Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 6 Nov 1946

Vol. 103 No. 2

Committee on Finance. - Intoxicating Liquor Bill, 1946—Committee Stage.

Section 1 agreed to.
SECTION 2.
Question proposed: "That Section 2 stand part of the Bill."

I am somewhat troubled about Section 2. How is it proposed to operate this measure? Who is to be the licensee and are the police to have control over these buildings? I take it all the premises erected in bogs for the accommodation of the turf workers will not be licensed and that the licence will be granted only for a specific portion of a building. If that must be so under the licensing laws, then who is to enforce the provisions of this measure? Are these licences to be offered to people such as general caterers who do this sort of thing throughout the country, or will they be given to some individual who has been in the licensed trade? Are these licences to be attached to a café or restaurant that will be part of the premises and will police approval be got by the Minister prior to the sanction of these licences?

One can foresee very grave abuse where there are a lot of men congregated in a very limited space unless there is pretty rigid control with regard to the management and the premises are conducted within the provisions of the licensing laws. I think considerable care should be taken that this thing will not develop into a scandal. I am not objecting to the provisions of the Bill at all; I am only anxious that this scheme will not be abused. These men are decent fellows and I am anxious that the scheme will not be loosely conducted and that these young fellows will not have excessive access to intoxicating drink at all hours by reason of the establishment of these premises in bogs.

I suggest the Minister should take great care that this scheme is tightened up as far as possible. I should like to know if the restaurant portion of the premises where the men take their food is to be a separate building, excluded from the place in the huts where the men normally live and sleep. Will the building which will be licensed lend itself to effective control by the Gárdaí so as to ensure that the provisions of the Licensing Acts will be enforced and that the young men who go there from all over the country will not have excessive opportunities of getting on the downward slope and degrading themselves by the undue consumption of intoxicating drink?

On this section, I want to bring to the notice of the Minister a matter which goes to the root of the Bill. My objection to Section 2 is that I think the Minister is interfering in the normal activities of the licensed business. I agree, as I said before on this Bill, that it is essential to provide accommodation for those men on the bogs who may be living a great distance from the nearest public house. What I do not see is why the Minister should not leave it open to the licensed trade to obtain a licence to run canteens and cater for these men. By an amendment to this section, the Minister could provide that a licence could be applied for by a publican to cater for this job in the same way as caterers meet the requirements of the attendance at race meetings or in the same way as publicans cater for canteens in military barracks. Publicans should be allowed to tender under this Bill for catering for the turf camps and I do not see why this should be the exclusive business of Bord na Móna. I take it that, under the Bill, they will have the sole supply of the liquor and the provision of the necessary facilities.

The Minister would achieve the object he has in view if Bord na Móna erected, in connection with their present canteens, suitable premises which they would hire to the publican whose tender for catering would be accepted. I ask the Minister to reconsider the matter on this section. Local publicans should be placed in the same position as that in which publicans now are in connection with the military barracks. It is their province and it should not be interfered with. No matter what may be said, this scheme will interfere in greater or lesser degree with the trade of the local publicans. We are all agreed that it is necessary to provide facilities for the workers. I am prepared to support the Minister in providing those facilities but I see no reason why this should be the exclusive right of Bord na Móna. As I have said, the business of catering for these people should be left, by way of tender, to the publicans and I appeal to the Minister to reconsider that aspect of the question.

On the Second Stage of the Bill, I took great exception to the form of the measure on the ground (1) that it set aside the entire procedure which hitherto obtained under the licensing code and (2) that it excluded in toto the jurisdiction of the courts. On that ground alone, I think that the principle of the Bill is a very bad one and one which should not receive the sanction of the House. I put it to the Minister that this problem of catering for the bog workers could have been approached in an entirely different way without violating the principles of our licensing code—in other words, by preserving the procedure which gave the right to the police, to the trade, to temperance societies and to interested persons to go into court and, if they so desired, to voice their objection to the grant of a licence. It would also enable the courts to dispose openly of matters of that kind.

