunday evenings are hopelessly wide of the mark. They do not recognise that the provisions in the Bill dealing with opening hours are an act of faith in the good sense and moderation of the vast bulk of our population, and that the Bill is not, by any means, a publicans' charter. Of course, the opening period goes beyond the normal requirements of some areas; if we are to believe what has been repeated ad nauseam in the Dáil it goes beyond what is required in Dublin. But, the Bill does not go beyond the reasonable requirements of rural areas. Persons going to holiday resorts and games in summer, and—let me emphasise it—in winter, too, create a legitimate demand for alcoholic and non-alcoholic refreshment in the afternoon, and the demand for the non-alcoholic refreshment can, in many cases, be catered for only where the facilities are made available in public houses. The Minister has stressed again and again that where you have a situation that shows a legitimate demand for drinking facilities in many areas in the country the best solution, in the long run, is to have general opening during the period in question throughout the whole country. The Minister's logic is irrefutable.
As regards the extension of the opening period on Sunday night to 10 p.m., it is generally recognised that there is a demand throughout the rural parts of the country for drinking facilities up to that hour. In my opinion the extension of the Sunday hours will not lead to any abuse.
As regards my colleagues' amendments, I think they have lost touch with the realities of the situation. Apart from our visitors, the convenience of the farming community has to be considered. For them Sunday is not exactly a day of rest—they have to "walk the land" and look after their cattle and crops as on other days of the week. Surely they are entitled to have and enjoy some relaxation in the company of their friends in congenial surroundings. Or are we to infer that they, and our visitors, are incapable of exercising restraint in matters of sociability?
Whether we are pioneers, or whether we are not, we are all familiar with the impact this kind of legislation has on the lives of our people. I, too, believe that these hours of trading on Sunday afternoon and Sunday evening are far too long, especially in the rural areas. I believe that, if the Minister had allowed the rural public houses, as distinct from what can be described as seaside resort public houses, three hours opening on Sunday, with the option of opening from 4 p.m. to 7 p.m. or from 7 p.m. to 10 p.m., that would have been a fairer approach to the problem. If that suggestion were adopted, then the publicans in rural Ireland would be allowed some time off on Sundays for family life. As far as this Bill is concerned, I am afraid family life where publicans and their employees are concerned is completely out. That is a very retrograde step.
Senator Cole touched on this aspect most admirably. The Minister should consider his views very seriously. I should be glad to see some reduction of the proposed hours of drinking on Sunday and, therefore, I support the amendments.
As a person residing over 17 miles from the Six County Border, I can assure Senator Quinlan that the people there do not appear to have the same narrow-minded views on drink as he has. According to the Central Statistics Office more than 5,000 cars cross the Six County Border at Bridgend every Sunday in the summer time. The business is so good potentially that at a recent Circuit Court a Dáil Deputy received a licence to build a public house beside that Border post. It is quite true that the people in the Six Counties cannot, or may not, drink on Sundays in the Six Counties. If they may not, however, they cross the Border to Donegal in their thousands and I am certain that, if Partition should ever be abolished, the publicans in Donegal would not welcome any change in the liquor laws in the Six Counties.
This section of the Bill appears to be receiving opposition from both the publicans and the Pioneers, a most unusual coalition. Listening to the various speakers here today, one gets the impression that this Bill has been introduced to facilitate publicans only. The general public have also to be taken into consideration. Any man or woman who owns a hotel, or public house or who is in the catering trade must make sacrifices in order to cater for the public. I am in the catering trade. I must open at 10 a.m. on Sunday and remain open until 1 a.m. the next morning. My hours of trading during the week are much the same. Publicans have a duty to the public and they must, therefore, make sacrifices, particularly on Sundays.
We have been told that, if this Bill is passed, publicans will never have an opportunity of going to football matches. There is no public house in rural Ireland in which the publican could not get someone to substitute for him for a few hours if he wishes to attend a match, or any other function. From that point of view, speakers have tended grossly to exaggerate the position.
A good deal of the time we have spent on this Bill would have been saved had the hope I expressed on the Second Stage of the 1960 Bill been realised and had this Bill been a comprehensive measure to abolish all restrictions on the sale of drink. Unlike most of those who have spoken I am strongly in favour of the abolition of all laws controlling the opening and closing of public houses. I think people are entitled to a drink whenever they want it if the man who sells it is willing to keep his premises open and to serve them. Some day that desirable situation will no doubt be brought about. Until then we can only make the best of the hours provided in this Bill.
I do not at all accept the statements made here ex cathedra by Senator L'Estrange, Senator Fitzgerald and others that they have met nobody who wants this Bill. One would imagine they had carried out a referendum and found nobody in favour of the Bill. I was in a public house in Senator Fitzgerald's constituency last Sunday. There was a very big crowd there.
After hours?
During legitimate trading hours. There is a very efficient Garda Síochána section in the area. Chatting with the people there, I found that quite a number, including the publican, will have great bonfires blazing in and around the area when the hours come into operation next Sunday, with the help of God.
I feel like Senator McGlinchey with regard to the reference of Senator Murphy to the hardship on the publicans and the barmen which will lead to this, that and the other. We have heard these dire penalties and threats made before. I am beginning to become convinced—it is my own opinion—that we have a new class of aristocracy in this country—the barmen, ably assisted by the busmen. Any time there is an attempt to provide facilities for the public to enjoy a drink if they want to, then we are up against this threat. The barmen will not work; they cannot be deprived of their leisure. As Senator McGlinchey said, they are in a catering branch, just like newspaper delivery men, waitresses and others. They must be prepared to admit that in the performance of a public service, they are not in a different category. I do not see why this new class, as I call it, should be in the position of putting a pistol to the heads of the publicans and the Legislature whenever any attempt is made to extend facilities for the convenience of the public whom they serve. They are not doing badly on pay and they are well able to look after themselves. I do not think we should worry about them.
If there is one thing nauseating, it is to hear the type of drivel which Senator Quinlan used in the last of many speeches to this Assembly today. I refer to the introduction of the phrase: "This is a Christian country" with emphasis on the Sabbath as if we were all non-Christians, anti-Christians or anti-Sabbatarians. In every Christian country in Europe, there are far more facilities for drinking than there are in this country.
Senator Quinlan should know that in France, Belgium, Spain and Italy, the facilities available to enjoy a drink far outshine even the best we have proposed here up to now, except the proposition I made myself. Senator Quinlan will not deny that as good a Christian country as this ever was is the country known as Spain. On one Holy Thursday in Spain, I witnessed the extraordinary spectacle of every single establishment being closed down because of the great procession which they have on that day. It is the greatest feastday in Spain. As I say, every single establishment closed down, except one type of establishment, the cafés where wines and drink were sold. Does Senator Quinlan think that is not a Christian country? If it is a Christian thing for the Spaniards to do, I see nothing wrong with our having the sale of drink on a Sunday.
They do not sell Irish whiskey.
Senator McGlinchey has dealt ably and well with Senator Quinlan's reference to Partition. It would do Senator Quinlan no harm to go up north occasionally and take a little walk around the pubs in Belfast, Derry and in Newry, County Down. He will find a completely different attitude to the licensing laws down here from that to which he has given expression. These amendments are absurd and should be rejected.
I think the Minister had in mind, when introducing the Bill, that he intended it to deal with the shortcomings in the original Act. At that time, he was prepared to consider what he has now done. Probably there were some shortcomings in the new Act because it made rather drastic changes at the time as against what we had previously experienced as between the cities and the country. A uniform closing hour was introduced and it is very questionable whether it was right to go as far as we did.
It is true that in the country people have different habits. They have different leisure hours from what they have in industrial areas. Some of the requirements at least would be at a different time. Evidently, at that time, as a result of the bona fide trade, you had people going from one area into another with, perhaps, rather too much drink taken. The Minister at that time thought there was something in that and decided on uniformity, the one closing time for the city and the country.
There was support for that line of argument and there would still be support for it but it does not follow that that was the best thing to do. In the light of experience, I still think it was not the best thing to do. It could be said that in parts of the country, there may still be a demand that we should have a later closing, especially on Sunday, and in some tourist areas. It might be said that we might want to open earlier than at any of the times stated in the amending Act.
There is no provision made for that. It is now a case of complete uniformity, no matter what part of the country is involved—be it tourist area or city area. That may appear to be the easiest way to administer the law but it does not follow that it is the best way. The district justice in his wisdom can grant certain exemptions for special reasons if an application is made but that does not meet the problem. Some publicans in tourist areas may say this is what they want but you may have some publicans at the crossroads saying: "I do not like turning the people out at 8 o'clock in the winter time and 9 o'clock in the summer time because it does not suit me. That is the time the men, who have attended to their cattle and so forth, want to come in."
In the large industrial areas, there is no representative demand as far as I know—I think the Minister will agree with that—from the public for a change in the existing hours. If there were any demand from the public, it would be that the opening until 11.30 p.m. at night is too long, even in the summer time—that is, if there were any demand. There is no general demand at all to change the present hours in the large industrial areas. That applies to Dublin and Cork. The present change is not an improvement in so far as the large cities are concerned.
Senator Ó Maoláin referred to the barmen and what their attitude might be. There are many people who share the views of the barmen. The owners of public houses will now have to be in on Sunday from 4 o'clock until 10 o'clock at night. It has been said that they are not compelled to be there, that they can close their premises. Let us be reasonable in this matter. If a man opens his premises only when he feels like it, everybody knows what will happen to his trade. He just cannot do that. He must open and close in line with everybody else. If this measure goes through in its present form the barman finishes at 2.10 p.m. on a Sunday and comes back at 4 p.m. I think the ten minutes should be put on at the other end because the barman would have to stay there for the extra ten minutes even though he is not selling anything. He would be there for only portion of that period if the ten minutes were the other side. When he returns at 4 p.m. he must work till 10 p.m. and it is 11 p.m. by the time he gets home. It is quite easy to say it is a worsening of conditions and that he is entitled to attend to that through his trade union. Nevertheless you cannot compensate a man for such a loss of free time. It is not an essential service; there is no great public demand for those extra hours nor would the national economy be affected if they are not implemented. If the barman gets compensation where does it end? It ends with the consumer as do all these matters.
I do not think these changes affect the tourist traffic. It is said the Minister is anxious to get this Bill through. If it affected the economy of the country and the tourist trade we would be anxious to facilitate the passage of the Bill. However, I do not think that is the case. Even our present arrangements do not affect the tourist trade. I have heard very few complaints in regard to the present arrangements for the consumption of intoxicating liquor. Surely 11.30 on week nights and 9 p.m. on Sunday is reasonable enough for anybody except perhaps tourists, who can always get their requirements at their hotels.
There are other matters affecting the tourist trade which require attention but with which we cannot deal here, such as the charges made in certain places where food is consumed. We could look at some of the figures but we do not want to say a great deal about that matter because it would not be in the best interests. This amendment does not represent the wishes of the people in general and therefore the Minister should agree to allow the existing arrangements to stand or agree to Senator Murphy's amendment which is not even as good as the provision that is there at the moment. However, the Minister should agree to something that would improve the present Bill which, as drafted, is not satisfactory.
I wish to make my position clear. I never thought and I do not think the Party to which I belong ever thought the hours provided by the Licensing Act of 1960 were satisfactory for the drinking public on Sundays. We always thought those hours would have to be amended and we are still of that opinion but we also think that the hours proposed for Sunday in this Bill as a general rule are too long. I believe, as I said on Second Reading, that the keeping open of public houses all over the country from 4 p.m. till 10 p.m. on Sunday will lead to abuses. There is the occasional brawl on a fair day at the present time because people find themselves with long hours to spend, with not much to do, and they go in to the public house and get drunk. The fact that public houses will be kept open from 4 p.m. until 10 p.m. on Sunday as a general rule all over the country will interfere with the family life of the publican and of the drinker.
