This is a Bill that has aroused a good deal of controversy and general discussion among the people of the country as a whole. Although the Third Stage might be a more appropriate Stage upon which to make one's contribution, I somehow feel that it is incumbent on every Deputy to express his opinions on the present Stage.
The first thing that comes to mind in discussing a Bill like this is the reaction of the public as a whole. In the messages or the instructions, if one cares to put it that way, which we receive from our constituents the general reaction has been why is this Bill introduced? That is the opinion of the public as a whole. What the Deputy has to consider, first of all, is whether such a Bill is necessary and if such a Bill is necessary does it, taken as a whole, meet the requirements of this trade?
I think it is fair to say at the outset that a Bill is necessary. No one can be satisfied with the existing state of affairs. It would be no harm to go into the particular reasons which might have motivated the Government or the Minister for Justice to introduce such a Bill. There is a widespread public feeling that the man in one street is getting a better deal than the man in the other, that is to say, among licensed traders, as a whole, there is the impression that people are not getting a fair crack of the whip, if a licensed trader a few streets away is satisfied with the present licensing laws and at the same time if I break those laws, I am brought to the courts and prosecuted, while my counterpart working under the same conditions in the same locality is not.
That rather suggests to an ordinary public representative who knows nothing about this trade and who has no connection whatsoever with it that some amendment of the existing laws is required. Why should we require a Liquor Bill? I think I might say at the outset that we require a Bill because public opinion is not behind the existing law. There is no desire on the part of the Irish people that these laws should be enforced. There is no real sympathy when these laws are enforced.
That seems to suggest that there is something wrong with the situation as a whole. Therefore, the onus is ultimately on the public representative to discuss any Bills brought before the House and to decide whether he thinks the Bill is a good Bill or whether it is going to be of benefit to the public as a whole. It is for that reason that I speak on the Second Stage.
Before I go on to discuss what is actually in the Bill itself, I want to refer to a matter to which other Deputies have referred before and to which the Minister did not refer but which, on being questioned by the Leader of the Opposition, he said we were freely and fully entitled to discuss on Second Reading, that is, the position of the 6-day licensee versus the 7-day licensee.
I do not think that anyone who has spoken so far on the Second Reading has promoted in any way the cause of the bona fide trade. The bona fide trade was originally created a considerable time ago, when the circumstances were totally different from what they are to-day, for the purpose of enabling travellers to buy a drink and have it according to the law of the land, as they wanted it. That, of course, was long before the days of universal mechanical transport. It was in the minds of the legislators and those who drew up the Bill in those days to create a situation whereby a traveller could satisfy his thirst or inclination for a stimulant on his journey.
Every Deputy will acknowledge that the position to-day is totally different. To-day, there are a number of licensed houses in and around the city of Dublin. It is possible for a person to get into a car and travel a distance of three miles and buy a drink. In the circumstances at present existing, he may have to ride a bicycle very soon, next week, at any rate. It is fair to say that the situation that existed when the original legislation was introduced to deal with this question no longer exists. Therefore, if the bona fide trade is to go, in fairness, it must be replaced by something else. The replacement of the bona fide trade is Sunday opening and, to a lesser degree, the extension of the licensing hours.
That brings me to 6-day and 7-day licensees. Deputies have received a great deal of literature on the question. I have read that literature, but, apart from that, I was quite satisfied that, in any legislation, we had to be as fair as we could to every section of the community. It has been a fundamental principle of the Party to which I belong that we do not represent any particular section of the community, that we do not necessarily represent a majority. I do not want to give the Government Deputies a shock by saying that we might be representing a majority in the fairly near future. Our fundamental principle has been that every citizen, whether he belongs to a majority or a minority—and we fought for three months over that in the debates that went on in the Dáil— has the right to the protection of an elected representative. If my colleagues opposite find cause for humour in that, they are welcome to it.
There are about ten 7-day licensees to every 6-day licensee. If the public houses are to be open on Sunday and if the bona fide trade is to be abolished, we must produce some form of legislation to deal with that situation. It is quite obvious that the 6-day licensees, if they so desire, could be in a position to be on co-equal terms with their 7-day counterparts. It may not be so evident in cities or county boroughs, where there is a greater concentration of population, but it must be evident to every rural Deputy, where local conditions count for so much and where there is a smaller concentration of population, that in trade the personal touch is vital. It is our duty to preserve it and I may even say to fight for it. Therefore, if we abolish the bona fide trade and if we give the right to open public houses on Sunday —and this Bill purports to do that— we must do justice to the 6-day licensee and, if we do not, ipso facto, we put him out of business, we destroy his business, we destroy his livelihood and we destroy the value of his property.
As I said before, it is a fundamental policy of the Party I represent—and my own personal policy, if I may say so in all humility—to preserve the rights of minorities. In that regard, it is unfortunate that there is no provision in any section of this Bill to deal with the section of the community I have in mind.
I listened yesterday to what I considered to be a good speech by a member of the Fianna Fáil Party, Deputy Seán Flanagan. He made a very fair and useful case on behalf of this section. In his constituency, Mayo, and also in Monaghan, there is a majority of 6-day licensees as against 7-day licensees, but I fully accept that Deputy Flanagan was making a case which he believed to be just and I am trying to make the same case.
I think the 6-day licensees, if they wish to open on seven days a week, should be given a licence to do so. I do not think that means that you will have a rush of the entire 1,400 six-day licensees to open on Sunday. I should not like to suggest that for a moment. I do not think the Minister or his Department will be embarrassed by any such rush. I know people in my own constituency who are 6-day licensees and who, if they were offered it tomorrow, would not accept the right to be a 7-day licensee.
It has been stated that the 7-day licensee has paid a greater fee, that he has paid that fee over a number of years and that to put the 6-day licensee on an equal basis would mean that an injustice might be done to a 7-day licensee.
I took particular trouble to find out what the position was in regard to the licence paid and the valuations in the cases concerned. The problem in my constituency is not as acute as it is in Monaghan or Mayo, but there is the peculiarity in Wexford that the 6-day licensees are concentrated in two areas, the towns of New Ross and Wexford. It would be unfair to give any particular case but I have checked the fee paid for the 6-day licence and the 7-day licence.
I move the adjournment of the debate.