Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Thursday, 7 Apr 1960

Vol. 180 No. 14

Committee on Finance. - Intoxicating Liquor Bill, 1959—Committee Stage (Resumed).

Debate resumed on the following amendment:

Before section 12 to insert a new section as follows:—

"(1) If, on the hearing of an application for the grant of a certificate entitling the applicant to receive a seven-day licence in respect of any premises, it is shown to the satisfaction of the Court that the applicant is at the date of the said application the holder of a six-day licence in respect of the said premises, it shall not be open to the Court to refuse the said application.

(2) For the purposes of this section, the District Court shall be the appropriate Court."

—(Deputy Dillon).

Mr. Corry

When dealing with this matter last night, I had not the advantage of knowing the full strength of these amendments. Since then, I have studied them carefully and apparently the tide has turned and we are evidently prepared to go to extremes here. It is the extreme tee-totallers who are the mad "boozers." Deputy Blowick last night, I am afraid, gave the impression that he is some kind of a secret drinker, drinking on Sundays in six-day licensed premises. I cannot account for his knowledge of the facts in any other way. He made a last appeal to the Minister last night on behalf of the "poor man who was fond of a pint on Sunday." Twelve years ago, Deputy Blowick marched into the Lobby with Deputy Dillon and the rest of the boys to vote against giving that poor man any opportunity of having his pint on Sunday with any kind of ease. The Deputy will no doubt know what kind of a thirst a man develops over 12 years.

I should like to examine this fairly. We are told there are 1,100 of these people in the country now. I cannot imagine that a Commission sat for 12 months and not one of the 1,100 realised that it affected him in any way. If it affected them, surely they would have come before us. When I heard Deputy McQuillan and Deputy Boland last night, both of them from Roscommon, and when we are told there are many of those people, surely they had some knowledge of the recommendations the Commission were about to make, but apparently they did not.

I believe we have entirely too many public houses, and if there is to be a decent livelihood in the business, about 50 per cent. of them should be done away with. There would then be a livelihood for the others. Other people thought as I did. Under the 1927 Licensing Act passed by this House, we had compulsory closing down of public houses. Certain public houses in each district were closed down under Part IV of that Act and compensation was paid to the man whose premises were closed down. That compensation was levied on the other publicans in the district.

At first it was estimated about 1,200 of them a year would be closed. The Act was brought into operation and under that Act 299 public houses were closed. Neighbouring publicans had to pay £50,000 compensation and the expenses were £10,000 more—£60,000 for, one might say, 300 public houses. We can work out the compensation— it amounts to roughly £170 per public house. That was all they got for closing but it was too much and that part of the Act was dropped in a hurry because it was too expensive.

Now we have these amendments of Deputy Blowick and Deputy Dillon, and Deputy Blowick out-Herods Herod. Deputy Dillon only requests that if they make application to the court, they should get a licence but Deputy Blowick went a step further. He would force the seven-day licence down their throats by saying that if they did not want the seven-day licence, they must apply within a month. I understand we are discussing the two amendments together?

Mr. Blowick

No, I did not move my amendment.

Mr. Corry

I am glad to hear the Deputy had so much sense.

Mr. Blowick

The Deputy might know what is before the House before he begins speaking.

Mr. Corry

When I heard Deputy Blowick last night fighting so hard for the six-day licence holders, I was under the impression that every Sunday Deputy Blowick made for a six-day licensed public house where he knows there is no fear of being raided and where he can drink in peace. That is the impression he gave me. I understood he was dealing with his own amendment when he stood up a second time to tell us about the unfortunate country boy who could not get a drink on Sunday.

We turn then to Deputy Dillon's amendment. He says that it shall not be open to the court to review the application if a man applies for a seven-day licence. That is all it will cost him. Take the publican down in Ballaghaderreen, for instance, with a six-day licence. First of all, he escapes paying one-seventh of the licence duty because his premises is licensed for only six days of the week. He has, therefore, escaped a rate of 40/- in the pound on a £5 or £10 valuation over a number of years. One would not be long making up the £170 that was paid in compensation for a licence in that way, and that has been done. I am only anxious to save Deputy Dillon from himself.

Mr. O'Sullivan

The anxiety is reciprocal, I am sure.

Mr. Corry

Deputy Dillon is a very foolish man. Just imagine what will happen. First, it is not just one-seventh of the licence duty that you escape because it is on one-half of the poor law valuation of the premises that the licence duty is assessed.

Mr. W. Murphy

I think it is on five-fourths of the valuation.

Mr. Corry

Is it? The Deputy is a publican, and I admire his knowledge.

Mr. W. Murphy

I shall tell the Deputy a little more before we finish with the Bill.

Mr. Corry

If one's premises is a seven-day licensed premises, the Commissioner of Valuation will come down on top of one and increase the poor law valuation by 50 per cent. anyway. On that basis, your licence is immediately increased. Does Deputy Dillon realise now what I am saving him from in this? If the poor law valuation was £10 on a six-day licensed premises in Ballaghaderreen, the poor law valuation will immediately jump up to £15 and, on that £15, he must pay a licence duty of four-fifths of the valuation, as Deputy Murphy says.

Mr. W. Murphy

Five-fourths.

Mr. Corry

He must pay five-fourths of the increase as licence duty. Hitherto he escaped one-seventh. On that basis alone, I think Deputy Dillon is very foolish to bring in this amendment. I believe the Minister is acting fairly, and more than fairly in this. I do not think any Deputy will admit that there are too few public houses. Go into any country town to-day and every second house is a pub, all of them eking out a miserable existence.

Mr. S. Flanagan

Is every pub a house?

Mr. Corry

That remains to be seen. I understand that down in the Deputy's part of the country there are some queer pubs, if one can judge from what one hears here. In 1927 a public house licence was valued at £170. That was the value of 299 of them; at a cost of £50,000, plus £10,000 expenses, that represents £60,000 for 299 public houses. To-day that valuation would be worth £500, taking the increase in the value of money into consideration.

The owner of a six-day licensed premises comes in here and puts down an amendment in order to get a present of £500. I see Nick, and that is carrying Nick too far. The proposal by means of which these people can buy a seven-day licence and transfer it to their six-day premises is, I think, a very fair and reasonable one. It will reduce the number of licences. That appears to me to be a much more reasonable approach than giving a gift to 1,100 people of £500 or £600 per man. That is what this amendment asks us to do. I can see no justification whatever for it, no matter how one looks at it.

Let us consider another aspect. Any Garda can report at the licensing session that a public house should be closed. There may be an appeal to the Circuit Court but, if the Circuit Court upholds the decision, that is an end of the matter. There is no appeal from the Circuit Court. Another team may come along and assess the amount of compensation. A third team can decide the particular publicans who will pay the compensation. Remembering that the six-day licensee has been saving £10, £15 or £20 a year rates and, at the same time, one-seventh of the licence fee, I wonder would we confer any great benefit on these people by this change?

Deputy Blowick, of course, thinks they should all be converted into seven-day licensed premises overnight, whether they like it or not. There may be people who do not want to serve drink on Sundays. I do not know whether one would find many of them at the present time. Here, however, is a bald proposal to hand out £500,000 to six-day licensed holders. That is what this amendment amounts to. If I were to consider who, under this Bill, should be entitled to compensation, I would consider the position of the publicans within three or four miles of Cork, four, five or six miles of Dublin, and within a certain radius of Limerick and Waterford. These are the men who are definitely losing a certain amount of trade. These are the people who would be entitled to some compensation. If I were to consider compensation under this Bill, I should certainly consider them instead of this lunatic proposal brought forward here in the misguided idea that there would be an actual cash down benefit. There will be a financial benefit of over £500,000, £500 per house on 1,100 houses.

I should like to be reasonable in these matters, but I think this thing has gone too far. I admire the innocence of a person like Deputy Boland there. I know how innocent he has always been and how he would swallow any kind of a yarn. But I do not know where he got the yarn that a man had to pay £800 for a seven-day licence. If Deputy Beirne were to purchase a seven-day licence in Cork he need not pay £800 for it. Deputy Boland and his brother-in-arms, Deputy McQuillan, sat side by side on the Liquor Commission for the whole long twelve months and never thought of the poor six-day licence holders in their constituency who would be robbed by this. By jove, I looked after the Cork men.

I honestly think Deputy Dillon should withdraw this amendment. I think he was a very foolish man to introduce it. He should realise the effect it will have. Consider the amount that the Valuation Commissioners will place on a six-day licence holder in Ballaghaderreen the moment that licence becomes a seven-day licence and add to that the increased licence duty payable, not on the old valuation but on the new valuation. In view of that position, I think the amendment should be withdrawn.

Mr. Belton

This problem of the six-day licensee is really a problem in the main for those licensees situated west of the Shannon or along the Monaghan-Leitrim border. Having listened to the last speaker more or less ridiculing the suggestion of Deputy Boland that £800 was paid for a licence, I would recall that Deputy Seán Flanagan, speaking on the Second Stage of the Bill, practically told us that some of his clients paid over £600 for licences recently. I quite believe that. I suggest that Deputy Corry really does not know what he is talking about when he stands up here and delivers an oration about the Licensing Bill.

Mr. Norton

Did the Deputy call it an oration?

Mr. Belton

Whatever the Deputy likes to call it. I was being very charitable. Last night, Deputy Dillon described the bona fide trade. This amendment has nothing to do with it, of course, but it was brought into the discussion by the Minister for Lands when he suggested that in the town of Castlebar hackney cars are lined up and people queue up to go out for the purpose of having a drink. It was suggested that these people were entitled to have a drink. As I understand the licensing law governing the bona fide trade, you can drink to travel but you cannot travel to drink. I suggest that 95 per cent. of the Deputies do not understand the bona fide law.

I mention that for the simple reason that the six-day licensees and the seven-day licensees have been, in spite of what any Deputy says here, carrying on an illicit trade for the last 50 years. All that was required of a man who wanted a drink in the rural areas on Sunday was the inclination and the money to buy the drink. Whether it was a six-day or a seven-day house, facilities were available to him to get the drink he required. In certain towns in the West where you have a number of six-day licenced houses they carried on trade on Sundays for the last 50 years. So did the seven-day licensed houses. Both of them were carrying on an illegal trade. If this amendment is not accepted, this Bill will now permit the seven-day licensed house to carry on to the detriment of the six-day licensed house. In other words, it legalises the trade for one type of house and not for the other.

It has been mentioned here that the seven-day licensee is paying a higher licence than the six-day licensee. That is admitted, I agree. However, the Poor Law Valuation in respect of the licences paid in the bulk of these rural pubs is small. In the majority of cases the difference between the two would be almost negligible. If they were paying £7 or £8 as licence fee that would be the maximum, and the difference between that paid in respect of a six-day house and a seven-day house of similar size would be from 20/- to 25/- or 30/-.

The Minister informed us last night that he intended to bring in an amendment which would go a fair share of the way towards meeting the problems of the six-day licensees. But we did not hear any mention from either the Minister for Lands or the Minister for Justice that these provisions he intended to bring in would apply to the rural areas only. I might ask would they apply to a six-day licensed house situate in one of the four county boroughs? That is a matter which I think should be looked upon in a completely different light.

There is the situation that in certain parts of rural Ireland Sunday has become the shopping day. In certain out-of-the way villages and rural districts you have a lot of six-day licensed houses as grocery shops, small drapery shops, hardware shops and so on. Now they will have to close to customers who would normally come there for their shopping on Sundays. As a city publican and a person who is interested in the trade, I suggest that the Minister should give favourable consideration to this proposal which favours the six-day licence holders.

In conclusion, I want to comment on Deputy Corry's statement that Deputy Blowick, Deputy Dillon and several other Deputies went into the lobby 12 years ago to vote against his amendment. I was here at that time and I agree that they did, but Deputy Corry failed to mention that, through sour grapes, when his Private Member's motion——

Mr. Davern

Private Bill.

Mr. Belton

——was defeated, he brought in a second one to try to close all public houses on Sundays, both in the city and rural areas.

Mr. Davern

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.

An Ceann Comhairle

I do not see the relevance of that to the amendment.

Mr. Davern

I am trying to show that there will be more redundant licences in this country with the advent of television in, possibly, a year's time. It will definitely mean more licences for sale on the market.

Deputy Belton said there was not much difference in the licence fee, but there is a very substantial difference in the valuation and, above all, a very great difference in the capital investment. Put a six-day licensed house, and a seven-day, on the market, each with the same facilities for drink in the same kind of street, and you will find that the seven-day licenced house will command a substantially greater price. The fact that this matter was not the subject of a recommendation by the Commission and that it has been dragged in here at the last minute is sufficient indication of its importance. It is always a very popular thing to give something for nothing to somebody but when we are giving something for nothing to people we should not take it out of the pockets of people who are already harassed in their business. You have heard the Minister state—and I think I know him sufficiently well to know that when he makes a statement he means it—that the licensing laws will be enforced and the people who break the law will have to answer for it in a very serious way. With that looming over the heads of the seven-day licensees, surely it is not the task of this House to add another worry to the thousand and one worries the seven-day licensees already have. I sincerely hope the amendments will be withdrawn, especially Deputy Blowick's, because it will have very serious consequences for the licensing trade and for many people who have no desire to open on Sunday at all.

I do not know what knowledge Deputy Blowick has of public houses. He pretends to be a very strong opponent of drink. I think he said he would oppose this Bill strenuously if he thought it would mean increased facilities for drink. I do not know whether he has been quietly having a drop but, if he has not, he is speaking with complete ignorance of the licensed trade. I speak with the knowledge of five generations of it and I hope of the sixth.

Mr. W. Murphy

Deputy Corry's speech a while ago would lead one to believe that putting the six-day licensees out of business was to him one huge joke. I wonder what would Deputy Corry's attitude be if the Minister for Agriculture introduced a Bill interfering with the rights of the barley growers, he being Chairman of the Barley Growers' Association. Surely the six-day licensees have as much right as the barley growers have to live in their holdings and carry on their small business.

Fortunately in County Clare, by comparison with the rest of the country, we have very few of the people concerned in this Bill. However, I feel it is my duty to speak for them, few though they may be. I know the six-day licensees in my own town are carrying on a very fine business with a good clientele who come sometimes during the day for the six days of the week and every night without fail, say, from 8 o'clock until 10.30. I wonder when this Bill becomes law and when those customers can go into a neighbouring house with the door wide open and have their drinks without hindrance, will they go to their usual place of drink, the six-day licensed house on the other six days of the week? As a rule a man who drinks in the one public house for six days of the week does not like to go to another public house on a Sunday.