I do not subscribe to the views of Senator Ó Maoláin that there should be no such thing as licensing laws or that licensing laws are unnecessary. We must take human nature into account and the effect of drink on people. The issue of driving licences to the public is regulated because if motor cars are not properly driven they are dangerous. The sale of drugs all over the country is controlled because drugs are dangerous if not properly used. There is an endless list of things that have to be controlled and regulated. Drink and the Irish temperament are matters that have to be taken into consideration. Drink is dangerous if not properly used and if the consumption of it is not regulated. Therefore, I say with all sincerity that the keeping open of public houses from 4 p.m. till 10 p.m. will lead to abuses and to disruption of family life. The hours need to be adjusted and I think the hours of 7 p.m. till 10 p.m. or possibly 6.30 p.m. till 10 p.m. would be desirable and would meet the general demand throughout the country.
I also think there should be exemptions for special occasions such as a football match, a fleadh ceoil or some other special occasion in a town. The district court can be relied upon to give exemptions when required in such cases. There is no use in talking about uniformity because, as somebody said, although the Bill is supposed to set out to attain uniformity, it does no such thing.
There are provisions in the Bill for exemptions during the year not exceeding nine days in all. I would go further and agree to generous exemptions in the case of holiday resorts. The hours proposed in the Bill are not long enough for holiday resorts. From about mid-June until about mid-September, I would give hours perhaps up to 12 midnight on Sunday in holiday resorts. I think the bona fide trade could be dealt with through the hours given in this Bill and by the Garda Síochána. As I said on the Second Reading, you cannot compare the requirements of an individual during his ordinary workaday life and during the fortnight he spends relaxing on holidays. If the weather is good, he will stay outdoors as long as he can and will like to go into a hotel at night for a bit of a singsong. He does not need as much sleep and he can drink more than he does during his working life.
I am afraid the extension of these hours will increase the price of drink. Again, I find myself in disagreement with Senator Ó Maoláin when he refers to a new aristocracy in the persons of the barmen and the bus drivers. If these people are obliged or asked to work longer hours, as they will be when this Bill comes into operation, they have a perfect right to request more wages—and they will do so. No threat of any sort, from the Government or from anybody else, will stop them.
Nobody made any threats. We expressed an opinion.
I think it was a rather bullying opinion.
Senator Ó Maoláin said the very opposite. He said they were well organised, well able to look after their own interests.
He referred to them as a new aristocracy, as imposing their will and taking an unfair advantage of the people. I do not subscribe to that opinion. I believe this Bill will not be long on the Statute Book before there is a demand from the barmen in Dublin for increased wages and that the price of the pint will jump consequently.
They got an increase before the Bill was introduced.
And you will have another one. Did their last increase anticipate the extension of hours in the Bill? I thought that was a status increase—an increase to increase the standard of living, not one that had any relation to working hours or anything like that. I venture to suggest there will be another increase application. I say this Bill was necessary— I say certain sections were necessary —to regulate the hours for Sundays. I am slow to impede its enactment but it is a great pity it was not regarded as something above and beyond political controversy and that the advice and guidance of all Parties were not sought before it was introduced.
The general trend of these amendments is to reduce the hours of opening on Sunday and I should like, first of all, to deal with the arguments which have been adduced implying that there is some moral issue involved in this. I am neither a canonist nor a theologian but I challenge any member of the Seanad to produce to me any argument based on canon law or theology to oppose what is proposed in this Bill.
Keep holy the Sabbath Day—Our Lord said that.
I challenge any Senator to produce any such argument and I know no such argument can be adduced. I want to say no one will ever persuade me that it is wrong for a man to take a drink at 5 o'clock in Dublin city and right for him to take a drink at the same time in a seaside resort. That sort of potted morality just does not cut any ice. I do not like to pontificate on what is and what is not servile work on Sunday but I suggest that argument does not enter into this. If it is wrong for a barman to work from 5 p.m. to 9 on a Sunday then it is equally wrong for him to work from 4 p.m. to 10 p.m. and if it is not wrong for him to work from 5 p.m. to 9 p.m., I cannot see how it is wrong for him to work from 4 p.m. to 10 p.m.
That argument was never made.
Senator Quinlan, in fact, went on record here as dissenting from the Second Reading of the Bill because he regarded it as a desecration of the Sabbath.
As it is.
He was talking about excessive drinking.
If he were talking about no opening at all on Sunday, I could understand him, but I cannot understand the introduction of this element of morality as between 4 p.m. and 10 p.m. and 5 p.m. and 9 p.m. Senator Ó Maoláin is absolutely correct in so far as Catholic tradition is concerned and I think this can be said of Christian tradition generally. The position has long obtained in the Christian countries of Europe that there is nothing wrong, illegal or immoral about persons having drink on a Sunday. I want to explain briefly what my approach to this matter is.
People who go to a seaside resort, the plain people of Ireland who have done a hard week's work either on a farm or in a factory, who go to a seaside resort for the afternoon on a Sunday are entitled to a drink, not when we say they should drink but when it suits them and there is no moral issue involved in their doing so. When the people of rural Ireland go into their local town for a big football match, and if the football match is over at 3.30 or 4 p.m. as it usually is in the winter, they are entitled to go into a public house and have their drink.
We agree.
Therefore, we are all agreed that in certain areas, in seaside resorts and in holiday resorts, the hours I propose are adequate.
On special occasions.
Do not hedge.
There is no hedging.
The Senators who are proposing those amendments are, I suggest, guilty of woolly thinking. If you accept the hours I propose as reasonable and necessary for certain parts of the country, then you must accept them for all parts of the country, since the only alternative is the area exemption order in some form or another, whether it be a special exemption, an area exemption or an extension of hours for special occasions. It is the sort of thing which caused chaos already. You would be faced with the difficulty of defining a seaside area or a holiday resort. Malahide is a seaside area; so is Bray; and so are Skerries and Blackrock. Does anybody suggest that special hours should be introduced for those areas and not for the city of Dublin ?
It is absurd to suggest you could possibly have area exemption orders for these places. These orders led to chaos already and, I submit, would lead to chaos again. It was to eliminate the possibility of such chaotic conditions that I proposed these hours. They are suitable and adequate for the greater part of the country. I agree they are not strictly necessary in some parts. Somebody says there is no demand for them in Dublin. I agree they are more than is necessary in Dublin. I have argued time and again that this is a necessary consequence of doing what we want to do for the seaside resorts, the holiday resorts and rural Ireland in general.
Business suspended at 6 p.m. and resumed at 7.15 p.m.
Reference has been made to the increasing tendency to secularise the Sunday and there was some suggestion that this Bill could be found fault with on those grounds. I want to make it clear that I have no such intention, but, as Senator McGlinchey and others pointed out, in this matter we are dealing with the catering trade and with people engaged in that business whose function it is to supply or meet the reasonable needs and requirements of the public. The catering business involves supplying these needs and requirements on Sundays as well as on Mondays. Just as modern life necessitates the busman, the chemist, the taximan or the hotel worker working so as to meet the needs of the public on Sundays and weekdays, the same requirements apply to those engaged in the licensed trade.
I do not think there is any precept of any Christian faith, any canon or dogma or any theological precept which forbids the meeting of the reasonable requirements of the public. If that is granted and if it is granted that in this Bill we are doing nothing more than endeavouring to meet the reasonable requirements of the general public, I think it is entirely fallacious and wrong to endeavour to import any moral content into this debate or to suggest that there is any proposal to desecrate or profane the Sabbath day.
Senator L'Estrange quoted the commandment: "Remember that thou keep holy the Sabbath Day." I am sure he is not serious. I do not think for one moment he intends to suggest that it is unholy to take a drink on Sunday. I am quite sure he would find no canonist or theologian or, indeed, any Christian philosopher or thinker who would agree with him on that.
Senator Quinlan asked to be recorded as dissenting from the passing of the Second Reading of this Bill because he suggested that this Bill was a desecration of the Sunday. I think that is the phrase he used. I want to say quite seriously to Senator L'Estrange and Senator Quinlan, that if I can, as I think I can, by these measures bring about a situation in which our people in the towns and in the country will be able to take a drink on Sundays, with dignity and decorum and at suitable times, and ensure that our people are enabled to enjoy the leisure which Sunday provides in an appropriate and dignified manner, far from taking from the Sabbath day or profaning it in any way, I think I am actually contributing to the proper observance of the Sunday in the best Christian tradition.
As I said at the outset, I would not attempt to set myself up as a canonist or a theologian or anything of that sort, but I maintain very strongly that in endeavouring to regulate this matter in a sensible and practical way and to provide for the reasonable and legitimate needs of our people in this regard, I am contributing to the proper Christian observance of Sunday.
Senator Cole spoke about family life, and I am sure the sentiment he quoted would meet with the unanimous approval of Senators. However, I think he was not quite fair. I think he took one sentence out of context. I should like to have heard the general argument. I gathered from the wording of what he did quote that the people concerned were not actually referring to licensing laws or drinking at all.
I do not think the provisions of this Bill will interfere in any way with family life. I should be the first to abandon them if I did think so. In fact, I think they will have the opposite effect, particularly in rural Ireland, because people can have a drink at suitable times, they will be able to spend more time with their families. If a man brings his family to a seaside resort and knows he can get a drink before he leaves—and I suggest that is in every way desirable and proper—he is far more likely to take his family out in those conditions than he otherwise would be. Sunday is not the only day involved in this matter. It is not true to suggest that these proposals will have the effect which Senator Cole suggests they might possibly have.
I must say I am never quite sure whether Senator Quinlan is in fact making an argument in which he believes or making merely a debating point. He brought up the question of Partition. Logically, if he thinks that is a valid argument, then he should of course go this way. He should say that if we are going into the Common Market, we should bring our licensing laws into line with those prevailing in France, Germany, and so on, and advocate longer hours.
Oh, no.
I do not think his argument in that regard can stand up at all. When we achieve the unity of our country there will be many prob lems of adjustment of this sort to be ironed out. We can at the moment deal only with the situation as we find it. Our object at this stage should be to provide ourselves with what we think are suitable and adequate licensing laws for our situation now. When Partition is ended this is one of the many matters which will have to be adjusted and one of the many sectors in which our law and the law prevailing in the North will have to be harmonised.
If, in this part of the country we can regulate our affairs in regard to this matter in a sensible, practical and intelligent manner, and show that we have the capacity to regulate matters in that way, that, in itself, is a contribution to the ending of Partition. Indeed, the more we demonstate our capacity to provide for ourselves in every sphere of activity sensible solutions to our problems then, by the fact of doing that, we are cumulatively contributing to the eventual abolition of Partition.
I should very much like to persuade the Seanad of the inevitability of what I propose. Most Senators go a fair distance with me. The only difference between us is that I have gone to the logical conclusion. I have set my face against the reintroduction of the area exemption order in any shape or form. It is a system which eventually leads to chaos and to a breakdown in the licensing laws. If we introduce the old business of persons being able to get a drink at different times in different places and therefore encourage travelling——
You have the nine days a year yet.
Once a year.
Three times.
As Deputy Dillon said in the Dáil, it would create a pattern which in time would be exactly the same as the old bona fide business which we got rid of and which most people agreed was a step in the right direction.
If it is admitted that 4 p.m. to 10 p.m. is suitable for the greater part of the country then you must go the step further and agree that if 4 p.m. to 10 p.m. is necessary in those areas the sensible thing to do is to make it 4 p.m. to 10 p.m. for all areas. I am taking that decision with my eyes open. I realise that in some areas 4 p.m. to 10 p.m. is not really necessary or really required but I do not think it will do any harm. I am told that it will cause hardship to publicans and their staff: I do not think it need do that.
With proper management and adjustment, publicans and their staffs will be able to circumvent all these difficulties as they have been able to circumvent many difficulties in the past. They are in the catering business. To a large extent, they are at the mercy of the public. They have, down the years, developed their business in such a way as to cater for the needs and demands of the public. I think they will be able to overcome any problems which this Bill presents to them in that regard.