I seriously suggest that the Minister should withdraw this Bill in its present form because, in essence, it is transferring to anonymous civil servants the right to grant, renew and transfer licences, all of which functions are, properly speaking, within the jurisdiction of our courts. It would have been a simple matter to prescribe procedure whereby licences could be granted in the bog areas without in any way interfering with the law relating to the grant, renewal and transfer of licences. I suggest that a simple formula could be devised by which the provisions of the 1902 Act could be related to these licences. As the Minister and the House are aware, under the 1902 Act, which is law still, no new licence can be granted unless the applicant can show that there has been an increase in the population of the district in which the licence is sought to be granted of not less than 25 per cent., as shown by the figures of the previous census. It would have been a simple matter for the Minister to bring in a Bill which, in the case of those bog licences, would presume, by reason of the presence of these men in the bogs, that that increase had taken place. In some places, where 400 or 500 men are assembled on the bogs, their presence would represent an actual increase of 25 per cent. in the population of the area but, assuming that their number does not, in fact, amount to such an increase, a formula could be devised whereby such an increase would be deemed to have taken place. If the Bill had been framed in that fashion the present procedure and the jurisdiction of the courts would have been fully preserved.

I want to impress on the Minister the desirability, even at this stage, of considering that matter. If he is prepared to accept amendments on these lines, I shall have suitable amendments provided for Report Stage. This is so serious a departure from the licensing code which at present prevails that all members of the House should sit up and think seriously of what we are doing. We are vesting in an anonymous civil servant the right to grant, renew and transfer licences without any inquiry or objection by the police and without any opportunity being given to temperance societies, interested traders or other such persons to come in and voice their opinion, if they wish to do so. Not only that but a serious principle is involved in the whole business. You are setting the State up in business in competition with the small trader in the country. The Minister and his colleagues claim to respect the principles of democracy and claim to cater for the small man. I see nothing in this Bill but an attempt to squelch the small man, the country trader, and to set up instead a monopoly, whether it be a monopoly under Bord na Móna or a monopoly under persons to be selected by the Minister independently of Bord na Móna. I would remind Deputy Moran that Bord na Móna does not appear in this Bill. The Minister says it is the intention that the camp superintendent appointed by Bord na Móna will be the licensee. If that is so, it is not set out in this Bill. In that regard I want to repeat what I have already said, that the person who is in charge of the canteen or the bog manager may be very good in his own way but may have no experience of running a licensed house or of controlling a crowd lit up with drink in a licensed house. They may be the wrong type of people for this type of work. It is essential that we should be careful in this regard because, under the provisions of this Bill, the Minister can withdraw the licence at any time from a particular individual and give it to another individual. I want to put this case to the Minister, that the type of gentleman I have in mind, who has no experience of the business, who is unable to control a crowd in a public house—and not even all experienced publicans can control a crowd in a public house—may allow things to get to such a pitch that the Minister or the board may have to step in and take the licence from him and the police may have come in on a few occasions and endorsed the licence. The Minister forthwith gets rid of this man and transfers the licence to the next man and the supervision of the licensing laws becomes a physical impossibility.

I am dead against State monopoly and against State competition with private enterprise. There is nothing in the Bill to prevent the Minister from giving the catering licences and the liquor business to either manufacturing or wholesale firms, as in the case of the Army. It is not correct to say that in the case of the Army members of the licensing trade as such, that is the retailers, get the licences.

They have them in my town.

That is not the case. As far as my information goes, the licence goes to the big fellow in the trade.

Not necessarily.

I can give a case in point. The Mountjoy Brewery definitely had the canteen business of the Army for a time. Cairns of Drogheda, through a subsidiary firm, Prestons, had also the canteen business of the Army for a time, and may have it still, for all I know. I want to put it to the Minister that it is bad business for the State to hand over a virtual monopoly of that kind to big wholesalers and to cut out the small man.

Will the Deputy realise that we are discussing Section 2?

I realise that we are discussing the grant and renewal of licences. I put it to the Minister that, instead of granting licences as he proposes to grant them, he should reconsider this whole matter and consider the retail trade as the proper trade to which licences should be granted. In the bog areas the presence of these men will create a boom. They will have wages to spend. In many of these areas there are licensed premises within reasonable distance of the bog and though the Minister may think it unreasonable to ask a man to travel a couple of miles for a drink after his day's work, very often the farmer and labourer in the country have to travel three, four or five miles for a drink after their day's work. The retailer in the area, if he wants to go into the business, should have the right to seek this licence.