Every Deputy knows that those six-day licences were granted under an alien régime almost 100 years ago in the supposed courts of justice. Justice was meted out to the people then by none other than the members of the ascendancy and their henchmen, men who refused to give this seven-day licence and, if they possibly could, would not allow the people to live in this land of ours even for seven days. It is very strange that, 100 years after that, a native Government, a Government who are supposed to dispense justice between man and man, should introduce legislation here to do what could not be done at that time, that is, to put the padlocks on the doors of these unfortunate people, drive them on to the emigrant ship and force them and their families to seek a livelihood in another land, a livelihood of which a native Government would deprive them.

Every Deputy must agree with me that laws should be based on commonsense, justice and equality. Is there any Deputy or any Minister here who can say to me that there is justice and equality in a Bill which grants certain privileges and facilities to a section of traders and deprives another section of our people of the self-same privileges and facilities? If any member considers that that is justice and equality for our people, I must say it is certainly not the justice or the equality which this country fought over the years to obtain. As a result of this legislation many of the six-day licensees will be driven away from their homes. I can assure the Minister that no matter what rigorous provisions he puts in the law, and no matter how hard that law may be, one thing that it will never do is to deprive any man of his pint of stout or his glass of whiskey, wherever and whenever he wants it.

Minister for Justice (Mr. Traynor)

Deputy Murphy has his facts and his history all wrong. All the six-day licensees became, of their own volition, six-day licensees. They were seven-day licensees. There is no use in bringing in the tear-jerking statement that an alien Government or an ascendancy Government made them——

Mr. W. Murphy

They did.

Mr. Traynor

It was done by the voluntary action of the seven-day licensee himself and, although it was done some years ago, it has been handed down from father to son, and the six-day licensees of the present day are the successors of the people who made that voluntary act. We have gone to very great pains to explain that history. I did so myself when concluding on the Second Stage of the Bill, but that error has been persisted in here by a number of Deputies whom I would regard as responsible Deputies. Why they continue to repeat that distorted type of story about the six-day licensees, I find great difficulty in understanding. We are not doing anything to the six-day licensees that is injurious to them. We are not affecting them.

Mr. Blowick

That is not so.

Mr. Traynor

We are not affecting the rights and privileges which they have at the present time by one single iota, nor do we intend to. What Deputy Murphy says may be true, that they have been doing something they were not entitled to do in serving drink on Sundays. He made the suggestion that despite anything we may do in this House, these people will continue to do that. I shall be very sorry for them, if they do. It will mean that they will be putting themselves out of business. We are bringing in penalties, which, if inflicted — and they will be inflicted if people continue to commit these breaches of the law — will, in fact, automatically put them out of business.

So far as this Bill is concerned, we are not, in any way, interfering with the rights of the six-day licensees to continue their legitimate business. I do not like to hear the type of speech Deputy Murphy has just made suggesting that we are taking away some of the rights and privileges these people have at the present time. We are not interfering in any sense with them. I have said before, and it is worth repeating, that other Governments have endeavoured to prevent the spread of licensed premises. In fact, the Act of 1902 definitely provided against the establishment of new licensed premises. Other Governments have sought to achieve that aim as well, and all we are doing in this Bill is ensuring so far as it is possible to do so that there will be no increase in licences but that, if possible, through the suggestions we are making in respect of the manner in which a six-day licence can become a seven-day licence, we should reduce still further the number of such licences.

I think that is an aim which every member of this House will be prepared to support. I merely want to repeat that so far as the Bill is concerned, it will not in any way affect the rights of the six-day licensees. They will be in the same position as they have always been in, except that they will not be allowed to continue anything in the nature of illegitimate trading, if they have been indulging in such trading.

Deputies Blowick and O'Sullivan rose.

Mr. Blowick

I want to ask the Minister how he can say he is not interfering with the rights or privileges——

An Ceann Comhairle

Surely I have to call a Deputy? I call Deputy O'Sullivan.

Mr. O'Sullivan

I must say I was very depressed by the last intervention of the Minister. I was under the impression that we had made some progress on Committee Stage in bringing home to the Minister, the Government and the Party opposite — and full marks to the Deputies behind the Minister who made their effort to bring it home to the Minister and the Government — the effect of the non-acceptance of this amendment.

The Minister has just said there would be no worsening of the conditions of the six-day licensees in consequence of the non-acceptance of this amendment. Surely to goodness, after the views that have been advanced from both sides of the House with regard to the loss of trade which must undoubtedly accrue to the six-day licensees if the amendment is not accepted, he must have hearkened to the serious and well-informed reasons which were advanced for these views.

Surely it must be accepted that the normal person who goes into a public house to enjoy his drink gets into the habit of meeting people there. It is not the same as going into a hardware shop or a drapery shop where you are influenced by the prices which obtain and by the quality of the goods. There are several factors which will influence a person going into a business house to purchase a particular article, but when you go to get a drink, you know there is a standard price and you know, in the main, there is little variation in quality and in service. You go to a public house to meet your friends, and if you do that over a period, it becomes a habit, and you do not change from that public house unless you have some good reason for doing so.

Can any Deputy stand up here and say it is a habit in their constituency to go to one public house on a Sunday, another on Monday and still another on Saturday night? Is it not a fact, as has been pretty well conceded by everyone who spoke on different Stages of the Bill, that the law was not respected in the past either in the six-day or the seven-day licensed premises. That was the most cogent reason for bringing in this Bill — that the law was not respected.

I can understand the Minister rising to speak immediately after Deputy Murphy and inferring from his remarks that he would condone the breaking of the law. I do not think that is what Deputy Murphy intended. I can see Deputy Murphy's point, and there is something in it. The Minister and the Government claim that the laws, when this Bill is passed, will be such that they will command respect. If the Minister, in this Bill, inflicts upon a section of the trade such conditions that they will be driven, with their backs to the wall, to putting padlocks on their doors, is he not removing the very factor which the Government claim is so attractive in this measure? I can see Deputy Murphy's point in that. It will be very much more difficult for the authorities to enforce a law that will place a small section in the position that they will not get their rights. Deputy Davern and other Deputies referred to the fact that this concerns only a minority of the people engaged in the trade. How, in the name of goodness, can we defend the rights of minorities in Northern Ireland or elsewhere if we accept the principle that because you are only one-eleventh of the trade, you are not worthy of consideration?

I listened carefully to Deputy Davern. I felt he was well versed in the trade and would have some fresh view to offer. I listened to a feast of contradictions. So far, very few Deputies, when speaking in a certain frame of mind, have spoken in favour of the six-day licensee. I think Deputy Davern said thousands of licences would be revived as this is making that possible. They could be revived at the moment. As the Minister pointed out last night, it would be easier to revive the licences and later to extinguish all of them after this Bill.

Deputy Davern said there will be an inflated market for licences if this amendment goes through. That is the best argument for the six-day licensees. Who will be the purchasers? If the price goes up, there must be a demand and who will create the demand? Will it be the unfortunates——

Mr. Davern

I did not say that.

Mr. O'Sullivan

——who will be driven out by this Bill unless this amendment is accepted? They will be clamouring to secure a licence because, whether they have to beg, borrow or steal to get the price, what alternative have they for a living?

Mr. Davern

I did not say that.

Mr. O'Sullivan

I speak as a seven-day licensee living in a seven-day premises. Down the street from me, there is a six-day licensed premises. There are only two in my town. We all agree that this problem seriously affects the West of Ireland. There are few of us here who have not a neighbour who is not seriously affected by the Government's proposal. I do not agree with Deputy Davern that, in the main, six-day licences are held by people with large mixed businesses and that it is more or less an amenity to the week-day customers, coming in to buy other articles. They can relax and have a chat with their friends if they meet them in town and transact their business.

I have referred to the six-day licensed premises which is down the street from me. There is a grocery shop attached to the licensed premises, the very same as I have in my business premises. It is the pattern generally throughout the country. What will be the situation if this amendment is not accepted? People who have been enjoying the facilities of a house of convenience in that six-day licensed premises — Deputy Dillon described the position fully last evening — will now find the door closed on a Sunday. However, across the street or adjoining the premises, there is a licensed premises the doors of which are open without breaking the law. We are given to understand that there will be a rigid enforcement of the law in the future. If we accept the Government's argument, a person who goes into a licensed premises at any hour other than the appointed hours will break the law and consequently will leave himself open to heavy prosecution.

The moment this Bill becomes an Act, the six-day licensee will be compelled to keep his doors closed on Sunday. He cannot possibly enjoy the facility he formerly enjoyed inasmuch as there was not a rigid enforcement of the law. These people sold drink on Sunday just the same as the seven-day licensee. Both were breaking the law. The number of legitimate bona fide travellers in country towns on Sunday is infinitesimal in comparison with the number of other customers in licensed premises. We all know that.

I regret the Minister has repeated the argument that there is nothing in this Bill which is depriving the six-day licensee of anything which he had formerly. There is. If a regular customer of the six-day licensee must now go to a different house on Sunday for his drink, the result will be that in time that person will continue to go to the seven-day licensee and then God help the six-day licensee who is waiting for somebody to come in, even to pass the time of day with him, on the other six days when the law permits that type of premises to be open.

Deputy Davern and Deputy Corry and some others assert that because we on this side of the House are opposing the extension of drinking hours, we are illogical in seeking that the six-day licensee be afforded the facility sought by this amendment. I do not see anything illogical in it. Deputy Davern said, in fact, that far from an extension of drinking hours, there would be a curtailment. That was an admission that all unlawful drinking would end and that the hours now proposed would result in a curtailment rather than an extension. There are different points of view on that. However, it supports our claim that the six-day licensees were not, in fact, six-day licensees and that the consequence will be that if their customers are driven into other premises on Sundays, they are extremely likely to develop the habit of going there during the legitimate hours on the other six days of the week. Therein lies the injustice and therein lies our desire for the acceptance of this amendment.

I regret that the Licensing Commission was not brought into this. Deputy G. Boland quite rightly said that the Commission was not asked to consider the circumstances of the six-day licensees. The allegation has been made by Deputy Davern that we seek to confer on this limited number of licensees something for nothing. We do not. We seek to give them the opportunity which they had heretofore to eke out some existence for themselves. We are trying to prevent the Government from depriving them of a living on the six days of the week which they had previously. We are not seeking to confer some additional benefits on this unfortunate limited section of those engaged in the licensed trade.

Mr. Gilbride

I think that what this amendment means is that any six-day licensee can, by going to the court, automatically receive the seven-day licence. Do the movers of this amendment seriously contend that a six-day licensee can at present go into the court and, without any increase in licence fee or paying any compensation or any fine whatever, automatically become a seven-day licensee? I could understand the amendment if there were a clause in it saying that on the payment of a certain amount of money, certain things would be done. I would not suggest any figure, although I have a figure in mind.

Mr. Dillon

To whom?

Mr. Gilbride

To the Government, in order that they should be in a position to buy out any licence that became redundant. It has been admitted on all sides that there are too many public houses in the country and that there is not business for them all. The days when everyone was looking for a licence have gone and it is a good job, but seriously to contend that we should open all these doors is something which I cannot understand. If it were suggested that there should be a fine, say, of a couple of hundred pounds, to enable the Government to buy out redundant licences, I could understand the amendment. I was about to make that suggestion but, on the whole, I think the Minister's idea is better — to let the six-day licensee himself bargain for premises that will be closed down.

It is all very fine for Deputies in constituencies where there are a lot of six-day licences to play to the gallery and to the six-day licensees but we must remember that there are also seven-day licensees. What the members of this House want to do in this Bill is to give justice to all sections of the licensed trade. I ask these members, once they get this done, whether they consider they are doing justice to the men who want seven-day licences?

Deputy O'Donnell very ably pointed out that there are a number of people who opted for these six-day licenses for different reasons — oftentimes on religious grounds. I know people who would not go into licensed trading on Sunday for any consideration. Now we are asked to throw the doors open to all those people. When it was a question of an extra hour in regard to Sunday opening, we were read a lecture on the Third Commandment —"Thou shalt keep holy the Sabbath day." Now we are asked to put 1,100 more in the position of breaking the Third Commandment.

Mr. Dillon

This is the strangest theology I ever heard.

Mr. Davern

That is Deputy Dillon's theology.

Mr. Dillon

If we open it for 10,000 people, Deputy Gilbride is shocked at adding another hundred.

Mr. Gilbride

That is the theology which Deputy Dillon put forward. Deputy Murphy said Deputy Corry would complain bitterly if the barley growers were interfered with but let me put this case to Deputy Murphy. Suppose a farmer were given a guaranteed price for barley or wheat and someone in this House said that here was something for the Irish farmer which he did not have before and that we had to give the small man the same amount of land on which to grow the barley and wheat as the big man. There would be just as much sense in that as there is in this amendment. I do not see any sense in it.

I think the Minister is going a long way to meet the six-day licensees when he allows them to get another six-day licence in any part of the district or a seven-day licence in any part of the country. That is the fairest way to ensure that justice is done between the seven-day licensee and the six-day licensee. I think the Minister is being very fair and that this amendment should be withdrawn.

Mr. S. Flanagan

On a point of order, when Deputy Corry was speaking, he mentioned that the two amendments in the names of Deputy Dillon and Deputy Blowick were being taken together. I did not hear the Chair say whether that was so.

Mr. Blowick

My amendment has not been moved. Therefore, I do not see how it can be discussed. It will be moved immediately after Deputy Dillon's amendment has been disposed of.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Three amendments are being discussed together. Only one amendment has been moved — amendment No. 42. It was suggested that amendments Nos. 42, 43, 52 and 59 might be taken together and separate decisions taken, if necessary. That means that Deputy Blowick's and other amendments will be separately moved.

Mr. Dillon

They will all be moved.

Mr. S. Flanagan

Will there be a discussion on them or not?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I think we arranged in regard to those amendments that there will be no further discussion in view of the fact that the amendments are under discussion at the moment.

Mr. Blowick

Where the person who puts down the amendment agrees to that, I can understand it, but not where the tabler of the amendment does not subscribe to the curtailment of debate when the amendment comes to be moved.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy will appreciate that only one amendment can be moved but that the other amendments related to the amendment before the House can be discussed at the same time. That has always been the practice. Separate decisions will be taken on the other amendments, including Deputy Blowick's, but there will be no further discussion, in view of the fact that they are being discussed at the moment.

Mr. Blowick

Who decided how far the discussion will range?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I understand that this matter was put to the House and the House agreed to take these amendments as I have informed the Deputy.

Mr. Blowick

Agreed.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

And that separate decisions would be taken. Otherwise, there would be duplication of debate, as the Deputy will appreciate.