I urgently appeal to Senators not to push this matter to the extent of advocating the reintroduction of differentials in different areas. That would be disastrous. My proposals are put forward on the basis that at all costs I want to preserve the structure of uniformity and to avoid slipping back into the chaotic situation which prevailed before 1960.
The Minister in replying to some of the points I raised took objection to the suggestion that there was any moral issue involved. The Minister admits he is neither a canonist nor a theologian. Neither am I. However, one who is a canonist and a theologian has spoken very effectively on this matter. I refer to the Most Reverend Dr. Browne of Galway. He has not put a tooth in it in describing the new liquor law as a desecration of the Sabbath. If those of us who have spoken feel similarly I suggest we are in good company. I, for one, will take his view that the hours of 4 p.m. to 10 p.m. on Sunday cannot by any manner of means be held to be a contribution, as the Minister said, to the proper observance of the Sunday. That is the most amazing statement I have ever heard. We must then take it that the people in Northern Ireland who allow no opening on Sunday are not observing the Sunday in a proper way and neither are the people in Scotland who have no opening hours on Sunday. In England they have opening hours from 7 p.m. to 10 p.m. They had longer hours but due to a great increase in drunkenness they went back to the old hours and are quite happy with those hours.
I cannot see why we should need to be twice as long in the public houses as the British need to be on a Sunday. Certainly, I cannot see that that is a way of contributing to the observance of the Sunday in an appropriate and dignified way, as the Minister suggested. The Leader of the House spoke of the Christian tradition generally. We beg to differ with the Leader of the House on that. We feel we are slightly more in the Christian tradition in insisting that the proper place for a family man on Sunday is with his family and not in the public house where he may stay undisturbed from 4 p.m. to 10 p.m. Of course, he could equally well have been there from 12.30 p.m. to 2 p.m.
As for the chaos that would ensue should any other arrangements be introduced, we might mention the previous Bill that came before us and the corpses that lined the roads on the way from the bona fide houses. In point of fact, in yesterday's newspaper it was shown that casualties on the roads are up ten per cent. on the previous year. Therefore, it cannot be claimed that the previous Bill in any way mitigated our road problems.
The Minister dealt rather gingerly with the topic of Partition. He has shown, what I suspected all along, that there is simply no policy on Partition except that it is good policy to demand the ending of Partition. The main issue that arises on this Bill is the issue of what licensing laws will prevail when Partition is ended. Apparently, we are told we can face up to that issue when Partition is ended. I do not think that will satisfy either the people here or the people across the Border. They have the right to know whether they will be entitled to have their Sunday sanctified, that the public houses will not be wide open, or whether anything else not contributing to the proper observance of the Sunday will be allowed.
We do not compel them by law to go. They can stay at home if they want to.
Mention was made of the catering business. I think Senator Ó Maoláin described those engaged in the catering business as the new aristocrats. It looks as though they are very far from being aristocrats. They are the most bound slaves of the people. The only ray of hope that emerges from the whole thing is that the official Government verdict, as given by the Minister here, is that these new hours will not lead to any increase in the consumption of alcoholic drink. That is a positive statement which we got on the authority of the Minister concerned. Longer hours will increase labour costs; therefore, the labour unions would be failing in their duty if they did not immediately seek the necessary increase in the price of drink.
They will not seek the increase in the price of drink.
When we are told about the importance of having drink available at all times, I might mention one other important modern necessity, that is, the supply of medicines. A supply of medicine is available on a Sunday for only two hours and apparently we get on all right under those conditions but we cannot survive unless drink is on tap for eight and a half hours on a Sunday. As I said before, this is only the thin end of the wedge and the next Bill will remove the closing period between 2.10 p.m. and 4 p.m. and the half hour between 12 and 12.30. We are heading for Sunday drinking from 12 o'clock to 10.10 p.m. and we have the authority of the Leader of the House that that is far too little and that he favours completely unrestricted hours.
My own personal and long-held opinion.
Is the amendment withdrawn?
The Minister persuaded me differently in regard to an earlier amendment regarding Waterford but in this case he has hardened me more and more to proceed with this amendment and I shall have to press for a Division.
Good.
I was waiting for the Minister to give me some idea about where the demand came from for these longer hours but he made no attempt to tell us. It was an idea of his own. He did not ask the general public or the publicans. They would tell him that they did not want the increased hours on Sundays. Every publican would tell him that he does not want the four o'clock opening on Sunday or the ten o'clock closing, an increase of two hours and twenty minutes. I did not think the Minister in his reply would give us a lecture on morals. This is asking workers to do unnecessary servile work for two hours more every Sunday and if there is anything forbidden by the Church, it is unnecessary servile work. Because of the Minister's attitude in his reply, I am going to press for a division. If the Minister held a referendum in regard to Sunday opening and closing hours, he would meet with a crushing defeat. Every person to whom I have spoken on this matter has said : "Oppose the Sunday hours". This is the finest piece of legislation introduced in this country, along with the amendments made in the 1960 Act, with the exception of the provisions for the Sunday hours.
It seems to me that we have come to this position, that the Minister agrees that there is no great need for opening the public houses in Dublin at four o'clock on a Sunday afternoon. He did not mention Cork. Dublin seems to be the crux. His objection is that it would lead to different hours in different areas and if the public houses were opening at four o'clock outside Dublin, you would have people in Dublin availing of those longer hours in Malahide, Blackrock and Bray, these places around the city. If the Bill goes through, who will avail of the 4 o'clock opening in Malahide, Bray, Blackrock, these seaside resorts? Surely the intention is that the Dublin people who are out for the day in those places will avail of the 4 o'clock opening ? That seems to be the desire of the people who want the earlier opening.
I wonder would the Minister give more thought to this problem and consider if any real problem would arise if there were a different opening hour in Dublin from the hour in the surrounding areas. That is completely different from the closing time which does give rise to undesirable bona fide travelling for drink. I still have some hope that the Minister will come some way to meet our proposal that 4 o'clock is unreasonably early on Sunday afternoon.
Senator Ó Maoláin made an attack on the barmen and said that they were setting themselves up as a privileged class like the bus workers. These people are human beings. If the bus workers had been regarded as human beings, possibly we would not have had the recent trouble. Senator Ó Maoláin will agree with me that an increasing value is being attached to leisure. More people want their leisure; they want a five-day week and they want shorter working hours. In the past five years, more importance has been attached to leisure and here we are proposing to reduce the leisure hours of barmen who are organised strongly in a trade union in Dublin and there is bound to be a reaction. It is easy for the Minister to dismiss that but we as representatives not only of the Labour Party and the trade unions but also of the people who consume the intoxicating liquor cannot brush aside that problem.
The Minister admits there is no real need in Dublin city for this. It is going to mean increased wages and increased costs for the consumer. I hope the Minister can come some way to meet our point of view because I do not think that later opening hours in Dublin and Cork will create any great difficulty or lead to any abuse. On the contrary, they would suit the people directly concerned—the publicans and their workers—and would not prove inconvenient to other workers.
I was surprised that the Minister should accuse any of us who oppose the Sunday hours of woolly thinking. I think that was the phrase he used. The 1960 Act is not two years old. Surely, if we can be accused of woolly thinking for asking the Minister to maintain the hours introduced by that Act, there must also have been some woolly thinking on the part of somebody when the 1960 Act was introduced? I cannot be accused of being either a moralist or a theologian. I have not dealt with that aspect and I think it only right that we should leave it to the people best fitted to deal with it. All I have opposed is the provision for expanded Sunday hours. I want to assure the Minister and the House that I do so with sincerity. I have been written to by publicans. I can produce to the Minister correspondence signed not by one publican but by four in the same village that they do not want the hours of 4 p.m. to 10 p.m. on Sundays and that they are satisfied with the present hours. I think it is reasonable for a public representative to make their case when the opportunity arises. I will concede to Senator Ó Maoláin that I have not a referendum from the publicans. I met only a few of them but I did not meet one who wanted these Sunday hours. Senator Ó Maoláin was more fortunate because he happened to meet the only one who wanted them.
I could give you the names of others. I mentioned that one because it is not very far from you and I thought you would be interested.
We are engaging in a whole series of repetitions.
The Minister mentioned that if he were to legislate for the seaside resorts, a problem would be presented by places like Malahide, Portmarnock, Blackrock and so on. There is now a proposal that they be allowed to open two hours earlier instead of later. We must agree with Senator Murphy that it does not matter if we allow public houses to open two hours earlier in a particular area, because people will not get into their cars and go five or ten miles in order to get a drink an hour earlier. The danger would be at the other end, if the public houses at seaside resorts were to open an hour later. I feel there would be no danger if we were to open them at four o'clock. We should leave the rest of the country as it is and adhere to the 5 p.m. to 9 p.m. opening. I would appeal to the Minister to give this amendment the consideration it deserves.
I now propose to put the question. I am putting the question in the form: That the words proposed to be deleted stand part of the section. That is the simplest form in which we can dispose of the matter.
Question put: "That the words proposed to be deleted stand."
The Committee divided: Tá, 27; Níl, 15.
Tá
- Ahern, Liam.
- Boland, Gerald.
- Brady, Seán.
- Brennan, John J.
- Browne, Seán.
- Farrell, Joseph.
- Fitzsimons, Patrick.
- Hayes, Seán.
- Healy, Augustine A.
- Hogan, Daniel.
- O'Sullivan, Ted.
- Ruane, Thomas.
- Ryan, Eoin.
- Ryan, Patrick W.
- McGlinchey, Bernard.
- Moloney, Daniel J.
- Mooney, Joseph M.
- Nash, John Joseph.
- Nolan, Thomas.
- Ó Ciosáin, Éamon.
- Ó Donnabháin, Seán.
- Ó Maoláin, Tomás.
- O'Reilly, Patrick.
- Ó Siochfhradha, Pádraig.
- Ryan, William.
- Sheldon, William A. W.
- Yeats, Michael.
Níl
- Brosnahan, Seán.
- Butler, John.
- Carton, Victor.
- Cole, John C.
- Desmond, Cornelius.
- Dooge, James C.I.
- Fitzgerald, John.
- Fitzpatrick, Thomas J.
- Hayes, Michael.
- Lindsay, Patrick J.
- McAuliffe, Timothy.
- McDonald, Charles.
- Murphy, Dominick F.
- Ó Conalláin, Dónall.
- Quinlan, Patrick M.
Tellers:—Tá, Senators Farrell and Ó Donnabháin; Níl, Senators Desmond and Fitzgerald.
Question declared carried.
Amendment No. 9 not moved.
I want to draw the attention of the House to the fact that Amendments Nos. 10, 11 and 12 have been disposed of with amendment No. 8.
Amendments Nos. 10, 11 and 12 not moved.
Since the principle has been decided, I do not propose to move amendment No. 13.
Amendment No. 13 not moved.
Amendments Nos. 14 and 15 not moved.
Question: That Section 2 stand part of the Bill" put and agreed to.
I wish to be recorded as dissenting from this section on the grounds already stated.
SECTION 3.
Amendment No. 16 not moved.
Section 3 agreed to.
SECTION 4.
Amendments Nos. 17 and 20 go together.
I move amendment No. 17:
To delete paragraphs (a) and (b), lines 45 to 52, inclusive, and substitute:
(a) during a period of summer time, between the hours of half-past eleven o'clock in the evening on any week-day and twelve o'clock midnight, or
(b) during a period which is not a period of summer time, between the hours of eleven o'clock in the evening on any week-day and twelve o'clock midnight, or
This amendment covers the same ground with regard to hours. We are against any further extension of hours of trading.
In view of the earlier decision is the amendment being pressed ?
No.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendments Nos. 18 and 19 not moved.
I propose to move amendment No. 20.
Amendments Nos. 17 and 20 go together.
There is a different principle in No. 20.
We have examined this very closely and, in my opinion, the two go together.
