This amendment will have very far reaching consequences for the licensed trade as a whole. I do not know why it was brought in at this stage. We have had many amendments discussed and why Fine Gael should choose to introduce this one now, I do not know. It is only a few days since Deputy Dillon was acting in the role of theologian, quoting scripture and the Third Commandment, and holding up his hands in horror, like Deputy Blowick, that there should be an extension of what was termed the opening on Sundays. The saints have become sinners now and are advocating that all licensed traders in the country should open on Sundays and I should like to point out that that will have a very serious repercussion on seven-day licence holders.
The total amount of trade at the disposal of all licence holders is small throughout the country areas. Deputy Belton lives in a city with a big population and a very large volume of trade and I am afraid he will never realise the difficulties of licensed traders throughout the country. This Bill does not confer any benefits whatsoever on the seven-day licence holders and it is only foolish people who never read it who suggest that it confers increased facilities for the sale of drink on licensed traders. That, of course, is the reverse of the truth and it will be proved that it is so. It curtails the hours of trading in rural Ireland and let there be no doubt about that. I have argued that myself and it took me quite a long time to assure people that it is true.
The Minister is not giving any increased facilities for drinking in rural Ireland but the Bill is, in fact, taking the bona fide trade from the traders, a trade which has been legitimately carried on by the vast majority of them, and I object strenuously to the gross, exaggerated slanders on the members of the licensed trade. They have been held up as a pack of shebeeners, as people who deliberately for the sake of trading have broken the licensing laws every minute and every hour of the day, particularly on Sundays. That is not true and I speak for the six-day licence holders in my own town, and I can assure the House and the country that not one of them sells drink on a Sunday and not one of them desires to have a seven-day licence.
If Deputy Blowick's amendment is carried, what will be the position? We shall have seven day licences forced on six-day licence holders who have no desire and no ambition to open and no proper facilities for opening, on Sundays. Generally, six-day licence holders are people with very big, mixed trading, some of them in hardware, some in drapery some in groceries, selling anything from a needle to an anchor, but the seven-day trader is a person who must, of necessity, depend on the sale of intoxicating liquor. Whether he can eke out a livelihood or not depends on whether a person is thirsty or not.
As I said, this amendment reeks with suspicion. It was not mentioned a month ago and I must ask why? It was because the temperance associations had been condemning this Bill with bell, book, and candle, and condemning those who stood for what they termed increased facilities for the sale of intoxicating drink. The storm has now blown over and the Fine Gael Party think they are safe from criticism so they come along with this amendment, making out that they forgot about it until now. On the one hand, they tell us that it is a most serious thing to give what they term increased facilities for drinking, but, on the other hand, they want to give increased facilities to six-day licence holders. They tell us that up to now they did not even dream of going to the Commission which dealt with this matter to say that six-day licensed traders should be facilitated in this way.
It is true, as Deputy Belton said, that the difference in the licence fee is not very much. Perhaps, £5 to £10 is the average difference between the cost of a six and a seven-day licence, but the valuation of premises is quite a different matter, and the high rates in urban areas and local authority areas would certainly contract the profits made by six-day licence holders, were they to get these facilities. In addition, some of them would be put into the unhappy position that they should accept a seven-day licence whether their premises were suitable or not, and also accept a revaluation of their premises. That is a matter which, as every Deputy ought to know, is now of very serious dimensions, and if the Valuation Commissioners carry out wide-scale revaluations, I can assure the House that there will be far more dormant licences than there are at present.
Somebody said that as high as £600 was paid for a seven-day licence by a six-day licence holder to enable him to open on Sundays. I can assure that man that if he comes to Tipperary, he will get half a dozen of them for that money. I tried to sell a seven-day licence for a friend of mine whose financial position had deteriorated and I could not get anybody to buy it. I pressed one man who could afford to buy it very hard and even though there was a most suitable premises for Sunday opening, I could not sell the licence for £100 and it was afterwards sold for £75.
Up and down the country, there are upwards of 2,000 licences which have been lying dormant for many years and this Bill will enable those licences to be revived within two years and I believe that, within two years of the passing of this Bill, there will be a wholesale revival of them. According to some Deputies a seven-day licence will be something worth talking about. Naturally, the people entitled to revive licences will have no difficulty in selling them. No doubt the premises were suitable and there is no reason why they should have deteriorated to any appreciable extent. Therefore, they can now be revived for the purpose of sale. Now we are told that a seven-day licence is worth something. I have yet to be convinced of that. I find it difficult to believe that seven-day licences are of such great value.
The Minister has gone a long way to meet the case. He has gone much further than I anticipated he would go. He has made it very easy for a six-day licence holder to obtain a seven-day licence, by purchasing a seven-day licence and allowing his own to lapse. That is a very easy way of acquiring a seven-day licence and will appeal to any progressive six-day licence holder, except perhaps one who wants something for nothing. It is always a popular thing in this House and at street corners to preach something for nothing at somebody else's expense. Six-day licence holders will have no difficulty in getting seven-day licences. I understand that there are 14,000 six-day licences, including existing licences and dormant licences.
Deputy Belton, who knows the licensed trade from A to Z, stated that the Minister for Lands was incorrect in stating that people could queue up for taxis in some town in Mayo and go out to the country and get drink there. That is an everyday happening all over the country. The Garda and vigilance societies are trying to enforce the licensing laws. People go out three miles in cars. Deputy Belton is correct in stating that one may not openly enter a public house during Sunday closing hours for the purpose of drinking. Nevertheless, in the history of the trade has there been one conviction? Not even my legal friends on this side or the other side of the House could tell me that in the long history of the licensing laws there has been even one conviction for obtaining drink or going for drink or consuming drink during Sunday closing hours. That has not happened.
I fail to understand why the amendment has been pressed. The Minister has gone a long way, much further than any holder of a six-day licence anticipated. If a six-day licence holder is being put in the position of being able to compete with the people who have been paying more for their licences and paying more in wages for Sunday assistance, it is not too much to say that they should pay for it. All this talk about £600 and £700 is "boloney".
This Bill is not conferring any benefit on seven-day licence holders. The bona fide trade, which has been a very substantial part of their livelihood, is being taken from them. It is a difficult life. In addition, their hours of trading are being curtailed and there is the possibility of endorsements being revived with substantial fines, and for the rest of their lives there will be for them the danger of their licences being taken from them. That is a matter that should be earnestly considered. Deputies can appreciate the mental strain involved in a suspended sentence of 12 months. Publicans will be under similar mental strain if they fail to get out of their premises, in time, people who may be obstreperous. Therefore, do not put more people in the same street in competition with him, to take away the few shillings that he may get on Sunday.
The amount of money available for drinking is definitely declining while the number of traders is on the increase. Because of the great competition there must of necessity be more capital investment in bringing premises up to date, resulting in increases in valuations and licence duty. That has been happening. For goodness sake, leave them the little hard won livelihood that they have and do not increase the competition.
There is another matter that the House should seriously consider. With the advent of television in England thousands of public houses are almost on the verge of collapse and many licences have become dormant. That is a natural development. It shows, again, that people who drink do not do so for the love of drink. The social aspect plays a great part in the consumption of liquor.