Mr. Blowick

There is a difference in the amendments.

Mr. Corish

The Minister for Lands and, I believe, Deputy Corry seem to think there is something illogical in Deputy Blowick, myself and other Deputies supporting this amendment on behalf of the holders of six-day licences, in view of the fact that I think Deputy Blowick and I in any case oppose the idea of long drinking hours on Sunday. The Minister for Lands did not go into detail in making that submission. He merely stated that he believed it was illogical that a Deputy like myself should support this amendment. I do not see anything at all illogical in it.

I am one of the many people in this House, I hope, who when a law is passed, accept the decision of Dáil Éireann. I accept the fact that this House has voted to allow certain drinking hours on Sunday. That is gone now. It is accomplished in any case. From what I have seen, by the decision of this House, it will be law in a very short time that people can drink for five and a half hours on a Sunday.

If that is to be the law, I want to try to make sure, by my voice and my vote in this House, that thousands of people who have six-day licences now will not be done an injustice, as I believe they will be done if an amendment such as that tabled by Deputy Dillon, Deputy Lindsay and Deputy Blowick is not accepted. I do not think Deputy Gilbride knows what he is talking about as a politician when he says——

Mr. Sweetman

That is the kindest thing you can say.

Mr. Corish

——that some of us are tempted to play to the gallery. What does he mean by "the gallery"?

Mr. O'Sullivan

It is a small one.

Mr. Corish

Does he mean, as Deputy Dillon said last night, that we expect to get increased support in our constituencies for this sort of move? He talks about an injustice being done to the seven-day licence holder, if this amendment and the other amendments are accepted by the House. If we are to believe what Deputy Gilbride and Deputy Davern said, it means we shall get less support in our constituencies. I do not believe that is the case. I, like Deputy Dillon, have not met any seven-day licence holder who has objected, to me in any case, to the suggestion that the six-day licence holders now become in certain conditions seven-day licence holders. Goodness knows, there are enough public houses in the country at the present time.

I said last week — and I want to repeat it this week — that the drinking public of this country will, after a short while, determine what public houses are to survive, assuming that they are all seven-day licensed houses in the future. If this is a method of cutting down the public houses would it not, therefore, be logical for the Minister for Industry and Commerce to come to the House with proposals to cut down the number of petrol pumps? He does not do that. We assume that he says to himself that competition will determine how many of these will survive.

I believe that if on this occasion the Minister decided to accept the amendment, or introduced an appropriate amendment himself, the drinking public would determine how many public houses are needed. I know that the position of the six-day licence holders may not be as acute in some parts of the country as in others. It is particularly serious for those people in certain parts of Mayo and I believe these people are being done an injustice.

Some of the arguments here are to the effect that these seven-day licence holders have been paying so much by way of income tax, rates and licence fees over the years. The question is asked now: are the six-day licence holders to be given the same facilities as the seven-day licence holders who paid the money down through the years? Of course, that is not the case. This Bill will confer a benefit, and a substantial benefit, on the seven-day licence houses. All the amendments seek to do is to try to ensure that the six-day men will not be done an injustice, because undoubtedly they will be done an injustice, if they are to remain six-day houses. Nobody from the Opposition who supported the Minister in this has referred to the oft-repeated argument of the members from this side of the House.

I believe the Minister is not a drinking man and I do not know if he ever drank in his life, but members of the Fianna Fáil Party who support the Minister will have had occasion to go into public houses. They will know that a man goes to one public house generally, especially in the provincial and rural areas. He meets his friends there and he likes the publican and likes the atmosphere there. Under the terms of this Bill, he is expected, if he is in the habit of going to a six-day house, to go for six days of the week to that house and change over on the seventh to another. He will do that for a couple of weeks, or perhaps a couple of months, out of loyalty to the publican, but after a while because he drinks on Sunday in another public house, he will reckon that it is handier for him——

Mr. Moloney

Is he not doing that at the moment?

Mr. Corish

Not at all. Can the Deputy not accept the position as it is? I guarantee that it was only within the past six months that the Deputy could say in respect of the public houses in his constituency: "That is a six-day house" or "That is a seven-day house."

Mr. Moloney

Oh, no. Of course, he can go into a six-day house on Sunday. A certain type of man can.

Mr. Dillon

He cannot.

Mr. Corish

For all practical drinking purposes, there has been no difference in the past 30 or 40 years between the six-and the seven-day licence houses.

Mr. Moloney

I wish the Deputy were correct.

Mr. Corish

I do not say that as a reflection on the Minister or the Guards. That is the practice that has grown up. Now there will be a vital difference. The Minister told us last night how vigorously and rigorously the law was to be enforced. Now the six-day man has no chance, nor should he, I expect, on Sundays. For their own purposes, the Minister for Lands, Deputy Gilbride, and, I think, Deputy Davern, complimented Deputy O'Donnell on certain parts of his speech and hopped on the particular part where Deputy O'Donnell, on one occasion, said that in 1872, in certain circumstances, these people opted for six days. One would imagine the owners of these public houses did it in the past three or four years. How many years ago did they do it?

Mr. Blowick

90 years ago.

Mr. Corish

They did it at least 50 years ago. Are we to penalise the publicans on the plea that that was their choice? There were different circumstances in those times. It was much more advantageous for them to opt for a six-day licence so that they would not have to pay a couple of pounds, which in those days was a pretty substantial sum of money. It meant you could serve only a lodger on the premises with drink. For that, you paid the full seven-day licence. Now the seven-day licence men are to be allowed to sell drink for 5½ hours on Sunday — for all practical purposes more drinking hours than the ordinary drinking man can use on a week day. A tremendous advantage is being conferred on them. Surely it is not unreasonable to ask that the six-day men should get some benefit from that trade?

Deputies on the opposite side have taken exception to the terms of the amendment proposed by Deputy Dillon. Deputy Dillon and the Fine Gael Party, any more than the Labour Party, have not the advantages of the Parliamentary draftsmen who are available to the Minister for Justice. They are not arguing on the strict merits of every word, every comma, and every line of the amendment. They are arguing about the principle and I am certain they would be prepared to withdraw these amendments if the Minister said: "All right; I shall bring in an amendment that will meet the point of view you have expressed or will go some way——"

Mr. Traynor

We are granting generous facilities to them to go from a six-to a seven-day licence, if they so desire.

Mr. Corish

I respect the Minister's opinion, but I disagree with it. I do not believe they are generous. I believe they will only provoke bitterness in certain districts where you will have the owner of a six-day house watching the other owner to see whether or not he will give way first. I believe you will have bad feeling in such a district which will last for many years. I do not think that the Minister's solution is the best solution. It seems to me that, apart from those few Deputies behind the Minister, the consensus of opinion in the Fianna Fáil Party seems to be in favour of an amendment of the type tabled here by the three Deputies from this side.

Mr. Traynor

I can assure the Deputy that that is not so.

Mr. Corish

I must make my own assessment of the position.

Mr. Traynor

The Deputy heard two Deputies speaking.

Mr. Dillon

I heard a great many Deputies speaking in the corridors.

Mr. Moloney

Two Deputies are not the entire strength of the Fianna Fáil Party. We can settle our differences as well as any other Party.

Mr. Dillon

Behind closed doors.

Mr. Corish

That is my assessment.

Mr. Moloney

There is a way for deciding. Can we not decide as you do?

Mr. Corish

I make no objection to what the Fianna Fáil Party do inside or outside this House, but I think I am entitled to my view, in view of what Deputy S. Flanagan and Deputy Boland said. I know there are other Deputies who disagree with the Minister. That is not unusual but what I am trying to say is that the Fianna Fáil Party are a pretty loyal Party to their leaders. I believe this is a decision made by the Front Bench with which a majority of the back benchers do not agree. It may not be specially in the amendment but it would not be my idea that the six-day men should automatically become seven-day licence holders. They should pay something for this advantage. I do not think anybody would disagree with that.

Last night, the Minister referred to them as a pressure group. I have met these men and they are sensible men. Certainly they are not politicians and certainly not shrewd politicians. They are fighting hard for their livelihood, for themselves and their families, and if that makes them a pressure group, I think they are entitled to be one.

Deputy G. Boland last night spoke about the activities of the Commission in regard to the sale of liquor. Deputy G. Boland has been making some pretty frank statements in this House in recent years, and he confessed that the Liquor Commission were not aware of the repercussions on the six-day men if the public houses were allowed to open for five-and-a-half hours on Sunday. He made an appeal to the Minister. He is an experienced Deputy and has had vast experience in Government as Minister for Justice for a long time. Therefore, I think the Minister should reconsider his attitude to this matter and announce that, between now and the Report Stage, he will consider the position. I do not believe that the solution as suggested in the section is a solution that will confer any benefit on the present six-day licence-holders.

The Minister for Lands spoke in a very laboured fashion last night. I do not know what sort of case he was making. He has great experience of the law, but, right through his speech, while he may have been unconscious of it, he conveyed to me that there would be great hardship for the six-day men, especially in county Mayo. I do not know what he was trying to prove, but in any case I believe that the six-day men will virtually have to close up unless the Minister concedes the principle embodied in the amendment.

Mr. Blowick

The Minister was at pains to-day to inform the House that there is no infringement of either the rights or privileges of the six-day licensee. He must be very naïve if he thinks that; I do not think he does. Heretofore, the position was that neither a six-day nor a seven-day man could open on Sunday, except for a very negligible bona fide trade. The six-day and seven-day men were in exactly the same category, if they observed the law. Even before the Commission sat, it was quite well known that some changes in the law were mooted, with the result that both six and seven-day licensees opened to a certain group of customers on Sunday, with the exception of a very occasional publican.

In this case, the Minister is giving a very big concession to the seven-day licensee: he is giving none to the six-day men. In a sense, the Minister is correct in saying that he is not infringing the rights and privileges of the seven-day licensee but, by virtue of the fact that he is improving the conditions of the seven-day men, he is putting the six-day men out of business.

Great play has been made with the fact that the present six-day licences exist by their own option. That is not so. A certain number of licensees under the 1872 Act opted in favour of a six-day licence but the vast majority of the six-day licences to-day exist because the resident magistrate who heard the application for a licence determined whether it was a six- or a seven-day licence. I think I am not far wrong in saying that three-fifths of the present six-day licences were so restricted by the resident magistrate of the day and not many of the seven-day licensees of those days sought to become six-day licensees under that Act.

Anyway, that is completely irrelevant. It does not matter how the six-day licences came about. We are doing something now to put them out of business. I do not know how many six-day licensed premises or indeed seven-day licensed premises depend entirely for their livelihood on the sale of drink. I would be puzzled if the Minister asked me to name one licensed premises that does not carry on another business and I know a good many of them. We must take into account that in rural Ireland—I do not know what happens in the cities; I am not in a position to speak for them — a great deal of business is done on Sundays. I am not referring to drink business. A great deal of shopping is done.

As I explained last night, it is quite customary in every town and village in the country that when they come to Mass on Sunday, most of the women do their shopping and that has to be done in public houses because the business is associated with drapery, groceries, hardware and so on. Most of the customers who go in do not bother about drink: they are housewives and children who want to get the week's goods to bring home. The Minister is forcing the six-day licensees to put a padlock on the door. He is definitely putting them out of business. That is unjust. It has been said that the Liquor Commission did not have a case put before it by the six-day licensees but I do not think even the Liquor Commission members themselves adverted to what an extension of the hours for the seven-day people would mean.

Mr. Traynor

They actually made a recommendation. They examined the case made by a group that came before them. I presume the group made the case which they thought would influence the Commission and the Commission, having heard them, made a decision which I shall read for the benefit of the House. This was in addition to two decisions made in previous years. The 1957 Commisssion had this to say: —

The provisions of the 1927 and 1943 Intoxicating Liquor Acts governing the transfer of a full licence from one premises to another were considered by us in connection with representations made on behalf of six-day and early-closing licence holders with a view to the removal of the restrictive trading conditions in their licences; having regard to these provisions we are not prepared to make any recommendation in the matter.

That was the decision of the Commission, having heard the group that made the case before them.

Mr. Blowick

Yes, but the group that put the case did not visualise the extended opening hours for the seven-day licensees, nor, to be fair to them, could they project themselves into the future and see exactly what effects the Bill now before the House would have on them.

Mr. Moloney

Two years ago they could not see that?

Mr. Blowick

Many Deputies, judging by their speeches, do not know what is happening now, after all the debate and after all we have said to try to hammer it home. I heard Deputy Davern's comments on the amendment and he said that we were forcing a six-day licence down their throats. We are not. In one case, the six-day licensee can apply to the court, if he desires, to get a seven-day licence, if this amendment is passed. In the other case, he gets a seven-day licence but he has ample time after the passing of the Act to notify the Minister for Justice that he is not accepting it. That is clear proof that some of the Deputies do not know what they are talking about.

Deputy Corry came in this morning and it seems that he was put up to make a long, rambling speech. That is the only word to describe it. It was rambling from one end to the other. Apparently in his area in Cork everything is all right and he does not mind what happens. He should remember that there are 1,100 six-day licensees all over the country and the majority of them will be put out of business by this Bill if it goes through. Harking back to what happened 60 or 70 or 80 years ago is purely a waste of time, in my opinion. The Minister and the Government are asking us to pass this Bill. Most of the provisions of the Bill are long overdue. I cannot understand the Minister's opposition to the amendment when it is clear that this provision in the Bill will put a number of people out of business. Deputy Corry mentioned £500,000 compensation. Who is asking for compensation? All we are asking for is equality and uniformity between the two classes of publicans, and this Bill is definitely doing away with uniformity. There is no question of compensation. This will not cost the Government one penny. Not one seven-day licensee has raised his voice against the proposal in the amendments, and I have been speaking to many of them. Not one of them likes what is happening.

The question of the number of public houses has been harped on. It is said there are too many licensed premises. There are too many congests. There are too many unemployed. What does the Government propose to do about them? I shall speak plainly and bluntly. The Government method of dealing with this particular situation is to introduce conditions of class warfare so that the six-day licensees must inevitably wipe themselves out. They will have to commit business suicide. That is what they are being asked to do by the Government. If there are too many licensed premises, surely it is not beyond the capacity of the Government and their advisers to devise a method of limiting the number of licences. That would be the commonsense approach.

By asking the six-day licensees to wipe themselves out under this Bill, as it stands, the Government hope there will be fewer public houses in the future. It would be just as intelligent for the Minister for Lands to tell all the uneconomic holders to sell out and go to England. The Government would then have no problem of congestion. It would be just as intelligent for the Minister for Industry and Commerce to tell the unemployed to clear out to England, to wipe themselves out, and take themselves off our registers. That is not the proper approach to any problem. Merely because there are too many licensed premises does not justify the Government asking the six-day licensees to wipe themselves out.