I do not agree to a withdrawal of the amendment. I understood that only amendment No. 17 was being disposed of.
I announced that Nos. 17 and 20 would go together. It is the same principle.
I do not think it is.
May I suggest to Senator Quinlan that, from his own point of view, he would be unwise to press this amendment because, if it were to be passed, it would result in a situation in which clubs would be open for much longer hours than public houses, restaurants and hotels. I think from the Senator's own point of view, he should not press this.
The point I wish to make is that in the winter time it means that, while the ordinary public houses will close at 11 p.m., provision is made here whereby hotels and restaurants can remain open until 12.30 a.m. That is an additional hour and a half. They can remain open until 12 midnight at the moment. I want to make a point about the hour and a half. In point of fact, this is recreating the bona fide trade again. When people have been drinking at night, they very often feel like a meal and the attractions of restaurants on the outskirts which provide a meal and drinking facilities up to 12.30 a.m., will become very alluring indeed. Consequently, I suggest to the Minister that this, in effect, will recreate the bona fide trade.
Mr. Desmond rose.
Amendments Nos. 17 and 20 have been taken together. Amendment No. 17 has been withdrawn. On what amendment does the Senator wish to speak ?
Can I speak on amendment No. 20 ?
We have disposed of the matter.
Do I understand that the House is taking both together?
They have been taken together. The amendment has been withdrawn. When we come to the section, the Senator may express an opinion.
Amendment No. 20 not moved.
Amendments Nos. 21 and 22 not moved.
Question proposed: "That Section 4 stand part of the Bill."
The point the Minister might consider is the time that workers finish. He probably has the same answer as he had in regard to the previous amendments we dealt with, that is, that this is a catering trade and we are serving the public. That is true also where you operate until 12.30 a.m. That appears to me to be a hardship. It means that workers will have to continue until 12.30 a.m. Is there a real necessity for that ?
It is only an extra half-hour.
I appreciate that but an extra half-hour in the morning is equivalent to one hour up to the time buses cease to run. We have the buses in Dublin until 11.30 p.m. In Cork, it is 11.15. In Cork and Dublin, workers may have to work until 12 midnight and in most cases they may lose the bus. The section specifies 12.30 a.m. and that means they would not get away. In the big industrial centres like Dublin and Cork, workers have to travel a long distance. This is a real hardship and -I think the Minister should re-examine the matter. Even 12 o'clock midnight would certainly be late. I do not think the catering trade is so pushed in regard to serving the public that we need to give 12.30 a.m. to hotels and restaurants. Not alone do certain sections of the public require 12.30 a.m. but 3 o'clock in the morning. There are sections of the public who would be available for service even at those hours, just as there are people available for service at 12.30 a.m.
The worker can probably look for better conditions but, as I said on earlier amendments, you cannot compensate for hardship. You have your trade union and you can get yourself looked after for this undue hardship you are undergoing but that is not the approach to it. You cannot compensate somebody at that time if he thinks his conditions should be such that he should not have to continue work up to that hour. There are industries in which workers have to work, not only until 12.30 a.m. but, perhaps, 6 a.m. but they do not go to work until 10 or 11 p.m. They are all right because they work through the difficult period and can get a bus in the morning but not so the people who begin work at 4 or 5 o'clock in the evening. I suggest that it would be worth the Minister's while to re-examine the position.
This will not result in any hardship at all to the workers in the catering trade because in a number of hotels and restaurants at the moment, the negotiated agreements between the trade unions and the management are such that they do not even avail of what is there. Some hotels and restaurants will not serve up to 12 o'clock, which is available to them, because of the agreement between the unions and the management. This will not involve any additional hours of work on any member of these unions, unless they voluntarily agree to it.
Is it not possible that the bona fide houses of the past can now add on a restaurant section and by that means come back into business again and continue until 12.30 a.m. ?
No.
Why can they not ?
There is a provision whereby any licensed premises can have a restaurant portion and for that restaurant portion, they can get a limited restaurant certificate. The portion must be separate from the licensed portion of the premises. It must be a bona fide restaurant and there can be no bar in that portion.
Can the drink not be brought across from the main bar ?
It cannot be served from the bar. Drink can be served with a meal only.
In subsection (b) (ii) of Section 9, a substantial meal is described as a meal which is not normally served in the premises. You make provision there——
This half an hour can be availed of only in a premises which is a bona fide restaurant. The drink can be served only with the meal as part of the meal.
Question put and agreed to.
Section 5 agreed to.
SECTION 6.
Amendments Nos. 23 to 32, inclusive, not moved.
I move amendment No. 33:
In subsection (1), paragraph (b), line 54, to delete "ten" and substitute "nine".
Perhaps I can help the Senator here. This amendment seems to me to be designed to have the same effect in regard to the serving of a drink with a meal in clubs on Sunday nights. I think it is the same principle as is in the other amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 34 not moved.
Sections 6 and 7 agreed to.
SECTION 8.
I move amendment No. 35:
In line 41, to delete "fifteen" and substitute "twelve".
This is designed to cut down some of the rather surreptitious increases that have taken place. This is to ensure that not more than 12 authorisations or approximately one per month will be made. I do not think there is any point in pressing the amendment at this stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 8 agreed to.
SECTION 9.
I move amendment No. 36:
In subsection (1), pages 5 and 6, to delete paragraph (b) (ii).
This is mainly for the purpose of getting some information and the Minister has dealt with it in the separate provision in regard to restaurants and public houses.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Sections 9 and 10 agreed to.
SECTION 11.
I move amendment No. 37:
In page 8, to delete subsection (9).
This is mainly for the purpose of clarification. Subsection (9) of Section 11 says:
The provisions of the Licensing Acts requiring an offence to be endorsed on a licence shall not apply to an offence committed in respect of an occasional licence.
In regard to the words "shall not", does that still leave discretion to the court to impose an endorsement, if it sees fit ?
No.
In that case, I fail to see why there should be any differentiation between an offence committed under an occasional licence and an offence committed in the ordinary course of business.
The business of a compulsory endorsement is rather Draconian and I think the Dáil and the Seanad would only agree to taking away the discretion of the courts in a matter of this sort because they would want to strengthen the hand of the Executive in enforcing the law. It is not something we would like on its own merits. What is involved here is this: if the publican has an occasional licence which allows him to operate at an unlicensed dance hall or at a race meeting or somewhere other than his own premises and an offence is committed, it would be harsh and unreasonable that that offence should be endorsed on his licence.
Without the discretion of the justice ?
Without the discretion of the justice.
My query was : has the justice still got the power to endorse it ?
He has not. He may not endorse it on the licence. I think it only fair that to have an endorsement of the licence the offence should be committed on the premises to which the licence is attached. An occasional licence is very often in operation at such places as race meetings where an infringement is not as serious as if it happened on the premises itself and where the difficulty of supervision is very considerably increased on the publican. It would be unnecessarily harsh to have an endorsement arising out of an offence which took place away from the publican's premises. We are not making any change here. We are simply re-enacting what is in the law at present.
It does seem rather harsh in one case to have a compulsory endorsement for an offence committed between, say, 11.10 and 11.15 p.m. and in another case to have a most flagrant violation in the case of an occasional licence which would not carry an endorsement, no matter how many times it happened.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question proposed: "That Section 11 stand part of the Bill."
Would the Minister explain what is meant by paragraph (b) which reads:
... it is held elsewhere than in the open air or in a tent, marquee or other such structure...
An occasional licence cannot be obtained for a tent or a marquee.
Is the wording very loose for such an important matter ? "... or other such structure"—who will judge whether the "other such structure" is a marquee or a tent ? What is meant by that ?
The purpose of the wording is quite clear. It refers to an occasional licence.
To a temporary building of some description, say, for a race meeting. That is the way I read it.
It is to obviate the situation where an occasional licence could be obtained for a dance at a crossroads, in a marquee or a tent.
Who will interpret that section ?
The court.
They will have some difficulty.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 12.
I move amendment No. 38:
In subsection (1), page 9, to delete paragraph (c), lines 1 to 4 inclusive.
Amendments Nos. 38 and 39 go together.
Provision is made in this section for exemption orders for special occasions such as festivals, private functions, and so on. On those occasions, a bar is allowed for dances under certain circumstances. Paragraph (c) reads:
the occasion of a dance that is held in such a ballroom on a day that, in the opinion of the Court, is a day of special festivity generally or in the locality in which the premises are situate.
In other words, without a meal. I agree in regard to paragraph (b) that where there is provision for a meal, there is greater likelihood of having a well-ordered dance hall than could be envisaged under (c). From my experience of seeing some local dance halls where there is no provision for meals but where a bar is pushed into some corner or other, I am not in favour of that being encouraged. Above all, on such special occasions, provision is made in other sections of the code for the granting of extended licences so that there are ample drinking facilities available in the place in which the special occasion is happening. The very least that might be expected is that those who wish to enjoy a dance should be left to enjoy it without having a bar superimposed on it. Consequently, I think paragraph (c) should be deleted.
That is my view, too, by and large, and I framed the Bill on the basis that as far as we can we should not have drinking at dances. The Senator will appreciate that the Bill tightens things up generally in that respect but I feel that it is reasonable to allow this exemption on six occasions during the year. Senators will readily think of the sort of gala occasions, a holiday occasion, which would be involved. It is reasonable to allow six special licences in the year, particularly when we are tightening things up and are in fact prohibiting bars in any other circumstances. We are providing that a dance hall which is not licensed can on six special festive occasions have an occasional licence. The same applies to a licensed restaurant.
There must be a festive occasion at the same time ?
Yes.
The Minister should keep this very much under review because it is a very undesirable trend since it makes dancing very unenjoyable for many present. Six occasions during a year amount to a lot and I should like the Minister to see as far as possible that the laws relating to drunk and disorderly people at such functions are severely enforced on these occasions.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 39 not moved.
Question proposed: "That Section 12 stand part of the Bill."
I understand that if this section is passed, a problem will arise in respect to certain premises in Dublin which run dances which are well organised and controlled and where at present there are facilities for the serving of drink. Now apparently a meal will have to be served costing at least 5/-. There are two such establishments in Dublin which run these dances, usually finishing at 12 midnight and usually frequented by social clubs, and I am told this section—I must confess I do not completely understand it—will mean the employees in these places will lose their jobs— that there will no longer be this sort of work for them which they now have during the winter months. These are well conducted places where everything is done in an orderly way, where there is no serving of drinks after the hour permitted. This section will mean the running of such dances will no longer be feasible since they would be required to provide a meal costing not less than 5/-. The Minister was very sympathetic about this problem in the Dáil and I am wondering if he has in the meantime arrived at any solution.
I am afraid not. I went into it very carefully. I should like to explain now what is involved. There are very few dancehalls which are licensed. Senators will appreciate the normal dancehall does not have a licence attached to it and that drink can be sold only if an occasional licence is procured. Those Senator Murphy has in mind are in a different category. They are dancehalls which are part of premises, the whole of which are licensed, and up to now they have been able to run the ordinary type of dance at which no meal is served, to have a bar there and to sell drink.
I have gone into this matter very carefully and I am afraid there is nothing I can do for them because, whereas I might like to, I could not possibly make an exception, make a provision that would apply to them and not to dancehalls in general. It would run counter to my proposal against selling drink in dancehalls. I have also gone into the employment matter and I am not satisfied there will be any dire consequences from that point of view. In discussions with the trade union representatives I was able to satisfy myself there will not be any unemployment of any real nature resulting from this, unemployment which would not be absorbed in surrounding premises for similar types of functions. Senators will realise that these dancehalls are in a different category from the normal commercial dancehalls because they may open for the serving of drinks up to 11.30 p.m. in the summer and 11 p.m. in the winter—the same time as applies to the ordinary public houses.
All of them have not got licences.