I would even go further and suggest that the licence to be granted to him should be in the form of an extension of his existing licence and, if he misconducts his licence in the bog, that it should be an offence by him as a licensee under his own licence, in other words, that any irregularities that may occur in the camp will be regarded in law as irregularities in his own licensed premises and be dealt with as such by the police and by the courts. That would not be unreasonable and it would be a safeguard to the public and to all concerned.

There is another matter that I think is appropriate to this question of licence and that is the question of supplies. The Minister has not told us where the supplies are going to come from, but we do know that, by some mysterious workings of his Department, supplies can be had for the hotels under the Tourist Board and for the airports, while everybody engaged in the licensed trade is up against the proposition that he cannot get supplies except on the basis of a quota fixed years ago. If a man goes into the business in the morning and buys a licensed premises, he has to operate on the quota that obtained in the particular premises.

The Deputy is far away from Section 2 now.

I think it is pertinent to the grant of a licence. It is an extraordinary position that these supplies can be forthcoming when they are denied to the ordinary trade. I want to stress that point, because I think it is unfair to the trade and it is unfair to the community who have a livelihood out of that trade. In any event, I ask the Minister to reconsider the whole position in the light of what I say and to restrict the grant of licences to the traders in the areas. First of all, give them the preference and, failing any trader in the area willing to avail himself of the licence, then give it to any retailer, wherever he may be, who wants to take up the contract, but I want to keep out the manufacturer or the wholesaler.

I want to stress another point, that the policy envisaged in this Bill is contrary to the policy of the Minister for Justice. At the present time in many areas it is impossible for a publican to get a grant of a new licence except by cancelling an old licence. Under the 1927 Act, we had provision for the cancellation of redundant licences. Here we have a Minister of State going into the business of the licensed trade, indirectly, through Bord na Móna and setting himself up with several licences.

I want to emphasise that the whole approach to this problem is on the wrong lines. It is transferring to the bureaucracy of his Department the right to grant new licences and transfer them, a vicious principle and one that this House should not endorse. I suggest seriously to the Minister to reconsider this whole Bill in the light of what I say and to bring in a simple provision by which the District Court would be enabled to grant a certificate on the assumption that, by reason of the presence of bog workers in a particular area, there has been a 25 per cent. increase in the population. At the same time, I want to preserve the right of all persons to come in and object to the grant, renewal or transfer of the licence, as the case may be. I want to give priority in consideration to the local trade and, failing the local trade, then to any retail trader who may wish to come in. I think that is only reasonable and it would meet the objections, which are very many, to this particular measure in its present form.

The general principle has been accepted, on the Second Reading of the Bill.

Deputy Coogan has asked me to amend the Bill in the light of what he said. I cannot undertake to do that. I do not know exactly what he is seeking. There is nothing in the Bill about granting a State monopoly to civil servants in the transfer or granting of licences. This Bill is to enable Bord na Móna to run canteens at turf camps in isolated areas. That is the sole purpose of the Bill.

Why not put Bord na Móna in the Bill and let them go to the courts?

I do not know if that was the purpose of the Deputy's argument. It seems to me that the purpose was in the opposite direction. He seemed to argue in favour of giving the licence to someone other than Bord na Móna. Deputy Moran was quite frank in regard to that. The Bill does not prevent the possibility of Bord na Móna having the canteens run under contract. I would not regard it as a desirable method, nor do I think the board contemplates it. They have stated to me that they intend to run these canteens themselves, that is to say, that the camp manager will be an official of their own and hold the licence and, if he loses that position, he will lose the licence.

So long as it is the camp manager who holds the licence, ex officio, there is no property in the licence, as he holds it as an official of the board. If he loses his employment because he does not do the job properly, he loses the licence and his successor takes it on. If the camp is wound up, as all these camps will be wound up, when the bogs adjacent to them have been exhausted, the licence will be extinguished and there will be no problem in that regard.

I think it is far more desirable that the board should run these canteens themselves and manage their own staff. I am certain there will be no difficulty whatever in getting suitable people to manage the canteens and there should be no question of any private interest in the licence. The objection I see to the board operating these canteens on contract, or to the alternative suggestion of giving the licence to a private trader, is that the interest of the private trader will conflict inevitably with the interests of the board. The board is concerned merely to see that the camps are properly managed, while the private trader is mainly concerned with getting a profit out of the licence. It is inevitable that the profit motive of the trader would come into conflict with the board's management. I think the board should be in charge of the canteens and have full power of supervision over them, including the power to dismiss the manager of the canteen, who would be the holder of the licence, if it thinks such a course would be proper.