The Minister talked about the provisions whereby the six-day licensee would now find it easier to purchase a seven-day licence. Does the Minister think that the average six-day licensee has a crock of gold under the hearthstone? Most of them are struggling to make a living. If they got a licence for £100 they could not purchase it. I am sure Deputy S. Flanagan, and other western Deputies, will agree with me in that. If we pass this Bill as it stands, then I prophesy that some future Government will have to rectify the evil we perpetrate today.

Mr. S. Flanagan

The last intervention of the Minister for Justice was a considerable disappointment to me because I felt the case we made was so compelling he would at least postpone a decision by the House until he had given the matter further consideration. Last night he mentioned the number of dormant and redundant licences in the country. I gathered that he regarded it as a significant concession to the six-day licensees that it would be open to them for a period of two years after the passing of this Bill to revive or acquire seven-day licences. I wonder was the Minister listening to his colleague, the Minister for Lands, earlier in the evening when the Minister for Lands detailed the difficulties confronting anyone who wants to revive a dormant licence at the moment.

In my remarks earlier I made certain suggestions to the Minister which would, in fact, make it easier for the six-day licensee to get the benefit of a revived licence. In his contribution, the Minister for Lands made no reference whatever to the suggestions I had made. On the other hand, he quite clearly indicated the enormous difficulties facing anybody who tries to revive a dormant licence at the present time, difficulties it is not proposed to remove under the terms of the Bill as it now stands. In practice, that means that, while in one or two instances, such as those mentioned by Deputy Lindsay, a person may succeed in obtaining the revival of a licence, more or less contrary to the law, this will happen very, very rarely indeed in the future. Indeed, I should imagine that, when attention is drawn to it, it will never happen again. It is not altogether accurate then for the Minister to say that a concession is being made by the continuance for two years of the right to revive an old licence. If it continues to be necessary to prove suitability of premises, then these licences are not dormant; they are dead.

Mr. Lindsay

That is quite right.

Mr. S. Flanagan

The Minister for Lands said that somebody had mentioned area exemption orders. I am the "somebody" who mentioned are exemption orders, and I propose to mention them again now. Castlebar was used as an example by the Minister for Lands and reference was made to the number of such orders obtained, in the main, in connection with football matches in McCabe Park. I agree that a great number of exemption orders have been obtained over the years in Castlebar. I should, however, like the Minister to make inquiries to find out how many exemption orders were obtained for Ballaghaderreen, Ballyvary, Cong, Ballyhaunis, Louisburgh, Hollymount and all the other small towns in the affected area. The Minister will find that in Charlestown, for instance, possibly three or four area exemption orders were obtained, again on the occasion of football matches of some kind. In all the other towns area exemption orders are practically unknown and they have, therefore, no bearing whatsoever on the problem we are discussing now, with the exception of Castlebar, and one or two other big centres in the West.

We are talking about the everyday trading position in these towns where the problem is acute. Even if all the days, on which area exemption orders have been granted were added together, they would come to very few as compared with the number of days when they did not apply at all. The position on those other days, in regard to some of the towns I have mentioned, there being 52 Sundays in the year, is the position, no matter what anybody else may say, which I say applies, namely, both the six-day and the seven-day traders operate illegally.

Mr. Lindsay

Of course.

Mr. S. Flanagan

I do not dispute that there was a time when hackney car drivers in a certain town in the west had a queue of people waiting to be taken out to drink in country pubs. In a way I think it is improper to mention that time since it was only for an isolated period and it would be invidious of me to recall to the House the circumstances under which that happened.

Mr. Lindsay

Exactly.

Mr. S. Flanagan

I could not do so and I think therefore it was rather unfair to quote something to which a reply could not be given without offending the rules of propriety.

Mr. Lindsay

And something which was not generally applicable at all.

Mr. S. Flanagan

I would prefer to deal with that problem from the aspect of the second intervention of the Minister for Justice this morning when he said nothing was being taken away from the six-day holders. I should have thought that by now the Minister for Justice would realise that something in fact has been taken away and, perhaps more important, that something has been added on to the seven-day holders which is not being added on to their six-day counterparts. I fully accept that the Minister for Justice does not desire to do anything unfair or unjust to the six-day licensees. Indeed, the Minister for Justice would be the last man, in my experience, to try to do anything unfair to anybody. But it is simply not true that the bona fide business, as such, meant anything to 90 per cent of the small towns where this problem is acute. It is simply not true that people drove three miles in order to keep within the bona fide law. It is true that regular customers, nearly all within the three-mile limit or the bulk of them from the town itself, went into a seven-day or a six-day public house indifferently and equally illegally. The fact that there were occasionally here and there — only occasionally and only here and there — area exemption orders has no significant bearing on the situation.

It was mentioned by the Minister for Lands that there has always been an equity in favour of the seven-day licence. He forgot to mention that that equity applied against the background of this bona fide law and that the Report of the Commission of 1925, or whenever it was, the law passed in 1927 and the law passed since, preserved that equity, always against the background of the existing bona fide law. That equity if it existed, and it did, ceases to be significant and to apply when the background or basis of the bona fide law is removed, as it is now being removed by the provisions of this Bill. Therefore, we must look at this problem anew, if we are to look at it with any hope of fairness.

Again, the Minister for Lands gave figures about the costs, in his personal experience, of acquiring seven-day licences. I think he said that £300 was the highest he came across himself. I fully accept what the Minister says. In my personal experience the highest was £600, and in the course of the last three weeks a member of the Oireachtas was involved in the purchase of a seven-day licence for £450. A person whom I know, on being approached to sell a six-day licence recently, quoted a figure of £400 as his price. What I want to bring home is that when the Minister for Lands says that the provisions of the Bill go a long way to meeting this problem and says, more significantly, that these provisions will have the result of reducing the costs by 50 per cent.—I quote from what he said last night — I wonder if it is right that we should ask these people to pay £200 instead of £400, £300 instead of £600, £225 instead of £450, or even £150 instead of £300?

The basis upon which those in favour of that argument justify it is that in 1872, or because of that Act, the six-day licences paid one-seventh less by way of duty than their seven-day counterparts. It is perhaps forgotten that a public house having a six-day licence might have a valuation of £10, while a next-door neighbour with a seven-day licence might have a valuation of £7. Therefore, over the years, the six-day licence holder has, in fact, been paying substantially more than his seven-day colleague. That is an incontrovertible fact.

Some play was made as well about the increase in valuation on somebody who purchases a seven-day licence at present. Is it seriously suggested that the Commissioners of Valuation will put a great deal more on the premises merely because it is a seven-day and not a six-day premises? Rather is it not true that the basis of valuation is the cubic space of the premises and its locality, and that the existence of a seven-day or six-day licence is an insignificant factor in the assessment? I believe that is so and I find it difficult to believe otherwise.

I have not suggested at any stage that the amendments put down by the Minister do not represent a considerable concession to the six-day holders. They do. I have suggested, and I repeat now, that they do not go far enough. Without accepting the amendment in the name of Deputy Dillon or the amendment in the name of Deputy Blowick, I think the Minister might go some further distance to relieve what I am sure will create serious difficulties for the six-day holders, particularly in the areas where the problem is acute.

One final matter. When I was speaking here last night I did not say that the six-day licences were imposed on the owners by landlords or magistrates. I did say that it was rather odd that the problem should be acute in one section of what was then the county of Mayo, and that there might be something in the suggestion that it was by other than voluntary action that situation arose. I made it perfectly clear that, as far as I know, there was no historical basis for the suggestion that they were imposed upon the owners, but that it would seem peculiar, so if a ghost is being laid I did not float the ghost in the first instance. I do not know what one does with ghosts.

Mr. Lindsay

Exorcise them.

Mr. S. Flanagan

The question of enhancing the value of a six-day licensed premises vis-a-vis a seven-day was also raised. If one comes back to the basic argument, which I said last night was the compelling one, one will realise that under the provisions of the Bill as it stands, and even including the Ministerial amendments, the value of a six-day premises will, in fact, be greatly reduced, not merely because of those provisions, but because the Minister has stated, repeated, and meant, that when this Bill goes through it will be enforced with the full rigour of the law. If that happens, and it is my hope that it will, then the six-day licences will have been very seriously and drastically reduced in value, while the seven-day licences will have been very appreciably enhanced.

As I said at the beginning, I am somewhat disappointed that the arguments, which I think are good, have made no impact at all on the mind of the Minister for Justice, if I am to judge by his intervention this morning. It might be suggested that some of us are playing to the gallery. I certainly am not. I have been a member of this House for nine years and in that time I have not stood up in these Benches to criticise one of my own Ministers except from conviction, and as long as I am in the House I shall not play to the gallery.

If there are votes in this, let them be calculated by the number of seven-day licences instead of the number of six-day licences. There is something more important than votes and that is to try and preserve people from the adverse effect of our legislation here.

Mr. Traynor

I just want to make a brief intervention. First of all I would like to say that the Deputy is not correct in saying that he has made no impression upon the mind of the Minister for Justice. That is not correct. Secondly, I want to say that the Government gave very long and careful consideration to the whole question of six-day licensees being given the right to become seven-day licensees. Deputy S. Flanagan is more aware of that than most other Deputies in the House because he was responsible for some of the advances which were made from the original decision of the Government.

Originally the Government decided to adhere to the existing position that six-day licensees could become seven-day licensees only if they were prepared to extinguish a seven-day licence in the same or an adjoining District Court District. Partly due to the representations of Deputy S. Flanagan, this is now being extended to the whole State. We thought that this was a rather generous gesture because we were widening the limits to which a six-day licensee could go to secure one of these licences for extinguishing. But we went still further and we agreed that if two six-day licences were extinguished in any part of the State or one six-day in the same District Court area, we would accept that and the six-day licence holder could become a seven-day licensee. I do not know how much further we could go than that unless we were to work these approximately 1,400 six-day licensees into the 10,000 seven-day licensees at present in business. It would be completely unjust to the seven-day licensees to take such a step and to throw into competition with them something like 1,100 more licensees.

While having to resist these amendments in the names of Deputy Dillon, Deputy Lindsay and Deputy Blowick, as I stated last evening, every argument that is put forward here in respect of any of the provisions in this Bill will be brought by me before the Government for their full consideration. What that consideration may result in, I cannot say, but at least I have made that promise in the earlier stages of the discussion and I am repeating it now.

In this Bill I am carrying out what the Government agreed to and I must resist any attempt to deflect me from that course, but when I submit the arguments that have been made here in respect of the six-day licensees it will be a matter for the Government to decide whether we should stand firm or whether we should be prepared to make some other extension of the provisions which we have already proposed. I can make no promise other than that. I think the House decided to have the Committee Stage decided to-day. We have been discussing it for a considerable time and I think the House should decide upon it now and let the Government consider whatever action is necessary afterwards.

Mr. Sweetman

I regret that, before any decision is taken, there are a couple of things I must say. I think the Minister for Justice is looking at this question in an entirely inverted way. By saying that I do not want to make any suggestion that he is not bona fide in his approach. He approaches this matter on the basis that by this Bill, including his amendments to it, he is giving a benefit to the six-day trader. That is not the fact. The fact is exactly the reverse.

The fact is that by this Bill, even with the amendments suggested by the Minister, the six-day licensee is being given either of two options — to have his living completely extinguished in so far as he and his family live on the profit from the sale of drink under it, or to go and lay out other moneys for the purpose of buying a seven-day licence. I do not think it is fair to put a six-day licence holder into that position. The Minister for Justice must be aware that a person is not going to drink on Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, Friday and Saturday in one house, shall we say in the town of Athy, and on Sunday in a different house.

Mr. Traynor

If he were obeying the law he would have been doing that all the time.

Mr. Sweetman

That is exactly what I wanted the Minister to say. That is exactly the situation and if the Minister approached the situation correctly he would appreciate the point.

There are two classes of persons drinking, shall I say, in the town of Athy at the present time. There are the people who are drinking illegally —these are the people to whom the Minister has just referred — and there are the people who wish to obey the law. The people in Athy, obeying the law, cannot drink in the town on a Sunday and have to go outside to drink. They cannot drink and obey the law in Athy on a Sunday. Does the Minister not accept and know that that is the fact — that if people in the urban area of Athy are drinking on a Sunday they are drinking there illegally? They have to go outside and drink in some other public house outside the bona fide limit.

Now the Minister is providing that people in Athy can drink in the town on a Sunday and he is providing, therefore, that the whole of the urban population of that area, within an area of three miles there, who could not legally drink in that area on a Sunday, now can drink in that area in certain houses only. Does that not mean that the livelihood of those who are not within that particular scope will be taken away by this Bill overnight? Is it fair, is it just, is it right that the House should do that?

It is not a question of giving concessions to anybody and it is not a question, in my argument, of taking it on the line of what has been done illegally heretofore. We all know that, illegally, the position has been that people have been drinking on a Sunday, and that, illegally, they have been drinking regardless of whether it was in a six-day or a seven-day licensed premises, but it has been illegal. I want to deal with it purely on what is the law, what people should have been doing legally and what people will, I hope, do legally after this Bill is enacted, because one of the things, throughout rural Ireland in particular, that has undermined the morale of the Guards has been the fact that there has been absolutely no respect whatsoever for licensing laws.

People in an area, the neighbours and the friends, up to this have not been legally entitled to drink in the public houses of their neighbours on a Sunday. Now, we are abolishing that restriction that has been there, but only in respect of certain houses, and we are retaining it in respect of other houses. The only possible effect that that can have is completely to take away all the trade of the six-day house that the publican gets from the neighbours around him. Those people heretofore, obeying the law, knew that they were able to walk down the street, in Athy, for example, on Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, Friday, Saturday and go into the six-day house and they were entitled to get their drink. If they wanted to obey the law, when they wanted a drink on a Sunday, they had to be on a journey; they had to go outside that area. They knew that they could not walk down the street and, legally, walk into the seven-day man and get a drink there. They knew they had to walk past the seven-day man and the six-day man and go on.

Mr. Traynor

And they were good citizens for doing that.

Mr. Sweetman

Exactly. They were good citizens for doing that and I admire them for doing it. As long as that was the position there was no legal competition between the neighbours of the six-day and the seven-day houses. Now the Minister is changing all that position. Now he is enabling a man to get his drink legally on a Sunday in one house but not in the other.