The ones Senator Murphy spoke about have, so really all that is involved is that we are preventing them from selling drink after the ordinary public house closing time—11 p.m. in the winter and 11.30 in the summer. As well, they will still be able to sell drink at dances where a meal is served and will have six special occasions during the year.
Question put and agreed to.
Sections 13 and 14 agreed to.
SECTION 15.
I move amendment No. 40 :
To delete subsection (3).
There is a serious principle involved in this amendment and I would respectfully ask the Minister and the House to consider it carefully. Since 1927 it has been possible for publicans to get exemption orders enabling them to open their premises early on the mornings of fair days and market days or to serve numbers of people following any lawful trade or calling. That provision was first introduced by Section 4 of the Intoxicating Liquor Act of 1927 and it has been availed of, particularly throughout rural Ireland on mornings of fair days. In the country, it was largely availed of only on fair days, except, perhaps, in fishing villages where people fishing late at night could have a drink.
In the city of Dublin, this section was availed of by public houses serving the needs of people attending the Dublin markets and also by publicans serving dock workers. Indeed the present Bill does not disapprove of that section—it approves of the principle of that section. It does lay down that exemption orders cannot be granted to accommodate people attending public fairs or markets earlier than 5 o'clock in the morning and it provides that it shall not be availed of by publicans who want to cater for people attending a fair or market before seven o'clock in the morning. Therefore, the position is that authority is confirmed in this Act to the district courts to grant exemptions to publicans for fair day mornings from five o'clock, whereas publicans who do not avail of this section may not open until 10.30 a.m.
Provision is also made for the district court to grant exemptions to publicans catering for people who follow a lawful trade or calling from seven o'clock in the morning, whereas publicans who do not avail of it may not open until 10.30 a.m. That is all right, but there is one extraordinary subsection in Section 15 of the Bill which confirms the provisions of Section 4 of the Intoxicating Liquor Act of 1927 which I have just read. This section, which I propose to read, is subsection (3) of Section 15 which states:
A general exemption order shall not be granted in respect of premises situate in the County Borough of Dublin unless a general exemption order was in force in respect of the premises on the 19th day of April, 1962, or at any time during the two years immediately preceding that date.
That means that any publican who has not, within the past two years, obtained a special exemption order, fair day or lawful trade or calling—I use those for want of better terms— cannot now, and will never in the future be able to, obtain such an exemption order in the city of Dublin.
Let us see how that will affect some publicans. I think the Minister's idea —I do not know whether he amended this section in the Dáil or not—was to do away with these exemption orders in the city of Dublin unless a publican could establish that he was serving the needs of people attending the Dublin Market. I think that was his original idea when drafting the Bill but he gave in to pressure to continue the section so far as publicans in the dock area were concerned. Then he put in this extraordinary provision. He froze the section as of 19th April of this year. He said that unless a publican had an exemption then, or within two years, that publican will not in the future be able to get one.
As I understand it, the effect is this: there are a considerable number of public houses in Parnell Street in this city, for example: I am told there are up to 20, and only one of those public houses under this section will be entitled to an early opening licence. I think that is monstrous. It is creating a valuable vested interest. It is making fish of one and flesh of another. I do not know the name of the owner of the public house concerned but I venture to suggest to the House that the value of the public house in Parnell Street will go up by thousands of pounds as a result of this Bill if it becomes law and the value of the other houses will be reduced accordingly.
I am told that the same situation applies in North King Street, that there are a considerable number of public houses there, that three of them were in time and secured exemption orders. They will be able to continue to open at seven in the morning while the others will not. It is no argument to say that the others did not avail of the opportunity. Perhaps a man would want to sell his house and the fact that he may not open in that street beside a man who may open, will certainly be held against his premises. Or perhaps he wants to hand on his house to his son and perhaps the son is more energetic than the father but he may not open at seven. He must remain closed until 10.30 a.m. whereas his next-door neighbour may open at either five or seven, as the case may be.
The Minister, in introducing the Bill, told us that his whole or his great aim was to achieve uniformity. Here we have the case of one public house in 20 that is entitled to open for three-and-a-half hours more than all the other public houses in the street. I say that is not right; it is unjust.
The Senator will realise that the court made it clear that it would not give any others in that street this right.
In the circumstances then prevailing.
The Minister is consolidating that situation in the legislation.
I am asking the Minister to delete the subsection and to allow anybody who, by law, is entitled to it to get a licence. Certain circumstances might prevail at one time : these may change. Another undesirable feature of this is that the provision has been imposed on the publicans in these areas without any notice whatever. If a section were included in the Bill saying that after 31st December, 1963 or 1964, no further exemption orders would be granted, the people in these streets would in the meantime have an opportunity of applying to the courts and if they could make a case that they were entitled to a licence, they would get it but under this section they are not entitled to it.
I urge on the House as strongly as I possibly can that this subsection is undesirable, that it is unjust and a deplorable departure from ordinary legislation. I feel that the Minister acceded to pressure and that he put in this subsection with a view to pleasing a certain few who complained to him. He should reconsider the matter and adjust it in some way that would meet the justice of the case and do justice to these publicans. I have not much hope of convincing the Minister that he should accept the amendment now, in view of the anxiety of the Government and some other people in the country to have this Bill signed by the President— perhaps tomorrow—but I make an urgent appeal to the Minister to give an assurance to the House that he will reconsider the matter and introduce amending legislation in the very near future to meet the case.
I support Senator Fitzpatrick in this. Realising, as I do, the particular hurry associated with the required passage of this Bill and even the abridgement of the time in which the President is to sign the Bill, I do not think there is any prospect of the Minister acceding to our proposal at this time. In support of Senator Fitzpatrick, however, in what he said in relation to uniformity, if there is to be uniformity of distribution and of practice, there should be, by the very equity of the matter, uniformity of opportunity to practise the licensed trade and to distribute or sell alcohol generally. I do not think that creating a vested interest of this kind is right. Senator Fitzpatrick may have more knowledge than I, when he said that the Minister yielded to pressure of some kind. It is quite possible that, because a judge refused to give extra licences, the Minister may feel that he is justified in taking the line that it is better to consolidate it now in the Legislature, as the matter has been consolidated, as it were, in the courts.
The Minister well knows, and we who practise and have knowledge of it well know, that circumstances change from time to time. An application that might not succeed today might well succeed in the not too distant future. Having regard to the fact that the Minister cannot, in the circumstances prevailing here at the moment, accept these proposals, I would ask from him an undertaking at least, or a promise—I will not go so far as to say an undertaking, although a breach of promise in some cases could be as disastrous as a breach of an undertaking—that when the 2.30 p.m. to 3.30 p.m. opening in Waterford is being considered around Easter of next year, this matter will also be considered.
Might I clarify in this regard, that if circumstances so change as to warrant such consideration, it would be given. I think Senator Lindsay agrees with me—I will not ask him to agree with me— that in the present circumstances it is desirable to freeze the situation. If it becomes apparent later on, however, that circumstances have so changed that further early morning openings would be necessary or desirable, I would agree to reconsider it.
I appreciate the distinction the Minister has made, but I would not go so far as to agree that it is desirable to freeze the situation. I forgot to say that another judge might easily do a different thing if another case came to be considered. I do not wish the judiciary any harm or anything like that, but you never can tell.
I certainly do not wish to go on record as agreeing with the Minister when he suggests that it is desirable to freeze the position as it is.
I accept that.
I am convinced that nothing could be less desirable, that it is unsound, bad and should not be proceeded with.
What is the actual position now? Will the Minister wait until circumstances change and can he give us an idea of how circumstances might change?
It seems to me from studying the developments in recent years that there are sufficient of these early morning opening extensions in Dublin to cater for the reasonable needs of the persons desiring these facilities. If a situation were to come about in which it could be demonstrated that the facilities were not adequate or situated in appropriate places and that some extensions were desirable, I would certainly consider them.
I am sure the Minister is well aware that in Parnell Street, one pub is not adequate for the markets.
There should be at least two in order that people who did not wish to meet could avoid one another.
The Parnell Street extension was not granted to facilitate the markets but for another purpose.
Nevertheless, it is utilised by the people at the markets.
We may get stranded in Parnell Street. I do not know the geography of the city very well, but perhaps there are other public houses nearer the markets, and nearer the docks, not now enjoying exemptions because they have not applied.
That is so.
Perhaps their owners are old are not enthusiastic about business. They will be frozen under the section, but perhaps there are now public houses nearer the markets and the docks who would get licences——
If they could.
——were it not for this Bill.
Close by is a declaration that no man has a right to set a boundary to the march of a nation.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 15 agreed to.
SECTION 16.
I move amendment No. 41:
In subsection (1), to delete from and including "the period" in lines 48 and 49 to the end of the subsection and substitute "such period before half-past twelve o'clock in the afternoon on Sundays and Saint Patrick's Day as the Court may determine".
I was quite clear in my Second Reading speech on the kind of places I have in mind in this amendment. This proposal would appear further to increase the number of opening hours on Sunday. At the risk of a belt of Senator Quinlan's crozier, or being mildly admonished by Senator Cole in this near-gathering unanimity of the Ecumenical Year—while undertaking these risks—I do not want to be described as a person who subscribes to the potted morality to which the Minister has referred.
In this amendment, I hope to cover the outlying public houses in villages where the church or the chapel, as the case may be, is one of ease and one in which there is normally an early Mass or an early service, perhaps at 10 o'clock and ending at 11 o'clock. I do not know whether mixed trading is allowed on Sunday——
Yes, for three quarters of an hour after first Mass.
The situation is that people can come in and buy other commodities——
The other necessaries of life.
In many cases which I have in mind, the older people who might be described as, "up the airy mountain and down the rushy glen" people, can get the other necessaries of life, as the Minister puts it. They can tie up the pony and trap and they can do anything they like on those premises, in a business or social line, except get a drink. Under this legislation, there might be abuses which I mentioned earlier such as drinks being prepared and passed out in bottles of various sizes.
In any event, the people in those remote areas should get our best consideration. We had them under discussion in regard to special services from the E.S.B. yesterday and, after all, we must have available a certain amount of current of both kinds to people in areas such as that. I know that nothing can be done about it in this Bill. It is something that could probably be kept under review for a certain length of time. These areas are outlying. They are not easily supervised. They are not the kinds of places to which people would repair on a Sunday morning in any kind of bona fide fashion.
While I am not openly advocating any breach of the law, I think that, by and large, they will probably get on all right without any great notice being taken of them. It would be a pity, once an effort is made to have the law observed, that there should be outlying places where the law is not observed and where the non-observance is not being detected.
I should like to support this amendment by Senator Quinlan——
By Senator Lindsay.
I do not object to the honour.
I believe that legislation should be for the benefit of every section of the community. The Minister has stressed the desirability of uniformity a great deal today. I believe that if a man in any big town or city can have a drink after last Mass on Sunday, then the man in the small village or town in rural Ireland should be allowed the same facility.
I think the Senator is missing the point.
He is not.
This does not apply to the cities. You cannot get this in the cities.
It will apply in the large county towns.
Not a borough— anything outside a borough or a county borough.
Senator McDonald is right. In large cities and towns, last Mass does, by and large, coincide with this. In the country, they would be gone home.
Maybe.
The Minister wants uniformity. The public will not get uniformity. In fact, they will be gone home one and a half hours before the public houses open. In rural Ireland, the older generation— the men who for very many years past have had a pint, no matter what law they were under—will, in my opinion, continue to have their drink. It would be better if a little consideration were given to them, even at the risk of having the opening hour on Sunday morning reduced to an hour after last Mass, apart from the extension. Therefore, I would ask the Minister to give his most sympathetic consideration to the older section of the community in rural Ireland.
We shall keep the situation under review.
I am satisfied.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 42 :
In subsection (1), line 50, after "Saint Patrick's Day" to add "provided that the afternoon opening hours are altered to twelve noon to 1.20 p.m.".