I said that the Bill has not been framed so as to exclude absolutely the possibility of the board having its catering arrangements carried out for it under contract, just as the catering arrangements at the airports are done under contract. Similar legislation to this was passed to enable restaurants, in which liquor could be sold, to be established at the airports and again I think the necessity for the departure from the principle of the Intoxicating Liquor Acts was quite sound. This is not a case in which it is necessary to go to the courts and give other trading interests, or the police or the temperance societies, an opportunity to object. It is agreed here in the Dáil that it is desirable that in these isolated camps there should be facilities for the recreation hours of the men employed in them and the necessity for having them there can be appreciated by everybody here. We do not have to go through the procedure of making a case before a district justice in order to get that necessity recognised. Everybody here recognises it.

On the Second Reading of the Bill, I said I would not be prepared to grant a licence to an official of the board for the sale of liquor at the board's canteen where the camp operated by the board was within a reasonable distance of suitable licensed premises operated by private traders. Deputy Coogan has quoted me as objecting to workmen travelling a couple of miles for a drink after their day's work. What I said was that I would regard it as undesirable if they had to travel more than a couple of miles for a drink after their day's work. Certainly, in my view, if there were suitable licensed premises within a radius of two miles from the camp, there would be no necessity to grant them a licence under this Bill and no licence would be granted; but where, as will be the case in the majority of instances, the camp is in an isolated area where there is no licensed premises within a reasonable radius from the camp, then it would be unfair to the workers employed there if they could not get a drink at the end of the day without travelling many miles for it.

If it is agreed that in these isolated camps there should be some canteen facilities, it seems to me to follow automatically that there should be agreement that those facilities should be provided by the camp managers and supervised by them, that there should be no private property in the licence to sell drink, that the licence may be withdrawn at any time from the person to whom it was given, if he ceases to be an official of the organisation and also can be withdrawn if and when the camp is closed up, so that there would be no continuing ownership interest concerned. That is the sole purpose of the Bill and the sole purpose of this section. There is nothing in the Bill which is in conflict with the principles contained in the Intoxicating Liquor Acts, and nothing for which there is not a precedent. I mentioned the precedent of the legislation which empowered the granting of licences in connection with airports. The exemption in the Intoxicating Liquor Act for canteens run in connection with Army barracks is also a precedent. I would not at all agree—in fact, I would strongly disagree—that it is preferable that these canteens in turf camps should be run by private traders for their own profit. I think it is infinitely preferable that they should be run by the board.

I entirely agree with the Minister and disagree with Deputy Coogan on this question of the necessity to bring this matter before the courts. The tests laid down for the courts under the licensing laws are mainly, first, the character and suitability of the applicant, and secondly, the suitability of the premises. This would not arise in these cases, as they are new premises and, at all events, 98 per cent. of the applicants who apply are in the main suitable and would not fail on those grounds. I do not see why the Minister would not leave the position, in connection with these camps, the same as it was in the case of the Army. In the latter case it was open to the licensed trade to tender for the running of these establishments. It is admitted, of course, that the provisions of the licensing Acts will apply to licences granted under this Bill. The Minister has yet to convince me that some manager appointed by Bord na Móna knows more about the licensing business than a member of the licensed trade. The Minister makes a point about the question of profits. Where are the profits made by the managers under this particular Bill to go? Will they not accrue to the benefit of Bord na Móna? Surely profits will be made, and, if so, why should they go to Bord na Móna rather than to an ordinary member of the licensed trade? Under the Bill, the Minister can put in any safeguard that he sees fit with regard to the conduct of the camp or the running of this business. There is nothing to prevent him from doing that.

I would like to remind the Minister of this: that every year the publicans in this country have to go to the courts for a renewal of their licences, and before getting that renewal they have to satisfy the court that they have been running their businesses in a proper manner—that they have complied with the law. In addition, a publican has to prove to the court, by a certificate signed by, I think, eight of his neighbours, that he is conducting his business in a proper manner. Otherwise, his licence will not be renewed.