Surely the Minister must realise that whereas heretofore in the case of the man who was drinking on Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, Friday and Saturday in the town, it was immaterial to him whether he drank in the six-day or the seven-day house. If he wanted to obey the law, he had to go outside on Sunday. There was no competition between those two houses for the Sunday trade and, therefore, there was no competition for his custom during the rest of the week. Now that is being changed. In future the situation will be that the man who wants to obey the law will be able to go into the seven-day house next door to him, every day of the week, Sundays included, and he will not be able to go into the six-day house that is opposite him on a Sunday. The inevitable effect of that will be that everybody in that street who heretofore has been inclined to give his custom to the six-day house will shift from the six-day house to the seven-day house because he knows that if he gives his custom to the other house on Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, Friday and Saturday he will not be welcome in the seven-day house on the Sunday. The effect of the Minister's measures will be to shift the whole volume of trade from the six-day house during the week-days to the seven-day house.

That is not a fair method of approach by this House. If we examine the problem analytically and fairly it cannot be suggested that we are doing something for the six-day house. That is not so. We are not. We are merely endeavouring by this amendment to protect the trade that he has, to ensure that he who has obeyed the law up to this will be in exactly the same fair competition for the neighbour in the street as he was heretofore. Without this amendment, that will not be the case. The position will be that the effect of the Minister's Bill, even as amended by him, will be that the six-day man will have to lay out a very substantial sum of money. Personally, I agree entirely with Deputy Flanagan's estimate of that sum of money and disagree entirely with the estimate of the Minister for Lands. I know nothing about the West but I know that, so far as Leinster is concerned, you would not get one person in a thousand to say that the story given to us here last night by the Minister for Lands was other than utterly fanciful and entirely divorced from the truth. I know nothing about the West. I am talking only about Leinster.

The figures given by Deputy Flanagan are far more comparable in Leinster than those given by the Minister for Lands. In this Bill the Minister is forcing the six-day man to spend a substantial sum of money which in many cases he has not got, or to face, not the probability but the absolute certainty, that the trade which has been able to sustain himself and his family will be taken away from him overnight by an Act of this Oireachtas and given to somebody else. That is the issue; it is that issue, and that issue alone, that is involved in this amendment. The House, if it wants to stand for justice as against injustice, should accept the amendment.

Dr. Browne

What I shall say on this amendment is largely the result of listening to the Minister for Lands. The Minister for Lands is a person who, I always thought, would not be bound by convention or precedents. Therefore, I was surprised to hear him reminding us last night, on this very far-reaching Bill with very far-reaching implications for the licensed trade, that since the State was founded every Liquor Bill has clearly recognised the differentials in regard to six-day and seven-day licensed premises, and warning us about the apparent sacrosanctity of recommendations by commissions. I would not have thought the Minister for Lands would give two hoots about such considerations if he thought the legislation was desirable and necessary.

I do not think we need give two hoots about precedents, conventions or commission reports in our assessment of the merits of the proposals put forward here. If we were to be hidebound by precedents, we would never pass any laws. We have broken many conventions under other legislation in respect of the Departments of Health, Education and particularly Lands. We have driven a coach and four through many precedents in relation to equity, differentials and conventions. Therefore most of the arguments the Minister for Lands put forward in that regard would carry no weight with me.

These licensing proposals are designed primarily to codify and bring up-to-date many of the outmoded conventions which have existed in the licensing laws for many years. That is long overdue and for that reason I welcome this legislation. I am not going to concern myself — as Deputy Dillon pointed out, it would be difficult to concern ourselves — with the human problem involved here. Listening to rural Deputies, we know there are human problems in this question. I am concerned with the point that this legislation was brought in out of consideration for public convenience and equity in relation to the public in their drinking habits and for the fact that there should be equity of treatment between rural and city dwellers.

This legislation was also brought in to facilitate the enforcement of the law. I am quite certain that every Minister for Justice since the State was founded has been well aware that the police have found it impossible to enforce the Sunday drinking laws. Consequently steps are being taken by the Minister to rectify the position. The other purpose of the legislation is to get rid of the anomalies in regard to differentials which have existed in our licensing laws since they were formulated.

In the proposals which the Minister has put forward, most of which have been accepted, it has been necessary to drive a coach and four through many precedents in relation to the drinking habits of the public. However, from the point of view of equity, it must be remembered that many bona fide traders have spent a lot of money modernising their premises in order to attract customers and spent a lot of time, energy and money in building a clientele. Such a trader is now put certainly in a less favourable position as a result of this legislation and the case could be made that his livelihood is being interfered with and for that reason some compensation for him should be considered.

Equally, the city publican could claim that, if Sunday trading is allowed in rural Ireland, the rural publican has an advantage over him he had not got hitherto. The suggestion by the Minister for Lands that they had liberty under the 1927 Act, to get a six-day or a seven-day licence, has no validity. As Deputy Flanagan pointed out, we are talking about licensing laws in a completely different context. The seventh day is a very important day from the point of view of trading and consequently none of the points the Minister for Lands put forward seems to have any validity.

My main objection to the retention of the differential in relation to six-day and seven-day licences is supported by the broad thesis upon which the Minister decided to introduce this legislation, that is, to get rid of differentials. If the Minister for Lands had not got so deeply involved in this as being a purely licensing question, if he could stand back and look at the position, that we have, on the one hand, a trader allowed to trade for six days and another trader given the privilege of being allowed to trade for seven days, he would have a more realistic approach. He would see the absurdity of saying: "We shall extend this trading practice to grocers, shoemakers, drapers, and so on." That, as we know, would be anomalous and absurd and would bring chaos into the trading of any town. It is something we would not initiate and, certainly, if it were established, we would get rid of it as quickly as we could.

It seems to me that the retention of the two types of traders is one of the most serious of the anomalies we should have got rid of. We have the opportunity to do so, because we are dealing with legislation in relation to the entire licensing trade. If we leave that anomaly, we are certainly leaving the two types of traders in an unjust situation, and we are leaving an anomaly, which the Minister said he would get rid of, by introducing this legislation. Secondly, of course, he is leaving the other test, on which he seemed to me to examine all the legislation introduced here in relation to the licensing laws — the question of enforcement.

The Minister has told us it is essential that we should have Sunday opening in rural Ireland, because the law was completely in disrepute. The Garda were unable to enforce the law and the people were just laughing at them. The Minister made a very compelling case, excellently put, to convey to us, to persuade us, that this anomalous position of the seven-day licensees in the city and six-day licensees in the country, as it was virtually, should be abolished and that we should have seven-day facilities in the city and in the country as well.

How then can we justify retaining that position which was related to the cities vis-a-vis the country before he introduced this legislation—he has now decided to retain precisely that position in a particular town — when the whole of the machinery of the law will be altered in order to get rid of what he has told us, and rightly told us, was a silly anomaly in the licensing laws as between urban and rural Ireland?

He told us it was unjust and unfair to the public, that it was enforced on the traders and, of course, his main point, and probably his best point, was that anyway the differential could not be enforced. We heard a most impassioned plea by the Minister for Lands suggesting that we must enforce another differential and that it would not be desirable on grounds of equity to get rid of it. We have got rid of many differentials and precedents. We have done that in the public interest, and that is the main interest.

Pleas on behalf of the bereft widows of city publicans, widows in rural Ireland and other such cases that have little real force were put forward here. These are human considerations which are, I suppose, relatively important, but the general public considerations, the public interest, it seems to me, must be the prime consideration in discussing legislation, no matter whether it is licensing legislation, social legislation, health legislation, or anything else. Where the general public welfare is concerned, then, it seems to me, there is a compelling case.

The Minister has made that case himself by introducing this Bill. A most compelling case is made by the Minister in the very fact that he has introduced this Bill with far-reaching effects. To introduce seven-day trading in rural Ireland in order to get rid of the inequity of the position that had existed up to then——

Mr. Traynor

That is not correct.

Dr. Browne

——in rural Ireland——

Mr. Traynor

We are greatly extending the privileges in the city to rural Ireland.

Dr. Browne

The Minister may do it any way he likes but it appears to me——

Mr. Traynor

We are leaving the status quo. That does not bring in the the six-day licences and make them seven-day licences.

Dr. Browne

I am talking about the general principle of the six-day licence. The law has got this whole question tied up with the district courts, with appeals and the 1927 licensing law. I am talking about the people who want to trade on seven days or want to drink on seven days. I am looking at it from the point of view of a layman.

Mr. Traynor

The Deputy is favouring the unloading of 1,100 extra licences.

Dr. Browne

I am not a bit concerned with that. We are dealing with a serious situation which requires revolutionary changes — and the changes put forward by the Minister are revolutionary changes in legislation — which are being very strongly resisted. I admire the Minister for resisting the resistance to these changes. He has brought in a Bill, and we are dealing with a very serious situation and it is impossible, as they say, to make an omelette without breaking eggs. Probably a certain amount of hardship will transpire as a result. Some will follow decisions he has already taken. It is a question of degree, of how much he is prepared to do in order to carry through to a logical conclusion the whole fundamental basis upon which he has founded this legislation he has brought before the House.

It seems to me it would involve relatively minor proposals, and relatively minor eventual changes, if this were a question which affected the whole seven days, but it is a question of one day not seven, and it will affect approximately 1,000 houses. It is a relatively tiny problem, a relatively minor problem, compared with the very big sections he has attacked with great energy and originality.

This is a case which exemplifies, above all, the old saying about the man swallowing a camel and straining at a gnat, because it is really a relatively insignificant proposal. So far as I am concerned, for the reasons I have put forward, I support the Minister's anxiety to get rid of the differentials, to get rid of the anomalies, to try to help the Garda to enforce the law in rural Ireland. These are matters I am concerned with and that is why I am prepared to support the Minister.

Sir Anthony Esmonde

I have had the advantage of sitting here throughout the greatest part of this debate and listening to the interventions by the Minister for Lands and the Minister for Justice. The last time he spoke, the Minister suggested that the Government had taken this decision already, and that the debate might be closed now, and that it might be referred back to the Government, by him, for further consideration.

I am not satisfied in my own mind that the Minister has yet an appreciation of the arguments put forward from this side of the House. In fact, I am almost certain of that. First of all, from his intervention when Deputy Sweetman was speaking, it is quite obvious that he did not get the real drift of what Deputy Sweetman was driving at. I listened to Deputy Seán Flanagan's last intervention. It is nice to hear a person speaking in Dáil Éireann who is fully conversant with his facts. He is fully conversant with the facts and, furthermore, he is fully conversant with the facts as they apply to the part of the country in which he lives. He knows that there will be untold hardship if this legislation goes through. That must be obvious to every Deputy by now, if the Minister himself has not seen it.

After all, ten or 12 Deputies have stood up, one after the other, and have made it crystal clear that the six-day licensee, when this Bill, as is intended by the Government, becomes law, will be at a disadvantage, not only in respect of selling drink, but in every other way, with his counterpart who has a seven-day licence. The Minister for Lands argued last night, in so far as I understand him — he even went back 100 years — that these six-day licensees had an opportunity for 100 years to opt to change their six-day licences to seven-day licences, but that they had not opted to do so. That shows a total misunderstanding of the facts.

The six-day licensees have never been up against it as they are now. They were able to ply their trade. It has been put by quite a few Deputies that they live in difficult circumstances. Many of them were in a poor way of living, just able to pay their licences and just able to carry on. The argument is put up by the Minister that he is making it possible for them to buy one licence in their own court area, whatever the correct legal interpretation of that is, or two elsewhere. Does he stop to think where they will get the money? From what we have heard here and from arguments put forward by people from the west of Ireland, who know the conditions there, we gather that the majority of them have not the money to do that and will not be able to do it. It simply means that they will have to put a padlock on their doors and leave the country.

I heard only one speaker on the Minister's benches argue in favour of this amendment and that was Deputy Davern, who seemed to think that some injustice was being done to the seven-day licensee. I met the six-day licensees of my constituency at their request on two occasions. I also had present several seven-day licensees. I asked them, in the first instance, if it were not true that the six-day licensee was probably paying less, was not paying as big a licence as the seven-day licensee and could it not be argued that the seven-day licensee had paid more for a great many years and, therefore, that the six-day licensee might be looking for something, on those grounds to which he possibly was not entitled.

To my surprise, I discovered that some of the six-day licensees were paying a greater licence fee than the seven-day licensees. In fact, it bears out the point made just now by Deputy S. Flanagan that the basis of the licence is the square foot space and the appearance of the premises — not whether it is a six-day or seven-day licence. I have had no representations from any seven-day licensee in my constituency protesting that if the six-day licensees are given justice, he will be affected in any way whatsoever.

Here are the figures for my constituency. The situation there is not as acute as in county Mayo or county Monaghan or in some other constituencies. In county Wexford, we have 68 six-day licensees and 331 seven-day licensees, that is one-fifth of the number. I cannot understand how, in a democratic Parliament, when a Bill like this comes up for discussion, a Minister will not take cognisance of the arguments that have been put before him. It is not that the arguments came from this side of the House alone. They came from a Deputy on the Government benches who knows what he is talking about. He is a legal man. He lives in one of the counties most vitally affected by this unfortunate section. Furthermore, from that same Party, the Minister's predecessor in office, the former Minister for Justice in the Fianna Fáil Government, argued on the same lines.

One is bound to accept that the Minister has been badly advised. Every Minister has to rely on the advice he gets from experts. I have had every opportunity of listening to this debate from end to end, to hear the points of view expressed by both sides of the House. It seems to me the Minister is being advised to stand firm. Surely there was never a case like this before? Surely there was never a case in which, by direct legislation — that is what it is tantamount to—a certain number of people, with dependants, who were struggling to make a living in their own country were deliberately put out of business? If that is not a restrictive practice, I do not know what is.

I am not blaming the Minister because I do not think he has seen the arguments yet that are so crystal clear to the rest of us. It would be easy for the Minister for Justice to say: "In view of this debate, in view of the opposition that has been directed against this section, in view of the support shown for the amendment, in view of the arguments put forward in its favour, I feel this is a matter for consideration. I am prepared to concede that these arguments are sound in substance and in fact. I am prepared to consider the matter on Report Stage." That would then be the end of it.

I do not see how this House could accept the Minister's last statement that he proposes to bring the matter back to the Government and let them take a decision. I have never been a Minister; I have never been in a Government. I should imagine that there is certain collective responsibility in a Government, but at the same time if the Taoiseach appoints a Minister to a certain Department, he will take his advice, whatever it may be. Having heard this debate, I feel satisfied that the advice the Minister will give the Government—I hope his expert advisers are listening to this— is to stand firm. I fear Dáil Éireann, our native Irish Parliament, may perpetrate an injustice which cannot be put right.