This section provides that in certain circumstances, provided a considerable number of people in the locality are not likely to be attending Divine Service, the opening on Sunday may be at 12 noon rather than at 12.30 p.m. My reading of it is that it is just another thin end of the wedge by which it will become the custom in the larger towns. We can obviously satisfy the requirement that a considerable number of people in the locality are not likely to be attending Divine Services at that period. In other words, where you have three or four Masses, you can conclude that those attending the last Mass are, according to this, not a considerable number. That means that it will be used in large towns and it will then seep down to the smaller towns and you will get this 12 o'clock opening and the Bill allows the opening to continue until 2 p.m.
If the public houses are to be allowed to open at 12 noon then, in the interests of the Minister's wonderful new-found principle of uniformity, the least that could be done is to make the time of opening uniform and restrict it to one and a half hours, the same as for other places. Therefore, I think we should write in that the opening hours shall be from 12.30 to 1.20 or 1.30 p.m., depending on whatever hours are required.
I do not agree with the Senator. In fact, it would have a lack of uniformity in closing hours. The Senator's proposal would result in some public houses closing at 1.20 and others at 1.50 p.m. I do not think it is really worth the Senator's while fighting me on this point.
This provision of the half hour in rural Ireland—and that is what it amounts to—is for the benefit of people who come a long way to last Mass and who want to have a drink before they go home again, maybe three, four, five or six miles. It is a reasonable facility to give to these people. I do not think you should penalise them by chopping it off at the other end. If 2 p.m. is a suitable time for closing generally, I do not think you should revert to 1.30 p.m. or 1.20 p.m. just because you are providing the facility earlier for these people.
I cannot see how the Minister's principle of uniformity applies here. Surely the uniformity should be the length of the opening?
No, the time of closing.
The length is more important than the time. You have deliberately put in non-uniformity of opening hours—12 noon against 12.30. Therefore, after that, the important thing is the length of the facility provided. You are making the case that the last Mass is before 12 noon and that one of those mythical characters whom we have got cannot carry on without his drink and must have it at 12 noon. One and a half hours should be enough for him, the same as is provided everywhere else.
I feel the section as it stands will very soon lead to a two-hour recognised opening, from 12 to 2 p.m., or with the ten minutes, from 12 to 2.10 p.m. Then, the Minister abhors those breaks from 2.10 to 4 p.m. Therefore, I fear the next Bill that will come before us will mean that the Minister will wipe out this closed period because it is not fair to somebody and we shall arrive back at opening hours for Sunday from 12 noon to 10.10 p.m.
Then, in the interests of uniformity, it will be just as well to make the opening hours on Sunday the same as those on weekdays and complete the desecration of the Sabbath. If the Minister is to be logical and consistent about this wonderful system of uniformity, this is one place where it should be applied.
Amendment put and declared lost.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
Amendments Nos. 43 and 44 might be taken together.
I move amendment No. 43 :
In subsection (7), page 12, line 22, to delete "ten" and substitute "twenty".
This is in relation to notice that must be given in a locality in which an extension is claimed. This is a permanent extension of what the Minister has shown now—from one and-a-half to two hours. In other words, it is an extension of one-third. Consequently, it is quite a serious matter.
Full and adequate notice should be given. It specifies here that notice must be given to the Gárda Síochána of not less than ten days. Why the rush? Is there as much rush about it as there is about this Bill which must have early signature by the President lest the weekend should not pass off properly? Why the rush for this? Why not have, in place of ten days, 20 days? Also, in the case of the notice that has to be inserted in the paper, why is the period "not less than seven days?" Why not keep for that the same amount of days—20 days? What is the hurry in pushing this local application through?
Amendments Nos. 43 and 44 deal exclusively with the notice to be given to the Garda Síochána. You could make that period of notice anything you liked but the idea of giving notice is that the Garda Síochána should be able to consider the matter and see what action they would take. Ten days for the purpose of the Garda Síochána is quite adequate and that really is all that is involved. If the ten days is adequate for the Garda Síochána, there is no need to alter it.
You mentioned seven days' publication.
That is a different amendment; it is amendment No. 45.
Yes.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 44 not moved.
I move amendment No. 45:
In subsection (7), page 12, to add at the end of the subsection "and a copy of the notice was sent to all ministers of religion in the locality"
This provision of an extra half hour on Sunday mornings is tied in by an Act of the Oireachtas. Subsection (2) says:
The District Court shall not make an order under this section in respect of a period during which or part of which a considerable number of people in the locality to which the order would relate would be likely to be attending Divine Service.
Subsection (3) says:
Any person appearing to the District Court to have a bona fide interest in the matter may appear and give evidence on the hearing of an application under this section.
We may take it that the ministers of religion in the localities concerned would be concerned with this extension. Consequently I feel that in courtesy to them when the notice of intention to seek the extension of hours is put in the local press a copy should be sent to all ministers of religion in the locality.
I suggest that would be a new departure. Normally where the situation requires a person to be put on notice the vehicle stipulated in the various statutes is the newspaper. Notice published in the newspaper should be adequate for everybody concerned including the various ministers of religion who, as Senator Quinlan pointed out, have a direct interest in this matter. I feel sure the insertion in the newspaper would suffice. I can see a lot of difficulty in the actual administration of what is proposed by Senator Quinlan.
It would merely be an act of simple courtesy. Otherwise all Ministers of religion on the passing of this Bill must realise that henceforth they cannot afford to omit reading any local paper any week and that the local papers will have to be scanned to see if there is any application for an extension of the licensing laws. That is a totally wrong obligation to place on such ministers of religion when they should be extended the courtesy of getting a copy of the advertisement.
Amendment put and declared lost.
Section 16 agreed to.
SECTION 17.
I move amendment No. 46 :
In subsection (1), to delete all words from "it is shown" in line 32 down to and including "situate" in line 35.
Here we have the same provision in regard to unlicensed business. In other words if a licensed premises carries on a mixed business, perhaps the selling of newspaper, the publican must get special permission to open for three-quarters of an hour to carry on such business. We may take it that there are others in the town doing the same business, selling newspapers or whatever else shops are allowed to open for on Sunday mornings, yet we find here that these openings cannot occur at a time when a considerable number of the people in the locality would be likely to be attending Divine Service. It is the same provision as the provision in regard to opening for the sale of intoxicating liquor. I cannot see any connection between the two. I cannot see if after First Mass it is desirable that certain public houses should open——
The Senator seems to be mixed up. He is now talking on the following amendment, No. 46.
I am speaking on amendment No. 46.
Amendment No. 46 deals with the consent of the majority of publicans in the locality.
I am sorry. Amendment No. 46 is still in connection with exemptions for unlicensed business on Sunday mornings. It is required that before a particular licensed premises may open to carry on unlicenced business, that is, selling newspapers or whatever else they engage in, it must be shown to the satisfaction of the court that the application has the approval of the majority of holders of such licences in respect of premises so situated. In other words all the publicans must indicate whether they are in favour of a particular publican, who has a mixed business, opening to sell newspapers. I cannot see that there is any necessity to get the consent of the other publicans for opening to carry on such legitimate business.
I must confess that this point had not occurred to me before. I agree with Senator Quinlan that where a man is opening his premises for non-licensed business it should not be necessary for him to have the consent of the majority of publicans in the area. You could have a little village with two flourishing publicans not doing much of a mixed business and you could have one struggling publican selling newspapers and groceries and who, in order to make some money, might find it desirable or even essential to open on a Sunday morning for mixed business. That is the type of man who would be at the mercy of the two other big men and he cannot open or get permission to open unless he has their consent.
He cannot open at all at the moment.
Well, he does. I am sure the Minister did not intend that situation to arise. I cannot understand why the sale of ordinary commodities should be controlled by the majority of publicans in the locality.
The idea is that a set period would be fixed in each locality when the houses would open for unlicensed business. Somebody must decide in any locality what is the most suitable period for opening and the most logical people to settle upon are in fact the people doing the business, namely, the publicans. The idea is that the majority of publicans in any locality would agree to an opening for three-quarters of an hour after first Mass. That is what is enshrined in the Bill. There must be some group of people to whom that decision is left. The logical people to leave it to are those engaged in the business. Do we not all know that in rural Ireland 90 per cent. of the publicans have mixed businesses? It is theoretically conceivable that the sort of situation outlined by Senator Fitzpatrick could arise, but I think it is so remote that we need not worry about it. As far as I can decide, this is the simplest machinery to which we can have recourse in this matter.
That gives the power of veto to publicans who do not intend to open because they have not a mixed business or have the type of mixed business that does not call for Sunday opening. It gives those people the right of veto on other publicans down the street who wish to open to sell, perhaps, newspapers.
Senator Quinlan is either not a realist or he does not know businessmen. If businessmen of any sort are provided in the statute with the opportunity to open, after a few days of doing business, they will avail of it. There will be no veto exercised.
Surely there are many types of business that do not call for Sunday opening? The court is left the discretion of giving the power to open. I take it that power will be given on individual applications? It will relate to the business to be carried on in those premises.
This applies only to licensed houses.
Yes, but it will relate to the type of unlicensed business for which the publican wishes to open?
No. This is purely a provision which will enable licensed premises to open for a period of three-quarters of a hour early on a Sunday morning to do unlicensed business and nothing else. The idea is that the period should be fixed for each locality to correspond with the period immediately after first Mass, so that people can get papers, cigarettes and so on. There will not be any difficulty about it. The publicans will decide among themselves what three-quarters of an hour will be fixed. You must remember that there are also unlicensed houses. The ordinary general news agency and grocer does the same business. There is no monopoly involved.
In the towns I know pretty well myself there are many publicans carrying on a straight public house business. They do not open on Sundays and would not be allowed to under this section.
They will be allowed now.
What trade can they carry on?
They can sell cigarettes, groceries, newspapers—anything they like.
The discretion is left to the court. The court does not have to allow the application. It is up to the court to investigate it. I take it that if the publican had not been opening in the past and had not any provision for such trade on weekdays or other times, the court would not look with favour on an application to open now and engage in a new line of business? Certainly, I do not think the local residents and the shopkeepers who are carrying on that trade as their sole means of livelihood would favour seeing public houses who have not been in the business previously being brought into it by this.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 47:
To delete subsection (2).
The provision that I adverted to deals with the publican who has never opened during that period, has no intention of opening and has nothing to sell during that opening period and he has the right of vote and, in sufficient numbers, the right of veto on other publicans who have been carrying on a mixed business during the week.
That is not what is involved in No. 47.
That provision is strange enough, but it beats me to see why there is any question of a connection between a considerable number attending Divine Service and the question of whether the local mixed businesses, with a public house on one side and a counter on the other, should be allowed to open or not. If it means that, then the provision in the previous section to which I adverted is almost not worth the paper on which it is written.
The proposal is that this period of 45 minutes in the early morning for unlicensed business should not clash with the period of Divine Service. The Senator's amendment will have the effect of removing that impediment. In other words, that they could clash. Is that what the Senator means?
Yes.
Surely that would not be desirable? If we were to accept that principle, there is no reason why a public house should not open for unlicensed business for the whole of Sunday morning. The suggestion here is that they should be open only for a limited period after first Mass, and by reference to Mass I intend, of course, to include all other religious services. There should be a period of three-quarters of an hour, so that people coming from Divine Service would be able to procure their groceries, newspapers, cigarettes, and so on, but I cannot see why the Senator would want to remove the restriction that that should not clash with the period of Divine Service.
I must say that I agree entirely with Senator Quinlan on this amendment. It is obvious that he has gone into this section very thoroughly. Obviously, the provision relates to the opening of licensed premises for licensed business from 12 to 12.30. The provision that that period should not clash with the time when a considerable number of people are attending Divine Service is to avoid the abuse whereby people would go to the public house instead of to Divine Service. There is no likelihood of people going into a sweet shop and eating sweets for three-quarters of an hour instead of going to Divine Service. Furthermore, the unlicensed premises selling sweets, cigarettes and newspapers can keep open during the period of Divine Service. No objection is taken to it. I think Senator Quinlan is quite right that this subsection is not really necessary.