Therefore, there is that check on every member of the retail licensed trade—that his licence has to be renewed each year by the court. If the Minister leaves it open under this Bill to members of the retail licensed trade to tender for the running of these camps, they will, of course, have to comply with the existing law, and will have to make application each year to the court for a renewal of the licences. All that I am asking the Minister to do is to reconsider this matter. I am putting it quite frankly to him that I believe in publicans being allowed to carry on their business, just as I believe in lawyers and doctors being allowed to carry out their professional duties. I think that the proper people to carry on a licensing business are members of the retail licensed trade. I would be satisfied if the Minister would now indicate that it will be open to any member of the licensed trade under this Bill—and if the Minister would recommend that to Bord na Móna—to tender for the catering at these particular camps. If the Minister does that, I am quite sure that the members of the licensed trade will conduct these canteens as efficiently as they conducted the Army canteens during the emergency. I had experience of that in my own town where different local publicans tendered for the catering for Army canteens. That was the position with regard to the canteens in Castlebar. I never heard any suggestion that there were any abuses or that those licensed traders did not do their job well. I would ask the Minister to leave the publicans' business to the publicans. I think that he should recommend to the board to allow the arrangement that existed in the case of the Army canteens, an arrangement that was proved to be quite satisfactory, to be carried out under this Bill.

I do not think the Minister has made any case at all for a departure from the normal procedure so far as the issue of licences by the court is concerned. The proposal in the Bill represents a complete departure from the present licensing code. I think it is highly dangerous that the Minister should take on himself responsibility for the issue of these licences. The Minister informed the House that it is contemplated that the board will provide and run the canteens themselves. It is also mentioned —and that is the reason why the board is not mentioned in the Bill—that they can have this service operated by contract. The Minister can then pick the man to run the service, and that is where the objection comes in. I think this is an extraordinary procedure, but the Minister is consistent in regard to it—that this is a State company and is, therefore, entitled to special facilities. This corporation is being put in an altogether different position from that of the ordinary civilian. I think the Minister is unwise to do that.

The Minister appears to think that there is a case for a service of this kind on the bogs, but surely the place to make that case is in open court. If there are people opposed to it, give them the opportunity of going into court and stating their opposition there. The place in which to satisfy the public that a service of this sort is necessary is in open court. Why should the decision be made behind closed doors in the Minister's Department, that a service of this sort is necessary? Surely that is a matter for the court to investigate, whether the provision of this service—and how it is going to be operated—is going to be conducive to public order and decency. That is a consideration that arises, and is one that ought to be decided in open court. It is not the Minister's job to decide it. I think that in departing from the normal procedure the Minister is making an unwise decision. He would be wise to reconsider the matter. As regards the issue of licences by the Minister, I put it to him that, in his own interest, it is unwise for him to do that. It is unwise, from the personal point of view, for him to accept that position. The responsibility for that decision ought to be put where it rightly belongs, and that is on the courts. If the matter is decided in open court, then the local clergy can come in there, people interested in temperance and other interests can come in and can give expression to their views. Let the justice then decide whether it is wise and proper, and in the interests of public order and decency, to have this service provided. Let him satisfy himself that the service is going to be properly conducted, and that there is no political wire-pulling or anything else. The Minister has attempted to make no case for reserving for himself the right to issue these licences. It is an irritating procedure to single out a State corporation and put it in a very privileged position, with advantages over and above those enjoyed by the ordinary citizen. If it be felt that it is necessary, in a case where men are working very hard, to have a service of this sort—a refreshment bar —then I repeat that case should be made in open court. I ask the Minister, for God's sake, not to reserve this function to himself, that it is an unwise decision and that he should reconsider the matter.

I think that the Minister gave his whole case away when he said that the board per se may appoint one of its own officers to conduct the business, or, alternatively, that it may sub-let by contract to outsiders. At first I did not think that the question of patronage did arise under this Bill, but I see clearly now that it does, and that it is the Minister's intention through his instrument, Bord na Móna, to grant licences to his own particular nominees whether these be monopolists, wholesalers or manufacturers, but they cannot be retailers.

Who says that?

In essence, that is what the Minister has said, that the board may appoint either its own officers to be the licensees, or give this out by contract.

I said it was my intention to advise the board to use the powers given to me under this Bill to ensure that the board would manage these canteens themselves.

By contract?

Not by contract. If I understand Deputies opposite, what they are urging me to do is to have this catering business let out by contract to private traders. Is not that what they are urging? I am arguing against it. Deputy Moran wants that.