Deputy Blowick said that some other Government will have to introduce legislation to rectify the situation. It will be too late. The padlocks will be on the doors of those people's houses. They and their wives will be among the other emigrants leaving Ireland.

Mr. Coogan

What I would like to say has already been said. I appeal to the Minister to take this opportunity of meeting the amendment and to end the State of inequality, so far as six-day licensees are concerned. The Minister proposes to put the six-day licensees in the position that they will have to break the law, if they are to exist. That is very wrong, especially in view of the fact that the Minister intends to enforce the law rigidly. In other words, he intends to wipe out the six-day man because if he is not wiped out one way, he will be wiped out another way. I appeal to the Minister not to perpetuate the attitude of "To Hell or to Connaught" that has prevailed for years as far as six-day licensees are concerned who abound in such numbers in the west. I believe the minds of the framers of this Bill are far removed from the facts and the realities as they obtain in the west.

I said I would be very brief. I merely want to put it to the Minister that there will be no loss of face on his part if he is prepared to consider this question, especially in view of the fact that the amendment has got support from his own Benches. I would ask him to submit it to the Government again. If they take note of all that has been said they will grant justice to the unfortunate six-day licence holders. That is all I have to say on the matter.

Mr. McQuillan

I want to say a few words on this question because of the fact that the Minister referred to the Report of the Commission on a number of occasions in connection with this problem of the six-day licensees. I happen to have been a member of that Commission and I am afraid that I cannot agree with the Minister's interpretation of what the Commission's views were on this problem of the six-day licence holders.

The Commission put a number of advertisements in the papers and called upon interested parties, associations and individuals, to give evidence on the various aspects of the licensing law. The six-day licence holders were given an opportunity of putting their case before the Commission. At any rate, my recollection is that of all the six-day licensees in the country only a group in Ballinasloe come forward to give evidence. The Commission expressed their appreciation of the fact that the Ballinasloe people took such an interest in it and were alert to what the possibilities might hold as far as the future was concerned.

The Commission in their Report stated that they heard evidence in connection with the six-day licence problem but that is as far as they went. It should be clearly understood that the Commission made no positive recommendation as to whether the privilege extended to the seven-day licensees should be given to the six-day licence holders. Neither did they make any recommendation that the six-day licence people should be penalised further. I think what really happened in the long run is that for lack of evidence the Commission found themselves unable to make what we can describe as a positive recommendation. Therefore, I think it is unfair to suggest that the section in this Bill dealing with the six-day licensees is brought in as a result of the recommendation of the Commission.

I find it very hard to understand why the Commission is being used so much with regard to six-day licensees when, in fact, there was no positive recommendation by the Commission on other important aspects, the Minister failed to adopt them. I have the greatest sympathy with the Minister because I know what he has been up against since the very first day this Bill came into the House between pressure groups inside and outside it. I feel that they should be given every opportunity to consider this matter again rather than press the amendment in the House to a division.

In spite of the fact that insufficient evidence or rather very little evidence was available to the Commission on this matter, I am satisfied that, since the sitting of the Commission, quite an amount of very concrete evidence has been brought to the attention of the Minister and to that of Deputies in connection with the hardships that will be suffered by the six-day licensees when this measure becomes law.

It is no argument in the final analysis to say that because these six-day licensees failed to give evidence that they should, as a result of that, be more or less victimised in the proposed legislation. I feel that the official view in the Minister's Department was: "If these people did not think it worth their while to give evidence, we see no reason why they should get special privileges or that their case should receive more sympathetic consideration."

Mr. Traynor

It is not what the Department think but what the Government think.

Mr. McQuillan

I know that. What I suggest is that every reasonable Government take to a great extent the advice given to them or give very serious consideration to the official advice given to them by their advisers. I am certain that the official advice given to the Government was: "Those six-day licensees are all right as they are and we do not think there is any necessity for accepting the view put forward that they will suffer a disadvantage if the proposed changes are made in legislation." I think that the Government took the advice in this instance of their very excellent Departmental advisers. The Government have a wider duty to the community and that is to ensure that in so far as it is possible, uniformity is established. That was one of the ideas the Commission had in mind all along in other respects — uniformity in the licensing laws.

At the time I felt annoyed — I said so publicly in this House since — at the six-day licensees for failing to come along to the Commission. Still, I feel that should not clinch the argument against them. The majority of them come from Mayo and Monaghan and the town of Ballaghaderreen. That covers practically the majority of the six-day licensees. Some of them came to me not so long ago and I asked them why they did not put the case they made to me before the Commission. I thought that was a fair question.

Listening to the spokesmen they had, I began to realise it was a waste of time. I doubt if some of them had even read the papers as to what was going on. I know some of them did not know the Commission was sitting. That may be interpreted as a slur on County Mayo. In fact, it is true. It was only when the discussions started properly on the matter that these people began to wake up to the possibilities of what was likely to happen. Consequently the House is now in the position that it has a lot of evidence with regard to what the dangers will be. I agree it is a pity that all this evidence was not available 12 months ago. It would have saved an embarrassing position in this House when a decision has tentatively been taken by the Minister himself.

I do not think it will be put forward seriously that automatically the six-day licensee should be put on the same terms as the seven-day man. There is no justice in that, but I do think that the case put forward by the six-day licensees themselves merits a little consideration. They maintain they are prepared to pay a substantial fine, if the Government will consider allowing them the seven-day licence. If the six-day licensees go so far themselves, I do not think the House should seek to go further. I would say to the Minister that if he intends to give further thought to this, he should consider the question of a penalty or a fine on the six-day licensees in order to preserve some idea of equity between them and those who have been paying for the seven-day licence all along.

Mr. O'Donnell

I suggest to the Minister that we are all inclined to think, in the case of the seven-day licence, that all you need to do is to travel three miles to qualify for a drink. We are inclined to forget the old tag: you may drink to travel, but you cannot travel to drink. Remember, the seven-day licences had not got the advantage over the six-day licences the House is inclined to think they had. They had not got that advantage. It was only certain people, one out of every ten, in my opinion, who were strictly bona fide travellers. Out of ten people, who have been drinking on Sundays during the legitimate hours, only one was a bona fide traveller. We should bear that in mind. We all agree that we connived at breaches of the law. The people, the Guards, the Church, everyone, agree that we connived at breaches of the law. Now, what is going to happen? We are going to let the seven-day man open, the man who, up to now, had connived at breaches of the law. His neighbour is——

Mr. Traynor

Wait now; the seven-day man did not connive——

Mr. O'Donnell

He did. We all agree that Sunday opening was never observed properly. Remember that you had to drink to travel, but you could not travel to drink. If a person goes to Goatstown, strictly speaking, he is not a bona fide traveller, because he travels there to drink.

Mr. Traynor

He is not bona fide even at three miles?

Mr. O'Donnell

No, even if a person travels six miles — I think the Strandhill case decided that a good many years ago — he is not bona fide if he travels there for the purpose of drinking. We all know that 90 per cent. of the people drinking on Sunday travelled for the purpose of drinking and for no other purpose. The Guards could not distinguish them from bona fide travellers. It is like the law in Scotland, where you have to travel through a place to drink. You cannot have it at your destination. You cannot have it unless you intend to move on or to return. Under the law, as we are now framing it, we are allowing the seven-day man, who has been conniving at breaches of the law, to open and we propose to enforce the law strictly against his neighbour who has also been conniving at breaches of the law.

Perhaps we could get some equitable way in which both could open during the same hours. I am not suggesting opening under the same conditions. We are of course forgetting the fact that if the six-day man is permitted to open on Sunday, he will have to pay the extra one-seventh of the licence duty which he has escaped up to the present. If he paid it, he would be paying a find of some description. Last night, the Minister for Lands tried to distinguish, in law, between breaches of the law by a seven-day licence holder and by a six-day licence holder. For instance, he told the House — and I was rather surprised to hear it come from him, a very prominent lawyer who is greatly respected in his profession — that a six-day licence holder could not be charged with the ordinary five counts for breaches of the licensing law if he sold drink on a Sunday and that the charge would have to be the charge of shebeening. That is not so, although I did try to argue it myself a few times. The Minister said the reason he could not be charged with breaches of the law for selling on Sunday was that he had no licence to sell on Sunday. You might as well say the same thing about a seven-day licence holder who sells drink after 12 o'clock at night. He has no licence——

Mr. Traynor

My advice is that the Minister for Lands was correct.

Mr. O'Donnell

If the six-day licence holder has no licence to sell on Sunday, then should not the seven-day licence holder who has no licence to sell after 12 o'clock on an ordinary week night be charged with shebeening after 12 o'clock? Is it not the same position?

Mr. Traynor

Probably it would be, too.

Mr. O'Donnell

But it has never been recognised as such. Both are in the same position. The Minister for Lands said that down through the years we had this distinction between the six-day and the seven-day holder. That is so; it did exist and there is no doubt whatever about it. But we must go back to the creation of the six-day licence. Why was it created? When it was created first in 1872, a seven-day licensee could open only for a very limited number of people, people who travelled, bona fide, a distance of three miles. Remember, that their method of travel in those days was either on foot or on horse and how many people did legitimately travel in those days? The licensing authority at the time said, “Well, of course, possibly it does not pay you to keep open on Sunday. We will give you the option of closing on Sunday. We will give you six-days.”

I wonder what would those people opt for to-day if they knew that a House of Parliament was going to give them the opportunity of throwing open their premises for five or six hours on a Sunday? Would they opt for a six-day licence?

Mr. Lindsay

They would not.

Mr. O'Donnell

I do not believe they would. I think it was Deputy S. Flanagan who pointed out that some of them opted for a six-day licence on religious grounds. They opted for it on religious grounds, but they never for a moment thought that an Act of Parliament would draw this very big distinction between the seven-day and the six-day licensee. If they did, they certainly would not have opted for a six-day licence. The Minister should consider very carefully what Deputy Sweetman said this morning. Take the town of Castlebar——

Mr. Traynor

Take the town of Ballaghaderreen.

Mr. O'Donnell

Very well. No person in that town is entitled to a drink on Sunday, unless he travels a distance of three miles out into the country, and he must not travel out for the purpose of having a drink. He must travel out on some legitimate business. We know for a fact that any townsman of Ballaghaderreen who wants a drink on Sunday can get it, even as the law stands.

Mr. Traynor

Would the Deputy not shudder to think of the repercussions of unleashing 56 extra licences in that town?

Mr. O'Donnell

Would it not be equitable to unleash 56 in preference to unleashing five or six or eight?

Mr. Traynor

I should not think so.

Mr. O'Donnell

Would it not be desirable to have whatever floating money there will be for drink on Sunday spread over all the local——

Mr. Traynor

In other words, you would have 62 licensed premises catering for a population of 3,000?

Mr. O'Donnell

Yes.

Mr. Traynor

Is that desirable?

Mr. O'Donnell

But it is being done on Saturdays. Why not do it on Sundays?

Mr. Traynor

We are talking about Sundays now.

Mr. O'Donnell

But there is the same population for the same number of licensees on Saturday. We should only be spreading this business over a number of people instead of building up the little vested interests of seven-day licensees.

Mr. S. Flanagan

Take all the figures for the country instead of taking one particular town. Take the question of unloading 1,100 licences; take the number of seven-day licences against that, 10,000 or 12,000.

Mr. O'Donnell

Say 11,000.

Mr. O'Sullivan

It is only two in my own town.

Mr. O'Donnell

In my own town, there are only two 6-day licences. They have very nice businesses; they have opened lounge bars and installed television. At the moment any person who wants to have a drink can have it on Sunday in a six-day premises just as well as in a seven-day premises. Now we are going to close these two on Sundays and throw open the other nine or ten in the town. Suppose any customer of one of these six-day licensed premises goes there five or six days in the week or even two days every week, he will find that on Sunday he cannot have a drink on those premises. He must transfer his Sunday business to one of the seven-day premises.

I can imagine the look of contempt a seven-day licensee will give him when he sees him coming in on Sunday. I can also see that customer trying to get into the good graces of the seven-day licensee by transferring his week-day business from the six-day to the seven-day premises, and I should be very sorry to see two decent publicans in my own town lose their business as a result of the deliberate action of this House. As I said last night, this is a very good Bill, but here is one section I take exception to and I think the Minister would be doing a more equitable job if he accepted this amendment.

It may be that the Minister cannot see his way to accept it as it stands, but if the Minister would give an undertaking that he will give to existing six-day licensees a seven-day licence on certain terms and conditions, perhaps, those terms and conditions would be acceptable to them and possibly to the House. If that were done, it might offer a way out of the impasse, which has arisen in this matter. The Minister can carry his section. There is no doubt about that. Deputies may have to vote with him who are certainly very much in favour of the amendment. I think it is unfair to them because, as Deputy Dillon said, whether we close six-day licensed houses on Sundays or not, the business of the country will go on. There is no great constitutional or political issue involved, and it is a pity this could not be left to a free vote of the House.

I appreciate the point of view of some of the seven-day licensees who object to their six-day licensee neighbours, or rather, of some of the Deputies who spoke on their behalf: I have not heard an objection from one seven-day licensee himself — stating that it would be very unfair to have additional licences for sale of intoxicating liquor on Sunday. The six-day men are now selling drink on Sunday and there is no grouse from the seven-day licensee about it. There is no great vote-catching issue in this.

Speakers in favour of the amendment have pointed out that the publicans for whom we are speaking are a very small minority and no Deputy can be accused of vote-catching. In my own town, as I said, there are but two six-day licensees and I do not think if I turned them into seven-day licensees, I should ever get their votes. That is not the point. I am sure some Deputies who would like to express their views on this matter could advocate much more strongly than I can the advantages we are giving to seven-day licensees.

I am appealing to the Minister. I certainly found him at all times a very reasonable man. I do not think he is anxious to victimise anybody. It may be that his Department — certainly not for reasons of victimisation but for other reasons — have told him that he should not accede to this request——

Mr. Traynor

I must correct that. That has been said before. It is the Government that makes these decisions, not the Department. The Department may advise the Government and the Government may accept or reject that advice.

Mr. O'Donnell

I agree, but the Minister is usually the spokesman who puts the pros and cons of legislation he is advocating before the Government and unless members of the Government are particularly interested, they usually accept the advice tendered to them by the promoter of the legislation, so far as I know.