I cannot see any real objection to the length of time in which licensed premises open for unlicensed business. If a corresponding shop is allowed to open for one-and-a-half hours, I cannot see why a licensed business doing the same type of trade cannot be allowed to open also.
Surely the Senator must admit that a licensed premises is not the same as an ordinary news-agency and tobacconist? There is always the possibility of a breach of the licensing laws in respect of a licensed premises.
We cannot legislate on that basis.
We are legislating to give facilities to people to have recourse to these premises for unlicensed business. We must not close our eyes to the fact that they are still licensed premises, and the temptation is there. If Senator Quinlan could show some overwhelming reason why they should be able to stay open during the period of a religious service, I would reconsider the matter, but there seems to be no such reason. Surely three-quarters of an hour is sufficient on Sunday morning?
We had a Bill recently granting huge increases in salaries to the judiciary, including district justices——
Now the Senator should not become contentious.
——and we should leave some discretion now to the district justices. Granted premises are entitled to open for a period of three-quarters of an hour on Sunday morning, it should be for the justice to decide on the most suitable period. I cannot see that having a premises open could be in any way a mark of disrespect to Divine Service. Secondly, the only valid objection is that raised by the Minister; he says the temptation would be there and there might be illicit drinking in the three-quarters of an hour. If that is the case, then he has given a three-quarter hour period, and that is the measure of the chance he will take. I cannot see any connection with the other section, and I think some discretion should be allowed to the district justice when dealing with a particular case.
Senator Quinlan has been accused of being a moralist by the Minister. Obviously, in relation to this section, the Minister is much more moral than either Senator Quinlan or Senator Cole.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 17 agreed to.
Sections 18 to 22, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 23.
I move amendment No. 48:
In lines 10 and 11 to delete "prohibited hours in respect of" and substitute "licensed".
The object of this section is to do away with certain defences which were raised, in desperation, by publicans in order to hold on to their licences, which defences the Minister thought unreasonable. The defence in question sought to throw on the prosecution the onus of proving that the particular premises was a licensed premises. Proving that could involve the State in a good deal of trouble. Indeed, in certain cases, it might not be capable of proof at all. In order to do away with that defence, the Minister has put Section 23 into the Bill and he proceeds to presume, until the contrary is proved, that a licence is attached to certain premises. Now I think the section is defective. It says "in a prosecution for an offence in relation to prohibited hours in respect of premises". I think there could be other offences not involving prohibited hours.
Yes.
The one that immediately suggests itself is the refusal to admit the Garda. As a matter of fact, although I do not like mentioning this, the publican who was prosecuted in the case which gives rise now to this section was also prosecuted for trading during prohibited hours. I think my amendment would cover any offence with which a publican could be charged in relation to such premises. I am afraid I now find myself in the capacity of poacher gone gamekeeper.
I appreciate the Senator's desire to be helpful. I agree with his interpretation of the situation. What is proposed is related entirely to an offence within the prohibited hours, an offence such as refusing to admit the Garda after the normal closing hours or during the non-prohibited hours——
Or even outside the prohibited hours.
That offence is not covered, but I do not think it is of any real importance. I put in this provision to make certain prosecutions easier for the State. I do not wish to go further than that.
Maybe the Minister would fix it up when he is dealing with Waterford.
Maybe.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 23 agreed to.
Sections 24 and 25 agreed to.
SECTION 26.
I move amendment No. 49:
In subsection (9) (b), page 17, line 37, to delete "forty-eight hours" and substitute "two weeks".
This amendment is tabled for the purpose of getting information. Why is a search warrant confined to a period of 48 hours? It would seem that the superintendent concerned should have discretion to pick his time for a raid any time within a couple of weeks of getting the warrant.
Once a warrant is issued, it must be executed within 48 hours. That is a reasonable protection for the private citizen and private premises. There is no reason why the Garda should seek any more than that. In fact, they do not seek any more than that; 48 hours is quite adequate. As the Senator says, they should pick their time, and then proceed to raid within the 48 hours. This is the normal period. In the Gaming and Lotteries Act, 48 hours is the period stipulated.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 26 agreed to.
SECTION 27.
I move amendment No. 50:
In subsection (1) (a), page 18, line 2, to delete "one-fiftieth" and substitute "one-two hundredth".
I would much prefer to see this section deleted altogether from the Bill because it makes provision for the general sale of liqueur chocolates. As I hope to show, this could be a very dangerous provision and one that could lend itself to wide abuses. However, having little or no hope of getting the Minister to delete the section, and probably less hope of getting him to make any change, I would be failing in my duty if I did not alert the Seanad and the public to the dangers inherent in this provision. I intend to do so despite any derisive comments or sub-editorials which the Irish Times or other newspapers may produce.
It is provided here that these liqueur chocolates shall contain not more than one-fiftieth of a gallon of liqueur per lb. of confectionery. That is one-fiftieth of a gallon of proof spirit. That works out at a glass and a half of liqueur per lb. of chocolates. Now the chocolates must be under 1½ ozs. The ordinary chocolate weighs at most half an ounce. One can understand how very large these liqueur chocolates could be if the section were availed of fully. At most there would be ten chocolates to the lb. One could consume a glass of liqueur, therefore, by eating seven chocolates. If the chocolates disagreed with one's digestion, one could simply drink the liqueur and throw away the chocolates.
Why not just buy a liqueur?
One is not allowed to buy a liqueur in unlicensed premises. It seems to me this provision could be used to get young people used to drinking—taking drink they would not dream of taking in the ordinary way. People might be prevailed on to take these chocolates with no realisation of what was in them. It could be quite a fashion at teenage parties and local dances to pass the chocolates round. In that way, one could create a situation which, if availed of to the full, could be as dangerous as the reefer situation in America and elsewhere. I cannot see any reason why this provision should be brought in. The liqueur chocolates which are available today are much lower in strength and in size than those provided for in this Bill. The Bill opens the way for what could become a real abuse.
I do not think the Senator's fears are realistic. I think he is tilting at windmills. I am not being derisive.
Does the Minister agree with my calculations as to the amount of liqueur which can be got into the chocolates in accordance with the Bill?
I think you would be sick before you would be drunk.
If the digestion can stand up to it, it can be just as pleasant to taste it out of the chocolate as out of a glass.
One would want to eat a hundred before getting a headache.
I do not think everybody has the capacity of Senator Ó Maoláin.
I object.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
In a less jocose mood, I would ask the Senator to withdraw that.
Is that remark in order?
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
It is not in order and I have asked Senator Quinlan to withdraw it.
I understood that Senator Ó Maoláin set his capacity at one hundred. In my capacity, I could not be a party to withdraw an amendment that would in any way try to go——
What is the Senator's capacity in this regard?
I have never tried.
Have you ever eaten them?
Yes. I can see they are something that could appeal to young people and, perhaps, not so young people.
How many young people could buy them?
Why would Senator Ó Maoláin not assist in this Bill? I have often wondered why he is against the Minister for Justice.
As far as price is concerned, these are selling at something like 15/- a pound. You can get your glass of benedictine or brandy from the liqueur chocolates at a cost of 10/- I do not think 10/- is an insuperable obstacle to any person buying them.
With due respect to Senator Hayes, I hope he will not criticise me for prolonging this. The net issue is this. At the present moment liqueur chocolates can be sold—I do not want to mention names —at any grocery which is an off-licensed premises, but an ordinary grocer cannot sell them. You could walk into a grocery on one side of the street and purchase them but you cannot purchase them in a grocery on the other side of the street. That is an anomaly as it stands at present.
The Minister is referring to the sale of Irish coffee chocolates.
Any liqueur chocolates.
You would want a ton of those. A glass of liqueur to a ton of chocolates is not strong but the Bill opens the way to a type of exploitation that will be seized upon if we allow this section to stand. I suggest that to mitigate this, it should be brought down to reality. If you must allow it in the case of some of those chocolates on sale, which are only liqueur chocolates in name, we can frame the Bill to allow those and no others. In other words, let us reduce the amount of liqueur per pound of confectionery from, say, one-fiftieth of a gallon down to one two-hundredth, that is to say, down to something less than one quarter of a glass per pound of chocolates and so cut down on the size of the chocolates involved. One and a half ounces is three times the size of the existing chocolates. You can cut down the amount by cutting down the size also and thus keep in touch with reality. That would allow of the sale of the liqueur chocolates on the market today but would prevent the abuse that would be made of this section if we allow it to stand.
Amendment put and declared lost.
Amendment Nos. 51 to 53, inclusive, not moved.
Section 27 agreed to.
Sections 28 to 32, inclusive agreed to.
SECTION 33.
Question proposed: "That Section 33 stand part of the Bill."
I rise to oppose this section on principle. It allows for a still further increase in the number of licensed premises. Some of the licences which have not been removed have got a further year in which to change.
The Senator is wrong. All that is concerned here is allowing those who have a six-day licence to transform them into seven day licences but no new licence can be created.
The section provides for an extension of the drinking facilities. Above all, it provides for an extension of Sunday drinking facilities. The six-day licences which have not changed so far are given one year to change. The whole difficulty with regard to the licensing trade is that we have far too many licensed premises. Successive Governments so far have tried at least to hold the number at the level at which it was in 1922 and 1923 and tried to extend some licences where that was feasible. I should like to urge on the Minister in the years ahead to use every provision to eliminate many of the uneconomic licensed premises in our towns today. There may be a small town having anything up to 20 or 30 licensed premises, some of which are not making more than a few pounds a week return. If the Minister could use any means of extinguishing those, even at the cost of compensating them for whatever loss is involved, it would be a step in the right direction.
I have already undertaken, if an opportunity presents itself, to examine as a separate question whether or not some scheme could be devised whereby redundant or unnecessary licences could be purchased by some compensation fund. I do not think it is relevant to this Bill. It is something that will have to be looked at separately, as a separate question. I have given an undertaking, if the time and circumstances permit, to look into the matter and see whether some kind of scheme could be devised.
Question put and agreed to.
NEW SECTION
I move amendment No. 54:
Before Section 34 to insert the following new section:
"Section 23 (which amends section 2 of the Act of 1902) of the Act of 1960 is hereby amended by the substitution of ‘three years' for ‘two years' in subsection (2)."
Everybody knows there are six-day and seven-day licensed premises in this country. Up to 1943, a person who had a six-day licensed premises could not get a seven-day licensed premises. Between 1943 and 1960, a person with a six-day licensed premises could purchase a seven-day licensed premises, extinguish it and convert his six-day licence into a seven-day licence, or purchase a seven-day licensed premises, transfer it to the six-day licensed premises, extinguish the six-day licence and make it a seven-day licence. That was the position until 1960. The Act of 1960 gave a person who had a six-day licensed premises the right to pay £200 to the Revenue Commissioners and convert his six-day licence into a seven-day licence but it was provided in the 1960 Bill that that should cease two years after the coming into force of the 1960 Act. This amendment proposes to extend for a further year the time for converting a six-day licence into a seven-day licence by paying £200.
Up to 1960, a person who had a licence on the coming into force of the Act of 1902 and which lapsed any time subsequent to 1902 could revive that licence by applying to the circuit court. The Act of 1960 continued his right to do so only for a period of two years after the coming into force of the 1960 Act. The 1960 Act restricted the right of a person to revive a licence which had lapsed for more than five years.
What I am asking the Minister to do is to extend the right of a person who owns a licence which has lapsed any time since 1902 to revive that licence up to and including a year from the coming into operation of this Act. The reason I am asking the Minister to do that is, first of all, that he is extending Section 27 of the Act of 1960 for a further year. I am asking him to give the same facilities to a person with a lapsed licence because there have been cases of hardship. There are people up and down the country who own licences and who did not know they could revive them until it was too late. I know of one case in County Sligo where a person could have revived a licence but failed because satisfactory proof was not forthcoming in time that the licence existed in 1902, and that proof was not forthcoming because the documentary proof was destroyed during the trouble in 1921 or 1922. There is a case of real hardship and I am sure there are others. I would ask the Minister either to extend the section without reservation for a further year or to bring in a new section extending the Act of 1902 for a further year in cases where it can be shown that hardship exists. In the case I have in mind —and I am sure there are others— hardship does exist.