I will put the matter clearly to the Minister. What I want is this: I want the retail trade to have the right to this business.

By contract?

No, I did not say by contract. I said, and I want to come to that point, that the Minister can by a certain formula enable the retail trade to take up this business.

What business?

The business of providing liquor for bog workers.

Running canteens in the turf camps.

Certainly. Outsiders— the Mountjoy Brewery, Cairns, Prestons and other firms whose names I have forgotten—do the same in Army canteens. Deputy Moran has given an instance where a local retailer carried on the Army canteen at Castlebar.

That is not the point that Deputy Hughes put.

I am entitled to put my own point of view.

I think the Deputy's point of view agreed with my own.

The Minister is afraid to do this. He is afraid to take this course because it would lead to the creation of property in a licence. Again I say "No". I put the point—and I think I made myself clear—that in granting a licence to a local retail trader, the licence could be granted by way of an extension of his existing licence with all the obligations and penalties of that licence; in other words, that the local trader could have his licence extended to take the canteen for the period of the bog work. It would cease automatically with the ending of the operations in the bog. Surely it is not beyond the resources of the Parliamentary draftsman to give us a formula that would do that. I also ask him to consider doing that by a formula which would presume that a 25 per cent. increase in population had taken place. Of course, the Minister does not know anything about the licensing laws.

In most of these areas, there would be a 100 per cent. increase.

The Minister's own words were that a two-mile radius would represent a suitable area. Again I hold that a two-mile radius is a very narrow limitation and that, in fact, there are many districts in the country where the nearest licensed premises to a farm worker would be four or five miles away. There is the consideration I put to the Minister before of police supervision. That is a very serious consideration because, if the Minister reads his paper, he will have seen where the Guards were chased out of a public house in Robertstown by bog workers some time ago. If you set up a "pub." in every camp I should certainly not like to be the Guard who would go in there and try to enforce the licensing laws. These things will have to be seriously considered. I hold the Minister has a better safeguard in giving a licence to the man who is always under the supervision of the Guards, whose licence will be merely an extension of his existing licence and who will have to face the problem that if he offends in the bog camp against the laws, an endorsement automatically follows on his licence at home. That is a considerable safeguard. You have not that safeguard under this Bill because the Minister can, in actual fact, under the Bill, once an undesirable person gets charge of a canteen and is not able to control the crowd, take the licence from him and give it to another person and in that way defeat the provisions of the law.

I do not follow that.

The Minister does not because he does not know anything about the licensing laws.

May I say that these are residential camps in which the workers will spend most of their off-time? The board will be operating in these camp dining-halls, places where workers will get meals and it is intended to provide that, in a canteen attached to these dining-halls, beer may be sold and a licence issued under this Bill if there are no suitable licensed premises within a reasonable distance from the bog. I do not think Deputies fully understand that we are not proposing to operate a public house. We are proposing to enable Bord na Móna to sell in these dining-halls, where the workers will be fed, beer to such workers as may require it.

Only to workers?

Only to workers.

There is nothing to prevent outsiders coming in?

If you give a licence to some trader to conduct a public house within the vicinity of a bog camp, you cannot have the supervision by the police over that public house that the board can exercise over its own canteen. The Deputy talked about Guards being chased out of public houses but there is a far more effective method open to the board of ensuring proper behaviour in its canteens than supervision by the Guards. That is the dismissal from the employment of the board of any person who breaks the regulations made by the board for the conduct of these canteens. The board will have to conduct the premises in accordance with the licensing laws. It will make its own regulations in providing these amenities for its own employees. Its own official will be in charge and if he does not carry out the regulations he can be dismissed and another person appointed who will carry them out. If any person is guilty of a breach of regulations he can be dismissed from the board's employment. That is a far better system than handling over the canteen to some private person to conduct it for his own profit.