Nobody can accuse Deputy G. Boland of being in any way partial. He is generally most impartial in the views he expresses here. He was a member of the Commission and, as a member who signed the Majority Report, he admits that he was unaware of the case that could have been made for the six-day licensees. I think it was Deputy Corry who attacked the six-day licensees for not putting their case before the Commission. That is not so easy. As I said, in county Donegal, you may have only six or seven six-day licences. Other counties may have less and it is very difficult for these people throughout the Twenty-six Counties to get together, form an organisation and employ secretarial staff or legal representatives to present their case. They depend entirely on Deputies to present their case to the Minister in a debate such as this.

Now Deputy G. Boland has been so impressed — as far as I know, he is a temperate man and a strict T.T. — by the arguments put forward by both sides of the House advocating acceptance of this amendment that he says now that had he been aware of the position, he certainly would have done something for the six-day licensees. The Deputy and the Minister are very much alike. They are both what some people describe as "Limejuicers." They are both men amenable to reasoned argument. If the Minister changed places with his predecessor, Deputy G. Boland, he would, I think, be one of the first to get up and say: "This is a good amendment and one which should be accepted." Appreciating that, I think the Minister should meet it now.

Mr. Crotty

This Bill has been welcomed by the country generally because it will do away with the bona fide trade, enable more uniform hours to be kept and do away with all-night drinking in certain circumstances. The Bill has been put forward as making for uniformity and for easier enforcement of the law.

There is an even more important aspect. Every member of this House is anxious that there should be respect for the law. If we want to have that respect, then we must make reasonable laws. The ordinary people must be behind the Government and behind Parliament. Those personally concerned must be behind Parliament. Our objective should be to ensure that both the public and the licensed traders feel that justice has been done in this Bill. If they do not feel that, then we are back even further than where we started when we first set out. If we do not allow the six-day licensee to open on the seventh day, as is suggested in this amendment, we shall do him a grave injustice.

That is the general consensus of opinion in the country. That is the feeling the Garda have. We are opening up the way to unfair competition. Up to this, the seven-day licensee had, like the six-day licensee, to close on Sunday. He could serve travellers, but his front door was closed to the general public and, above all, to his own neighbours. Under this Bill, the seven-day licensee will have the right to open his doors on Sunday and to serve his neighbours. The six-day licensee will have no such right.

There was a meeting of the licensed traders in Kilkenny at which the three Kilkenny Deputies were present. The licensed traders agreed at that meeting that the six-day licensee should be allowed to open on the seventh day. Take the ordinary country town; if one house, a grocery and bar combined, is allowed to open and two or three other houses are compelled to close, the people will naturally go to that house for their groceries. Wives will make their purchases in the grocery, while their husbands are having a drink in the bar. The other two or three houses will be, to all intents and purposes, out of business. That is not right. We should not in this House do anything which might result in that situation.

Last night, the Minister for Lands said there has always been a differential. There was no differential when one was dealing with one's neighbours. Neither the six-day licensee nor the seven-day licensee could open his doors or serve his neighbours on Sunday. That will not be the position in future if this legislation goes through in its present form. In fact, the differential will become more accentuated. Under this Bill, the seven-day licensee will be able to open his door wide and serve his neighbours, while the six-day licensee will have to remain closed. I do not think it is fair that there should be that differential in this Bill.

In some section of this Bill, the Minister has already removed endorsements and convictions against publicans. Surely, it is not too much to ask him to do justice where the six-day licensee is concerned and remove any restrictions there are on them. Surely, it is not too much to ask him to give them the right to open on the seventh day. The Minister for Lands painted a vivid picture of the people in Castlebar queueing up in the street for hackney cars to bring them out to roadhouses to drink. It sounded almost like an airlift. In future, if this Bill goes through, these people will not have to hire hackney cars. They will be able to go into certain seven-day licensed premises in Castlebar. Why not permit all licensed premises to open on the seventh day? That would be the fair way of meeting the position. I must admit I have never seen a queue in my town waiting for transport to go outside the three-mile limit for a drink. Possibly, that is peculiar to Castlebar.

Mr. Blowick

I think the Minister was exaggerating a good deal in that.

Mr. Crotty

Perhaps he was.

Mr. Blowick

I know Castlebar fairly well, and I have never seen these famous queues on Sunday afternoon.

General MacEoin

What the Deputy means is that he never formed part of the queue.

Mr. Crotty

Hackney cars will no longer be necessary when this Bill becomes law. There is a danger that the man who patronises the six-day licensed house now may transfer his patronage when he finds that he can drink in the seven-day licensed premises on Sunday in future. He will not just drink in it on Sunday; he will put in an appearance once or twice during the week in order to ensure that he will get good service on Sunday.

Last night, the Minister for Justice said that the laws up to this have not been recognised. That is a very serious statement, coming from the Minister for Justice. The enforcement of the law is his responsibility. Yet he stated last night that the licensing laws have not been recognised. That statement is the most telling statement that could be made in support of this amendment. I think the country has grown up now. There was a time when one was clapped on the back for breaking the law, because it showed one was "agin the Government." We have our own Government now and people are no longer "agin the Government." They have their own native Government, and it is our duty as legislators to help them to respect the laws we make. This Bill goes a good way towards doing that, and it would be a pity to retain in it some sections which would bring the law into disrespect.

Up to the present, the Minister and the Commissioner of the Guards have not been able to enforce the existing law. If the Guards feel in their hearts that the present Bill perpetrates an injustice against any person, it is only natural that they will not penalise that person because they feel an unfair advantage is being taken of him. The Minister said this Bill will be enforced, but I doubt it. Even a Government cannot stay in office if they have not the good-will of the people and I doubt if this law can be enforced, if the people are very honest in their Irish people are very honest in their own way. If they feel an injustice is being done to any person, they are inclined to support him.

The Minister for Justice said last night that there were 1,000 six-day licences in the country and 11,000 seven-day licences. I should say that every member in the House will agree with me when I say that the extension to these 1,000 people of the right to open on Sunday would be a very small price to pay to secure the respect of the people for the laws of this country. Remember, if you bring the licensing law into disrespect, you are also bringing the general laws of the country into disrespect. As I said, our people are nature and the Government should recognise that. Although the Minister said this Bill will be rigorously enforced, I tell him now it cannot be. You can lead the Irish people but you cannot drive them. The Government cannot drive the Irish people but they can lead them. They should give justice in this Bill to this small minority of publicans, the small men who up to now have been able to exist but who will be put out of existence by this legislation. The price we are asking the Minister to pay in order to bring the laws of this country into respect is a very small price indeed.

Mr. J.J. Burke

I would urge the Minister to accept this amendment. I am convinced that if the Minister fully appreciated the injustice he is doing to the six-day licence holders under this Bill, he would accept it. As far as my knowledge of the Minister goes, he is not a man who would wittingly inflict an injustice on anybody, but I think he is looking at this from the wrong angle altogether. He is going on the assumption that he is taking nothing from the six-day licensee and is, therefore, not doing them an injustice. What he appears to forget is that he is giving their neighbours, the seven-day licensees, something they never had before, something which gives them an unfair advantage over their six-day colleagues. Therefore, is he not doing an injustice indirectly to the six-day licence holders?

The Minister does not appear to appreciate that the six-day licensee is not very worried about his Sunday trade. What he is worried about is his whole business. We have to admit that up to the present the licensing laws have not been enforced. The case is made that there was a vast difference between the six-day and seven-day licensee, as far as Sunday opening was concerned. If the law were enforced, there would be very little difference. The fact was that if you travelled three miles, you could have a drink. If any Guard went in and examined the customers in a seven-day public house on a Sunday, he would find that 99 per cent. of them had travelled for the specific purpose of getting a drink. Therefore, 99 per cent. of them were breaking the law.

Even if the law were enforced under the old Act, the position would not be as bad as it would be under this Bill. Take the case of a town where you have a certain number of six-day licences and seven-day licences. I know such a town but I shall not name it because several Deputies have already made the case for it. Up to the present, there was illegal drinking in that town on Sunday and everybody who wanted a drink could get it in a six-day or a seven-day house. But what will happen if this Bill is passed in its present form? Take the case of a man who not only drinks in a six-day house but who buys his groceries and so on in such a premises, because many of them carry on such trade. In nine cases out of ten, that man will become a customer of a seven-day house where he can have a drink on any day of the week he wishes. Would the Minister not agree that he is doing a grave injustice to the six-day licensee by putting him in that unenviable position?

There is another aspect of this matter as well as the publican's aspect. You are depriving the public in certain areas of a right you are giving to the public in other areas. In places where there are seven-day houses, the public can go in and have a drink at certain hours on a Sunday, but in places where there are only six-day houses, they will not be able to do so. In those places, the public will not be able to have a drink without travelling three, four or five miles to a seven-day house. If these places are tourist resorts, they will be injured if drink cannot be obtained there on Sundays. I think the Minister is creating an impossible position, if he does not put all these licences on a par.

Deputy Davern said this Bill confers no benefit whatever on seven-day licensees. The Minister appears to take that view, too. That is absolutely ridiculous. Under the present law, nobody could legally go into a seven-day house who had not travelled three miles. Under the Bill, the seven-day licensee can open to the general public for certain hours on Sunday. Therefore, is the Minister not conferring a great benefit on the seven-day licensee and in that respect widening the gap between the six-day and seven-day licensee and, in fact, putting the six-day licensee completely out of business?

He also said that most of these six-day licensees were wealthy men and that they did not want this trade at all. As far as I know, in my constituency, the six-day licensees are the poorer section of the licensed trade. They are barely hanging on, but if what Deputy Davern says is correct, if the Minister accepts this amendment, we will not force those men to open on Sunday.

Mr. Dillon

Hear, Hear!

Mr. J.J. Burke

If they do not want to open, they need not bother. The Minister also said that he does not want to increase the number of public houses in the country which will be open on Sundays and that these amendments will tend to increase the number. That is ridiculous. There are a certain number of people in Ballaghaderreen, let us say, or in any given town, and they have only a certain amount of money to spend. If there are six public houses in that town, they will spend their money in them but if there are 26 public houses in it, they will not spend one penny more on drink.

I do not think there is very much more to say about this matter because it has been debated very fully by all sides of the House. Some Fianna Fáil Deputies have made a very good case for the six-day licences and that should make a very great impression upon the Minister because, no matter what Party we belong to, unless we feel very strongly on a subject, we are not going to oppose our front Bench on it. The Minister should reconsider his decision on it and if he cannot see his way to accept the amendments, the least he might do to make this a fair and equitable Bill is to leave it to a free vote of the House. If the majority of the Deputies decide that six-day licences should be left as they are, I shall accept that decision.

Mr. Blowick

There is just one point that struck me, that both the Minister for Justice and the Minister for Lands always drag in the fact that there are too many licensed premises in the country. We are all agreed on that but the Minister for Justice and the Minister for Lands seem to want to convey to the House and the public that the two amendments at present being discussed, if carried, will increase the number of licensed premises. These amendments do not seek to do that at all. We are not asking to increase the number by even one licence.

The second point I want to bring home at present is that the Minister for Justice and the Minister for Lands, who have been sponsoring this Bill, want to convey that the seven-day licensee is getting no concession. That is not true. At the present time, the position roughly is that six-day licensees and seven-day licensees cannot open their doors on Sundays. Under this Bill, the seven-day licensee is getting a perfectly free concession, while the six-day licensee, if he wants the same concession, must purchase a seven-day licence and no one can say how many years he may be waiting for an opportunity to buy one because they are not available for sale so readily. It boils down to the fact that we are giving a free concession to the seven-day licensee, while, at the same time, we are compelling the six-day licensee to purchase that concession.

Mr. O'Sullivan

There is just one point to which I want to advert. Some people seem to be under the impression that those of us who favour this amendment are desirous of extending the drinking hours considerably. We are not. Some of us held the view, during the early stages of the Bill, that the hours proposed were excessive, but as Deputy Corish stated, the House has ruled what hours should be accepted and we accept the decision of the House. There is also the point that, in practice, there was disregard and disrespect for the law and that six-day and seven-day public houses were opened on Sundays. If the front door was not open, at least the back door was, but there are six-day and seven-day licensees who have no desire at all in the world to do business on Sundays. Their numbers may be very small but they have no intention of availing of the extended facilities granted by this Bill. They want to lead a certain life; they consider that they are indoors all week and, even at the expense of loss of income, they will not surrender their freedom on Sundays.

What we are asking the Minister to do is not to apply in such a mandatory fashion a restriction on relatively small numbers of those engaged in the trade in that respect. We want those who are in a particular position, because of the fact that they may be contiguous to the church in a town or parish and may have certain facilities to provide by way of convenience to country people who come in some distance to church, to be free to do so. They may be obliged, because of the absolute meagreness of their income, to guard jealously and protect that limited income by making the sacrifice involved in making these facilities available on Sundays, and we want to ensure that by Act of Parliament we do not drive out of business a limited number of the more depressed engaged in the licensed trade.

It is for that reason we feel strongly on this amendment and I do not want it to be taken that, by supporting the amendment, we want an extension of hours for drinking. We want to see justice done to everybody and it is for that reason we have been so emphatic and so persistent in pursuing our arguments for acceptance of these amendments.

Mr. T.F. O'Higgins

I rise merely to say, without going over ground already covered and amply covered, that I should like, on my own behalf and on behalf of my constituents, to support the amendments for the reasons already stated so effectively by Deputies on both sides of the House.

Mr. Corish

Unfortunately I could not be in the House all morning but may I ask the Minister for Lands if it is correct to say that last time he spoke the Minister for Justice said he was prepared to take back to the Government all the arguments that had been submitted in respect of these two amendments?

Mr. Moran

Like the Deputy, I was not present in the House but I understand from the Minister's officials that he made a statement to that effect.

Mr. Corish

In effect, does that mean that he will consider or get the Government to consider, not necessarily to recommit, the Bill with regard to six-day licence holders?

Mr. Moran

I cannot interpret for the House but the Deputy will appreciate what is in the Minister's mind. I am sure there are Deputies here who heard what the Minister said.

Mr. O'Sullivan

Yes.

Mr. Moran

I did not, but I am informed he made a statement to the effect suggested by the Deputy.

Mr. Sweetman

That was not the way I understood him.

Mr. Moran

I want to make it quite clear that I do not understand what the Minister said.

Mr. Corish

I think it would shorten the debate if we could be clear on this.

Mr. Dillon

If the Minister for Justice comes in and says he proposes to take the Bill back to the Government, in so far as this whole question of six-day licences is concerned, the debate could be ended without delay as far as this Party are concerned. If on the other hand, the Minister says he prefers the House to take a decision and he will not change his attitude, it will not help us.

Mr. Moher

The fillibuster goes on.

Mr. O'Sullivan

There is no filli-bustering.

