I move the following amendment:—
In Section 2, sub-section (1), line 22, to delete the word "absolute" and after the word "premises", line 23, to add the words—"subject to the right of the applicant for a licence to apply to the Circuit Court for the issue of licence notwithstanding such refusal on the grounds that all the statutory requirements for the issue of a licence have been fulfilled."
I tabled this amendment to Section 2 here. Section 2 says:
Notwithstanding anything contained in the Principal Act and without prejudice to the powers of refusing applications for registration of premises conferred on him by the Principal Act, the Minister may in his absolute discretion refuse an application for registration of any premises.
I have moved an amendment to delete the word "absolute" and to add the words
"subject to the right of the applicant for a licence to apply to the Circuit Court for the issue of licence notwithstanding such refusal on the ground that all the statutory requirements for the issue of a licence have been fulfilled."
Perhaps the Minister will tell us later on what set of circumstances, since the original Act came into operation six or seven years ago, arose to make it necessary for the Minister to seek the extra powers he wants in Section 2. That is the first thing that strikes me. In the original Act we had two pages of restrictions, or, at least, of regulations on which an applicant for registration had to satisfy the Minister before he got a licence. I do not want to weary the House by enumerating what they are, but they are sufficiently strict and cover almost all possible circumstances in connection with premises and the conduct of a person's business, so that almost one could envisage that when the original Bill left the House it was as watertight as a Bill could be made and that nobody could get on the registration list unless he was absolutely above-board and his premises everything that could be desired.
The Minister comes along now with this particular section—Section 2— which goes on to read as follows:—
(2) Where the Minister in exercise of the power conferred on him by this section, refuses an application for registration, sub-sections (2) and (3) of Section 8 of the Principal Act shall not apply.
Now, sub-sections (2) and (3) of Section 8 of the Principal Act were the only two sub-sections that gave an applicant for registration any right at all. They provided the only possible safeguard he had. Sub-section (2) of Section 8 of the Principal Act says:
Whenever an application is made under this section for the registration of any premises, the Minister shall cause such premises to be inspected by an inspector.
Sub-section (3) of the same section goes on to say:
Before refusing an application for the registration of any premises under this Part of this Act, the Minister shall send by post to the applicant at his address as stated in the application one fortnight's notice of the Minister's intention to refuse such application and of the reason of such refusal, and shall consider any representations made by the applicant before the expiration of such notice.
The Minister now asks the House not only to give him absolute discretion in the refusal of any licences, without any excuse, but to prevent the operation of those two particular sub-sections to which I have drawn his attention. If this section here is passed in its present terms, it is practically giving, if the Minister wishes, a vested interest to those who already hold licences because the Minister can refuse to give anybody else a licence and need not give any grounds for his refusal, or any case stated. That is as I see it. I think the House should not agree to pass this particular section without at least some statement as to the causes that led up to his seeking these powers. Did anything occur during the operation of the Act in the last few years which made the registration of premises so difficult that the Minister had to seek these extra powers?
In connection with very many of the Bills that went through this House at various times I have always objected to the principle of giving absolute discretion to anybody, outside of regulations, and I have to offer the same objections in connection with this particular section. It does not seem to me that any elaborate explanation—at least on the introduction of the Bill— was given as to why we should depart from the provisions of the section in the original Act, which gave the Minister what would appear to any ordinary Deputy to be sufficient powers in that respect.