I am asked about profits. The board does not work these camps for the purpose of making a profit out of the sale of beer. If the board does make a profit, that profit will, presumably, be devoted to the purpose of increasing the amenities available or towards the reduction of the cost of meals. The board will be mainly concerned to see that it does not lose on its catering business which it runs for the benefit of its employees. It is not at all unlikely that there will be some profit from the sale of drink which will be available for use by the board in improving the amenities available for the workers and reducing the cost of other services provided for them. I am quite certain that if I introduced a Bill designed to facilitate the giving of a licence to private persons to trade for profit in the sale of beer in these camps, I would meet with far greater opposition than I am meeting here to-day. It would be urged that the operation of these canteens should be under the management of the board itself. No sensible person visualising the problem which is involved here, would consider any other solution. We are talking about camps in isolated areas, places where the incursion of workers will mean not merely an increase of 25 per cent. in population but the bringing in of 300 or 400 men to an area where nobody lived before. It is extremely improbable that there will be, within any reasonable radius, licensed premises capable of catering for that number of workers. If they are to get facilities and get them under proper supervision, then it is far better that they should get them through the medium of the camp canteen and under the supervision of the board. What we are arguing about is not the provision in the Bill, which would require no amendment to give effect to Deputy Coogan's suggestion. We are arguing about the manner in which I have indicated it is the intention to use the powers conferred by the Bill.

We are arguing about the issue of the licence.

So far as the issue of the licence is concerned, I understood from the Second Reading debate that there was general agreement that it was reasonable to provide canteen facilities in these isolated bog camps. If there is that agreement, why not just go ahead and do it? We are as competent to judge the need for the giving of these facilities in isolated bog camps as the district justice for the area. We all recognise that it is reasonable to do it and that, in the long run, there will be much less trouble in the management of the workers employed if these facilities are provided than if they are denied to them and they have to go four or five miles to a neighbouring town, after work or during the weekend, for the purpose of getting a drink.

The facilities for hearing objections are not the same.

I want to urge one further point, and it is an important point. If the licence is given in accordance with this procedure, there is not and cannot be at any time a personal interest in it. It will be given to the board's officers ex officio. They will hold that licence as officers of the board and will lose it when they cease to be officers, or cease to have the particular responsibility for camp management in any individual case. There can be no question of personal interest in a licence. There can be no question of efforts by individuals to retain a licence which might be withdrawn from them. It will be clearly recognised that the camp manager, the camp superintendent or canteen manager will hold the licence ex officio, as trustee for the board, knowing that the licence will be taken from him if he fails to carry out the regulations of the board and, at any rate, must surrender it when he ceases to hold office in the board's service. I think that is a far better system of managing this business than any other suggested and I should be very reluctant to depart from it.

Question put.
The Committee divided: Tá, 66; Níl, 20.

  • Aiken, Frank.
  • Allen, Denis.
  • Anthony, Richard S.
  • Beirne, John.
  • Blaney, Neal.
  • Boland, Gerald.
  • Bourke, Dan.
  • Brady, Seán.
  • Breathnach, Cormac.
  • Brennan, Thomas.
  • Breslin, Cormac.
  • Briscoe, Robert.
  • Buckley, Seán.
  • Burke, Patrick (County Dublin).
  • Butler, Bernard.
  • Carter, Thomas.
  • Childers, Erskine H.
  • Colley, Harry.
  • Commons, Bernard.
  • Corry, Martin J.
  • Crowley, Honor Mary.
  • Davin, William.
  • Derrig, Thomas.
  • De Valera, Eamon.
  • Donnellan, Michael.
  • Flynn, Stephen.
  • Fogarty, Patrick J.
  • Furlong, Walter.
  • O'Sullivan, Ted.
  • Pattison, James P.
  • Rice, Bridget M.
  • Ruttledge, Patrick J.
  • Ryan, James.
  • Halliden, Patrick J.
  • Harris, Thomas.
  • Heskin, Denis.
  • Humphreys, Francis.
  • Kennedy, Michael J.
  • Killilea, Mark.
  • Kilroy, James.
  • Kissane, Eamon.
  • Larkin, James (Junior).
  • Lemass, Seán F.
  • Little, Patrick J.
  • Loughman, Frank.
  • Lydon, Michael F.
  • Lynch, James B.
  • McCann, John.
  • McCarthy, Seán.
  • McEllistrim, Thomas.
  • Moran, Michael.
  • Morrissey, Michael.
  • Moylan, Seán.
  • Murphy, Timothy J.
  • Norton, William.
  • O Briain, Donnchadh.
  • O'Connor, John S.
  • O'Grady, Seán.
  • O'Loghlen, Peter J.
  • O'Reilly, Matthew.
  • O'Sullivan, Martin.
  • Sheridan, Michael.
  • Smith, Patrick.
  • Traynor, Oscar.
  • Walsh, Laurence.
  • Walsh, Richard.