Mr. Dillon

There has been no fillibustering or obstruction connected with this business, and Government Deputies have contributed to the debate just as much as we have, and more of them would have contributed if they had been allowed.

Mr. Sweetman

If they had the courage to do it, they would have done it.

Mr. Moran

Before getting into that line of country, I should like to point out to the Leader of the Opposition that Deputy Sweetman, I understand, said he was here when the Minister spoke.

Mr. Sweetman

I thought the Minister was about to say that he would take it back to the Government, as Deputy Dillon suggests, but he finished his observation by saying that now we better have our decision, which appeared to me to spoil what he said before. If he had not said: "Now, let us have a decision," without any more talk, there would have been quite a different situation.

Mr. Moran

May I intervene for a moment? I understand the Minister for Justice said that the arguments put forward here in this matter would be considered but that he did not say that he would make any recommendation contrary to the propositions he had before this House.

Mr. Corish

That the Government might.

Mr. Moran

That he would place the arguments put forward in this House before the Government but he did not commit himself to make any recommendation or to change his attitude on the propositions he has put before the House.

Mr. Blowick

Did the Minister say that he would not enter a counter-argument against them; in other words, that he would leave the Government open to consider amending the Bill?

Mr. Moran

I do not know if the Deputy was listening to the Minister for Justice. I was not. I certainly do not want to mislead the House. Deputies heard the Minister for Justice. I did not. I do not propose to interpret what he has in his mind.

Mr. Corish

If he says that he is going to take back the arguments to the Government, surely he means he wants the Government's decision?

Mr. O'Sullivan

I was in the House, and, substantially, Deputy Sweetman has stated what the Minister said. I thought when the Minister opened his remarks, that it was all over and done with. He actually stated that he would take it back to the Government but his final statement was to some extent contradictory, inasmuch as he said he wanted it ended here and now.

Mr. Corish

Possibly he meant the discussion rather than the decision.

Mr. Moran

Possibly that is so. At all events, the Minister for Justice is at lunch and will be back in five or ten minutes. He can clarify the matter. I would prefer that he would clarify the matter.

Mr. Sweetman

Could we get the shorthand note?

Mr. Kenny

I should like to make a few comments upon what certain Deputies said here this morning, especially the comments made by Deputy Moloney. Deputy Moloney cannot speak with any real authority on the activities of six-day licensees on Sunday because I have discovered from the records of the House in relation to a question asked by Deputy Sweetman that in Listowel, the home town of Deputy Moloney, there is only one six-day licensed public house, so he could not have any real experience of dealing with six-day licensees; whereas in my home town and that of the Minister for Lands, there are 33 six-day licensees, in Ballyhaunis, 49; Westport, 21; Ballina, 45; Ballinrobe, 22; Claremorris, 21; Kiltimagh, 27; and Charlestown, 17. You would not be a Mayoman if you did not know what was being carried on, legally or illegally, on Sunday.

Deputy S. Flanagan knows the facts; the Minister for Lands knows the facts. The Minister for Lands was quite insincere last night when he said that he could not find any illegal activities in Castlebar on Sundays.

Mr. Blowick

He did not say that, did he?

Mr. Moran

The Deputy might quote me correctly if he is purporting to quote me.

Mr. Kenny

I know there were queues — they were not really big queues — but hackney cars were employed to bring people for pleasure and refreshments three miles outside the town to the various public houses in the country. Why was this done? It was done because the law was rigidly enforced for a period of 15 years. People left the town and went to the country public houses and at the same time the country people came in from the six-day areas into the towns. Brendan Behan has said that the only day you could not have a drink in your own public house was Sunday, that you meet country people going to town and the towns people going to the country and suggested that it was an awfully ridiculous situation. We are tending to the very same thing if we do not accept this amendment. There will be frustration, discontent and disappointment in the towns where the activities of the six-day licensee will be at an end.

Deputy Gilbride accuses certain Deputies from Mayo of playing to the gallery. We definitely are not playing to the gallery. Rather are the Government playing with the very lives and livelihoods of the six-day licensees and their families. They are putting an end to their activities. They did an illegal trade on Sunday, the very same as the seven-day licensee. If a person went into a seven-day licensed premises and found locals there, he was breaking the law. The Minister has stated that our arguments would be brought to the Government for consideration. If the Government want their pound of flesh, they will get it but with it they will get the blood and the livelihoods of the six-day licensees.

Mr. Sherwin

I should like to make a comment, as a neutral. I am a city Deputy and not so interested in this amendment as are the rural Deputies. I suppose the people I represent have all they want. The principle underlying this Bill is uniformity. The people in the country have a grudge in that, in their case, there is not uniformity. For the purpose of uniformity, we have done away with the bona fide trade and are taking away from unlicensed persons the right to sell cider. In other words, we are making the hours for clubs the same as for hotels. Uniformity seems to be the underlying principle. In this case, a lot of people are not to have the right to open on Sunday.

Another underlying reason for the Bill is that the law should be enforced. This will encourage breaking of the law. When people feel morally justified, justified in their own conscience, they will break the law. If the other fellow can do it, they believe that they should do it. People break the law in such circumstances. Certain people justify criminal actions on the grounds that they cannot get a job. That is their argument.

Six-day licensees possibly will feel morally justified in their own conscience in breaking the law and once they feel that way about it, the law will be broken. I would advise the Minister to give this matter second thoughts. It is mainly a matter for rural Deputies, but, in my opinion, this section is contrary to the principle underlying the introduction of the Bill.

Mr. Corish

I do not think we are being unreasonable. I asked the Minister for Lands a question. I appreciate his difficulty. He was not here when the Minister for Justice spoke. It was reported to me by a Deputy who was in the House that the Minister for Justice said that he was prepared to take the arguments back to the Government.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Chair's function is to put the question when no other Deputy offers.

Mr. Sweetman

Are we on the amendment?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I did not see the Deputy offering.

Mr. Sweetman

I am offering.

Mr. Corish

I merely wanted to fill in time until the Minister for Justice comes in. It will suit me fine if Deputy Sweetman speaks.

Mr. Sweetman

That is all I am going to do. We had a great deal of discussion on this amendment. There is considerably more agreement now on the basis upon which the matter should properly be considered than there was when the discussion started.

When the debate started on this six-day licence question, many Deputies approached it genuinely in the belief that what was being sought was that compensation would be given to the six-day licensees. I think many of them realise that is not the basis at all, that the entire basis is whether the six-day licensee would be enabled to keep the legal trade he has at the present time. It is perfectly clear that if you have a man living in a street in any town in Ireland and if he has on his right hand a seven-day licence holder and on the left hand a six-day licence holder, if that man wants to obey the law he can drink either on his left or on his right, on Monday to Friday and also on Saturday up to half an hour earlier. However, when Sunday comes he is not entitled legally to go to either the house on his right or on his left.

If a Bill is passed without this amendment then the position will be that they man may drink in the house on his right on seven days of the week and in the house on his left only on six days. Inevitably it will mean that he will go to the house in which he can drink every day. People do not like changing their habits or changing their places of refreshment day in and day out. Wherever they go, they want to make that their regular place of refreshment. If the amendment or something like it is not passed it will mean that everybody in that street who has been accustomed to go to the six-day house will move to the seven-day house and the six-day man will be deprived of his livelihood.

It is in that spirit the matter should be approached, not in the spirit of giving concessions to anybody, but of enabling a man to retain what he has at present. If we do not approach it in that way we are proceeding on an entirely fallacious basis. I appreciate the way the Minister is considering the matter but he is considering it from an altogether wrong approach. He is considering it from the point of view of giving something to the six-day man. I do not want anything given to him. I want merely to ensure that what he has will not be taken away from him by this legislation.

Mr. Traynor

What did Deputy Sweetman mean by saying that what they have will not be taken from them?

Mr. Sweetman

The six-day man is at present trading on six-days of the week. He has certain customers who live within, say, a three-mile radius, for want of a better phrase. He has that trade legally. The people in that area can trade equally with him and with the seven-day man. The only people entitled to trade on Sunday with the seven-day licensee are people who come from three miles away. If this Bill passes without the amendment we have put down or some amendment like it, the people will be in the situation that they must choose if they want to drink in their own street whether they will drink in one house on weekdays and in a different house on Sundays. People will not do that. Therefore, they will go and drink on weekdays and Sundays in the seven-day house. That means the Bill will take away trade the six-day man has at present.

Mr. Traynor

In other words, what the Deputy wants is what the six-day licensees have illegally?

Mr. Sweetman

No, legally.

Mr. Traynor

That they be now given it legally?

Mr. Sweetman

I am not arguing on the illegal side of it at all. I never have been. I am purely interested in the legal question.

Mr. Traynor

We are not taking anything away from the six-day licensee.

Mr. Sweetman

You are.

Mr. Belton

You are giving it to the seven-day licensee.

Mr. Sweetman

I do not think the Minister intends to do it but, in practice, he is doing it.

Mr. Traynor

I am afraid I cannot argue any further on the matter. I am convinced in my own mind I am not interfering in any way with the six-day licensees or taking away anything they should get legally. If they have been doing something illegally.

Mr. Sweetman

I am not interested in that. I am not making that case at all.

Mr. Traynor

In other words, you want the six-day licensees to be allowed to open on Sunday?

Mr. Blowick

To be on the same footing as the seven-day man.

Mr. Traynor

And you have been trying to argue that is what they have been doing all the time?

Mr. Sweetman

No, I am not trying to do that. What I am trying to argue is that if you do not let them open on Sunday the week-day customers they have will go over to another house which is permitted to open on Sunday.

Mr. Traynor

I understand Deputy Dillon raised a point in regard to a statement I made. I shall quote what I said from the Official Report:

...when I submit the arguments that have been made here in respect of the six-day licensees it will be a matter for the Government to decide whether we should stand firm or whether we should be prepared to make some other extension of the provisions which we have already proposed. I can make no promise other than that. I think the House decided to have the Committee Stage decided to-day. We have been discussing it for a considerable time and I think the House should decide upon it now and let the Government consider whatever action is necessary afterwards.

Mr. Dillon

I take it from that, the Minister will re-submit to the Government this general question of the six-day licensee, and direct the attention of the Government to the arguments that have been pressed from various sides of the House. If the Minister would undertake to do that I would be prepared to withdraw my amendment with the right, of course, to put it down again on Report Stage. On the other hand, if the Minister would put down an amendment substantially to meet that——

Mr. Traynor

I am proposing that in effect.

Mr. Dillon

Is that what the Minister is proposing?

Mr. Traynor

At the same time, I do not want to lead Deputies into believing that by the withdrawal of this amendment, they will get what they are expecting. I cannot anticipate what the decision of the Government will be on the question. What I am undertaking to do is to bring to the attention of the Government the arguments that have been made in favour of some extension of the provisions in respect of six-day licensees.

Mr. Blowick

The Minister is leaving it open to the Government to amend the Bill if they so desire?

Mr. Traynor

That is a matter for the Government.

Mr. Dillon

Is it not better in these circumstances of ambiguity that we should record for the information of the Government the view of the House? I appreciate the Minister's difficulty. We have pressed a certain view upon the Government. The Minister does not feel free to say he is swayed by our arguments. In those circumstances, I think it wiser to allow this issue to be determined by the vote of the House, and that the Government reconsider the matter in the light of the recorded view of Deputies.

Mr. Traynor

If the Deputy wishes to withdraw the amendment——

Mr. Dillon

I do not propose to withdraw it. I propose to press it to a division when the House is ready.

Amendment put.

The Committee divided: Tá 42: Níl 62.

Tá

• Barry, Richard.
• Beirne, John.
• Belton, Jack.
• Blowick, Joseph.
• Browne, Noel C.
• Burke, James.
• Byrne, Patrick.
• Carroll, James.
• Casey, Seán.
• Coburn, George.
• Coogan, Fintan.
• Corish, Brendan.
• Cosgrave, Liam.
• Crotty, Patrick J.
• Desmond, Daniel.
• Dillon, James M.
• Donnellan, Michael.
• Esmonde, Sir Anthony C.
• Everett, James.
• Finucane, Patrick.
• Giles, Patrick.
• Jones, Denis F.
• Kenny, Henry.
• Lindsay, Patrick.
• Lynch, Thaddeus.
• MacEoin, Seán.
• McMenamin, Daniel.
• Manley, Timothy.
• Murphy, William.
• Norton, William.
• O'Higgins, Michael J.
• O'Higgins, Thomas F.
• O'Reilly, Patrick.
• O'Sullivan, Denis J.
• Reynolds, Mary.
• Rogers, Patrick J.
• Rooney, Eamonn.
• Ryan, Richie.
• Sherwin, Frank.
• Spring, Dan.
• Sweetman, Gerard.
• Tully, John,

Níl

• Aiken, Frank.
• Allen, Denis.
• Bartley, Gerald.
• Blaney, Neil T.
• Boland, Kevin.
• Brady, Seán.
• Brennan, Joseph.
• Brennan, Paudge.
• Breslin, Cormac.
• Browne, Seán.
• Burke, Patrick.
• Calleary, Phelim A.
• Carty, Michael.
• Childers, Erskine.
• Clohessy, Patrick.
• Collins, James J.
• Crowley, Honor M.
• Cummins, Patrick J.
• Cunningham, Liam.
• Davern, Mick.
• de Valera, Vivion.
• Doherty, Seán.
• Donegan, Batt.
• Dooley, Patrick.
• Egan, Kieran P.
• Egan, Nicholas.
• Faulkner, Padraig.
• Galvin, John.
• Geoghegan, John.
• Gibbons, James.
• Gilbride, Eugene.
• Haughey, Charles.
• Healy, Augustine A.
• Hillery, Patrick J.
• Hilliard, Michael.
• Humphreys, Francis.
• Johnston, Henry M.
• Kenneally, William.
• Kennedy, Michael J.
• Killilea, Mark.
• Kitt, Michael F.
• Lemass, Noel T.
• Lemass, Seán.
• Loughman, Frank.
• Lynch, Celia.
• Lynch, Jack.
• MacCarthy, Seán.
• McEllistrim, Thomas.
• MacEntee, Seán.
• Maher, Peadar.
• Medlar, Martin.
• Millar, Anthony G.
• Moher, John W.
• Moloney, Daniel J.
• Mooney, Patrick.
• Moran, Michael.
• Ó Briain, Donnchadh.
• O'Malley, Donogh.
• Ormonde, John.
• Ryan, James.
• Sheldon, William A.W.
• Traynor, Oscar.

Tellers:—Tá: Deputies O'Sullivan and Crotty; Níl: Deputies Ó Briain and Loughman.

Amendment declared lost.

Progress reported; Committee to sit again.