Before progress was reported, I was dealing with the amendment by Deputy Dillon and Deputy Lindsay relative to the plight of the six day licensee. There was one argument advanced, one indeed of very many arguments about this matter over the past few months, against the claims of the six-day owners. That was the fact that under existing law an area exemption order confers no benefit on them but benefits the seven day licence holders alone. That argument was used to prove that the seven-day men are now, and always have been, in a better position than the six-day owners. It was used also to minimise the argument advanced by those of us who are in favour of the six-day men that this Bill is giving a benefit to one section and not to the other.
Might I point out in that connection that in most small towns and probably in nearly all the villages in rural Ireland the number of area exemption orders obtained in the course of a period of five years is infinitesimal? I cannot recall when an area exemption order was obtained in several towns in my own county. Indeed, I cannot recall when there was a gathering within licensing hours of as many as 1,000 people in the towns I have named, apart from the occasional football match. Therefore, the benefit these towns derive through area exemption orders are nugatory and the facts so prove. That means that one is back again to the compelling argument that under existing law, drinking that is done on Sundays is, in the main, illegal, whether it is done in six-day or seven-day premises and that as a result of this Bill it will be made legal in seven-day premises alone.
Another argument advanced against the representatives of the six-day holders' organisation for some time past was their failure to appear before the Commission. The plain fact is that these men did not realise that their position would be affected at all. Let us say that they did not concede that their position could be affected in the way the Bill as originally drafted would have affected it. I would go as far as to say that those who lack sympathy with them because of their failure to appear before the Commission have changed their minds, have been forced by the facts to change their minds, that is, where they have examined the facts dispassionately and have kept their ears and eyes open.
At one stage, I felt that the amendments that were to be introduced by the Minister might have met the claims of the six-day men but it soon became apparent that they would not and that the basic injustice remained. The mere fact that these amendments were brought in as a result of representation is adequate proof that the framers of the Bill recognised that there was some form of injustice in the Bill as originally drafted. If I say now that, even with the amendment, which, of course, I support, that basic injustice remains, I do so in no spirit of acrimony but from a profound conviction and from a fairly comprehensive personal examination of the situation in the west, the midlands and the south, but not the north of Ireland.
I shall, therefore, conclude my remarks on the subject because I feel that no very useful purpose can now be served by going back over the whole argument in detail again and again. I shall conclude then by saying that I believe injustice is being done in the name of justice and that if the object of this Bill is to give the people of Ireland a licensing law which will have their respect and which, therefore, will be enforceable, then in this section the Bill will fail.
Deputy Lindsay said that if there were 2,000 people in a town where there were three or four seven-day licensees and 50 or 60—or, for that matter, 20 or 30 six day licensees, the Guards might as well retire to the barracks. I would add this much to what he said: Is it fair to ask the Guards to try to enforce a law that is so demonstrably unenforceable and so demonstrably unfair and is it fair to lay the Guards open to the opprobrium that will surely fall on them if they attempt to enforce a law which has not the consent of more than ten per cent. of the people?
I believe that the case in favour of these men is no better now than it was when this Bill was drafted. I know, and the House knows, that the Minister agreed to introduce certain amendments designed to ameliorate the injustice the Bill as originally drafted would have perpetrated. I say out of deep conviction that the Ministerial amendment will not remove that injustice but will merely lessen it and that the only way in which it could fairly be met would be by the introduction of an amendment, if not exactly on the lines, very nearly on the lines of that we are discussing now.
I mentioned already the position of applicants for licences should this amendment be defeated and the existing amendments go through. It might be remembered that there is another section in this Bill under which a person who acquires two licences may, subject to certain provisions about suitability, and so on, set up a licensed premises in a country area. That means that the available pool of licences will be plundered, not merely by the six-day holders but by their friends in the country in competition with them. Therefore, whatever concessions are being given to the six-day men will likewise be available to men in competition with them, a kind of competition created by the provisions of the Bill itself.
I am not saying, of course, that I have any objection to the provision about rural public houses; that is a completely different matter. I am merely pointing out that under this Bill these people will have put up against them a form of competition which was not, to say the least of it, thought about when the Commission was conducting its deliberations. At least in that respect the six-day men cannot be accused of hanging back but ultimately, whether they saw it or not, whether they came up to the Commission or not, the fact remains that if an injustice is being done to them it ought to be remedied. It is not enough to say to a man: "You saw what was coming or, if you did not, you ought to have seen it." What is more important is that, whether he did or not, an injustice should not be done. I can very well understand that view but perhaps the position was not sufficiently explained and I believe the amendment proves that it was not. I would appeal to the Minister to leave this matter to the House to decide for itself. I am satisfied with this Bill as it stands except in this regard.
There is one other matter which I should like to see changed but I am convinced that for very many reasons it cannot be changed. However, I believe there is a question of justice involved here and that we might very well be allowed to express our convictions particularly those of us who feel them very deeply and would not express them if they did not.