How could hardship exist if they have not had a licence for 40 years?
They had a licence long since that but the evidence was not obtainable.
I cannot accede to this and I would expect Senator Quinlan to leap to his feet to support me in its rejection. If we were to extend this for another year, it would undoubtedly mean that approximately 1,000—maybe more, maybe less—new licences would be created.
Could be created.
Could be and almost certainly would be created. There is no doubt those licences would be created for sale and once they were re-created, they would not be confined to the areas in which they are at present; they could be transferred to different parts of the country. If most people who are interested in this whole problem of licences are agreed on one thing more than anything else, it is that there are too many licences in the country. We would be very unwise to throw this door open and permit the re-creating of about 1,000 new licences. Hard cases, as we all know, make bad law and the fact that a few people have slept on their rights and have not availed of the provision that existed up to now should not lead us into a situation where we would make possible the re-creating of 1,000 new licences. The people concerned have had two clear years to avail of this opportunity and we would be doing a very bad day's work if we were to accede to this amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Sections 34 and 35 agreed to.
NEW SECTION
I move amendment No. 55:
Before Section 36 to insert the following new section:
"Section 37 of the Act of 1960 is hereby repealed."
This last of a long number of amendments deals with compulsory endorsement. It is of considerable importance and I would ask the Minister to give it serious consideration. Under the Act of 1927, provision was made for endorsing licences and in that Act it was provided that if a certain number of endorsements— three, I think—had been placed on a licence, the licence became defunct. However, that Act contained a number of provisions giving relief against endorsement. One section of the Act stated that the district justice might not endorse a licence if he were satisfied that the offence was trivial or if there were other special circumstances. Section 27 of the Act of 1927 conferred power on the circuit court judge to remove an endorsement although affirming the conviction. Section 30 of that Act contained very important provisions because it stated that endorsement of a licence did not pass to a bona fide purchaser of the premises to which the licence was attached.
The Act of 1943 tightened up the provision relating to endorsements. It simply said that the district justice should endorse if he thought fit. The Act of 1960, for the first time, made it obligatory on the district justice on a second or any subsequent conviction under the licensing Acts following the passing of that Act to endorse, and as I understand it when three endorsements have been placed on a licence the licence becomes defunct. This Bill also provides that an endorsement or endorsements pass on to a purchaser for valuable consideration.
No.
I am delighted to hear that. There is considerable doubt about it.
The Senator must accept me as speaking ex cathedra.
I am glad to accept the Minister as speaking ex cathedra on this matter. While that takes some of the force from my argument, I think it is still very undesirable that district justices should not have discretion as to whether or not they should endorse licences. As I have said there is no difference between an offence committed at 11.31 p.m. during the period of summer time and an offence committed during the early hours of the following morning. The Minister has tried to relieve that situation by introducing this ten-minute drinking-up time. I have the height of contempt for that provision. It will not meet the case it is meant to meet but will bring back into disrepute the licensing code.
I respectfully submit to the Minister that it is fundamentally wrong to impose these minimum penalties in legislation of this nature. It is taking away the dignity of the courts to deprive them of the jurisdiction to measure appropriate penalties. The Minister at some stage should review this compulsory endorsement clause so that we should give to district justices discretion to measure penalties in cases arising during one hour after closing time. I do not suggest that there should be no penalty for offences which occur during the period up to one hour after closing time. In fact I am suggesting that heavy monetary penalties would be imposed. I should like the Minister, for my own information, to clarify the position in relation to endorsements passing on to a purchaser for valuable consideration.
The relevant provision in the 1927 Act, Section 30, is still extant and has not been affected by anything that has been done since. It provides that these endorsements shall not run against a bona fide purchaser for value and that where a person disposes of his interest in a licensed premises the new owner starts off with a clean sheet.
I am glad to hear that. I confess I should have known.
We will not hold that against the Senator. These matters are very complex and it takes a masterly intellect to grasp them. This section has led to a fair amount of comment and I met a deputation of publicans and discussed it fully with them. They suggested we should abandon this provision, that it was penal, Draconian and gave rise to very considerable hardship. I said to them that if it were a question of maintaining the enforcement of law and keeping the compulsory endorsement provision, or doing away with the compulsory endorsement and having the enforcement suffer, which would they prefer. This was a large and representative deputation and they were in unanimous agreement in saying that if it were a choice they would prefer to retain the compulsory endorsement provision rather than have the enforcement of law suffer. One thing everybody was satisfied with in the 1960 Act was that it was impartially enforced so that when one publican closed he knew his brethren in the same locality were closed also.
This provision is necessary for enforcement and is not as bad as people seem to regard it. The first offence is not entered on the licence at all. I give in that respect the analogy of the dog being allowed one bite before anything happens to him. The first is, if you like, a free offence which is not endorsed on the licence. The second remains extant on the licence for two years. If there is a third offence it remains endorsed for a period of four years and if there is a fourth or further offence it remains on the licence for a period of six years. Therefore, a publican needs to be pretty wilful to get to the stage where he is in danger of losing his licence.
It is only when he has committed a fourth offence that he is getting into serious difficulties because that fourth offence remains endorsed on his licence for six years before it becomes obliterated. As I said earlier the bona fide purchaser for value starts out with a clean sheet. Bearing all that in mind I think we should retain this provision and should not revert to the old provision of permitting the licensing code to go into disrepute because the courts would be very reluctant to exercise a discretion to make endorsements on a licence. We want enforcement and the extension of the licensing hours is justified only on the basis that what is proposed here will be strictly enforced. If we want enforcement we must retain this endorsement provision.
I do not think that is unfair or will lead to hardship and I suggest to Senator Fitzpatrick that it would be desirable to retain it particularly as I now have introduced this proposal for a ten-minute drinking up time. I have thus taken away the only really valid complaint publicans would have that they would be in danger of committing offences in the period immediately following closing time.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 36 agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported without amendment.
Agreed to take remaining Stages today.
Bill received for final consideration.
Question proposed: "That the Bill do now pass."
"If 'twere done when 'tis done, then 'twere well it were done quickly."
I want to be recorded as dissenting on grounds which I have repeatedly stated and need not repeat now.
We are entitled to discuss the Bill as it is. It is now precisely as it came to us from the other House. It contains some things with which I do not agree but I do not propose to discuss that now. We have had an excellent Committee discussion on the Bill here but it has not been in the least fruitful, so far as I am concerned. It seems to me that the Bill would not be as it is now if the Minister were free and the circumstances such that he could have accepted amendments. It also seems that if we had received the Bill earlier it would certainly not be as it is now. It would contain certain changes suggested here and accepted by the Minister with good humour and goodwill. I should like to ask the Minister whether, in the light of his experience here, he would endeavour to persuade the Taoiseach and his colleagues in the Government so to order their business that this House would have an opportunity of proving its usefulness and of doing something constructive in regard to legislation.
We had a good-humoured discussion here and it might have persuaded the Minister but in fact it did not accomplish anything. I suggest to the Minister, in the light of his experience and in the light of the influence he must be in a position to exercise, that he should exercise his influence so as to see that we would get legislation in such a way as to enable us to be effective in dealing with it.
I should like to join with Senator Hayes in saying that we had a very useful discussion and while we did not get anything from the Minister, he certainly turned us down with good grace. We did not really expect anything from him because we knew that he was determined to have the Bill for the weekend. Let us hope that when introducing the next licensing Bill he will bear in mind the discussion we had here today. Speaking personally, I think the worst feature of the whole Bill is the 10 minutes "drinking up" time. I detest that provision. I think it will lead to trouble and bring the law into disrepute. I wish to join with Senator Nash and support the plea made by him on the Second Stage when he asked that the licensing laws should be codified. It is a dreadful mistake that this Bill has been introduced not as a comprehensive measure but rather as an amending measure. It deals with licensing Acts back as far as 1833—there are nearly 20 of them. I think it was the Minister's intention to codify——
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
I do not want to interrupt but this is rather a Second Reading point and not strictly relevant on this Stage.
I have practically finished. I am sure the Minister did intend to codify but time did not permit. He should see the pitfalls that may arise with all the various Acts. Even great minds like his can fall into a trap by the gap in Section 23 not being closed and great minds like mine, confronted with the magnitude of the legislation, may not realise that the endorsement does not pass on to the purchaser.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
Or that the speech just made is not relevant on this Stage.
I should like to support what Senator Hayes has said about the proper ordering of Government business. This Bill came to us very late. We are asked to co-operate in order to get it through. While not very keen on that we realise there are difficulties, in regard to the staff of the House for example, and we do not wish to hold it up.
However, I must oppose the final passage of the Bill because, as I said earlier, it is a Bill which in some respects, particularly in regard to Sunday trading, provides for longer hours which are not required by the publicans and their employees and, so far as we can judge, not greatly desired either by the customers. It will lead to inconvenience to the people directly involved and possibly also to the public.
A final point—would the Minister take time to give us an assurance that when this Bill is passed the legislation will be strictly enforced? I know his predecessor, when the previous Act was going through, did give very firm assurances. They were complied with but I suspect that of late there is a tendency to relax. People have got the idea that there is a more liberal approach to the enforcement of trading hours and I am told that in some cases the law is not as strictly enforced as formerly. I hope the Minister will avail of this opportunity to assure the House that the new legislation will be very strictly enforced throughout the whole country.
Apropos of what Senator Fitzpatrick and Senator Murphy have said, I should like to say that I think one of the best things in the Bill is this ten minutes "drinking-up" period. As I pointed out on the Second Stage, I hold that thousands of people were deprived of their rights under the law by being refused the privilege of purchasing a drink in some public houses after 20 minutes to 11 at night in the winter and in most public houses after a quarter to eleven. Now they will be able to buy their drink and the publican will be able to sell it with the assurance that they will have ten minutes to finish it and thus their rights as citizens under the law will be restored. I congratulate the Minister particularly on that point.
I wish to reinforce the plea made by Senator Hayes for better ordering of business. Might I express the hope that many Bills like this will be first introduced in the Seanad? We would give the Minister concerned the fullest co-operation in combing the Bill and we might then be effective in helping the passage of the Bill through the Dáil. We might succeed in ironing out many snags and get our views across to the Minister. That would expedite business and in some way justify the existence of the Seanad because today, although we have talked a great deal and tried very hard, we have achieved nothing.
In reply to Senator Hayes and the other Senators, I appreciate that the Seanad is in a position to improve any legislation that comes before it. I think in the past, from time to time, I have given concrete indications of that appreciation by accepting amendments put down by Senators.
I am sorry this Bill came before the Seanad in the way it did and that the mechanics of the situation—although they did not entirely prevent it—made it difficult for me to accept any amendments. I am not certain that the Bill is not perfect as it is. I have a strong suspicion that it is as good as human ingenuity could make it. Nevertheless, if the mechanics of the situation were different, it is possible that some amendments might have been accepted if for no other reason than the fact that the arguments for and against were even, and we like to meet the Seanad where possible.
As I say, it was not my intention that the situation should work out this way. I had hoped that the Bill would get to the Seanad much earlier and that we could have the sort of useful discussion that Senator Hayes mentioned. However, I merely want to say in conclusion to the Chair and to Senators that I am very grateful, indeed, for the courteous way in which they received the Bill, and for their kind co-operation in expediting its passage.
Will the Minister make the representations I asked him to make? That is the point.
Certainly.
Question put and agreed to.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
Senator Murphy, Senator Quinlan, Senator McDonald and Senator Fitzgerald will be recorded as dissenting.