Níl

  • Bennett, George C.
  • Browne, Patrick.
  • Coogan, Eamonn.
  • Costello, John A.
  • Dillon, James M.
  • Dockrell, Henry M.
  • Dockrell, Maurice E.
  • Flanagan, Oliver J.
  • Giles, Patrick.
  • Hughes, James.
  • Keating, John.
  • McFadden, Michael Og.
  • McMenamin, Daniel.
  • Mulcahy, Richard.
  • O'Higgins, Thomas F.
  • O'Reilly, Thomas.
  • Reidy, James.
  • Reynolds, Mary.
  • Roddy, Martin.
  • Sheldon, William A.W.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies Kissane and Kennedy; Níl, Deputies Bennett and Browne.
Question declared carried.
SECTION 3.
Question proposed: "That Section 3 stand part of the Bill."

I do not want to repeat what I have said already, but I want again to point out to the Minister that under the section it is possible for him to transfer the licence for any reason. As I have already stated, that may mean that the licensee is unable to supervise the business and gets himself into trouble with the local guards and the Minister gets rid of him forthwith and takes on a new licensee. I say that is not calculated to bring about an effective enforcement of the licensing laws.

I do not think there is anything more effective. I cannot follow the Deputy.

In this way, that all the Minister has to do is to get rid of his man. If a retailer were in the business, the licence which he would have in the canteen would be an extension of his ordinary licence. He would have to face the problem of endorsements of his ordinary licence— an entirely different position. For that very reason he would ensure that the canteen business was at least as effectively supervised and as well conducted as his ordinary business. That is what I have been trying to convey to the Minister.

For any private trader, perhaps selling in competition with other traders, the eventual punishment for non-compliance with the law is that he loses his licence. That is a solution that cannot be applied here.

That is a very extreme case—where he loses his licence.

The ultimate punishment for deliberate defiance of the law is that he goes out of business. He loses his licence to continue in that trade. That solution does not apply if we are to have a canteen. We want to have a canteen and to provide these facilities. Therefore, the remedy for mismanagement or lack of proper supervision in the conduct of the canteen must be the replacement of the manager. It cannot be a withdrawal of the licence, because we want the licence to continue. It must be a transfer of that licence from the person appointed to do the job and who fails to do it properly to some other person who will do it better. In practice, the obligation of appointing persons who are competent to do this work will be on Bord na Móna. If the person they appoint does not do the job, they just dismiss him and appoint someone else, so that the goodwill of the original licensee will be automatically transferred. As regards these words, "for any other reason", obviously there can be no profit in the licence. I am sure the House will agree that the person who gets the licence will have no profit in it. It is merely for facilitating the workers. It can in no sense represent an asset of his which he can transfer for a consideration to another person.

Under the section, will there be a particular type of licence created by this Bill? I should like if the Minister would make it clear whether the premises and the licensee proposed under the Bill will be under the same rigorous inspection, whether it will be open to the Gárda Síochána to take the same measures by way of inspection and enforcement of the licensing laws as in the case of the publicans. I take it that under the section a particular type of licence will be granted, and will be excluded under one of the sections from some of the provisions, at all events, of the ordinary Licensing Acts. Does that imply in any way that the licensee of these proposed premises or the premises themselves will be excluded from the ordinary licensing laws in respect of hours, supervision, etc.?

That will be on Section 4.

Not altogether. The only respects in which the licence is different from other licences are that it is granted by the Revenue Commissioners on the Minister's certificate, notwithstanding the provisions of the Licensing Acts, and Section 4 excludes that licence from the scope of Part IV of the Intoxicating Liquor Act, 1927, which relates to the extension of licences. It is obvious that that part should not apply in this case. These are the only two respects in which the licence granted under this Bill will differ from a licence issued under the Intoxicating Liquor Acts.

As to the question of property in a licence, I again want to urge this point with the Minister. The licence I had in mind would be granted to X, an existing licensee, by way of extension of his existing licence and its duration would be limited to the period of the operations upon the bog; in other words, when the bog operations would cease, he would revert to the ordinary licence for his existing premises. There can be no question of creating in himself or his family property in the bog licence.

The section is much wider in other respects. It sets aside the jurisdiction of the courts in the matter of extension of licence to other premises, in the matter of structural alteration or even in the matter of destroyed premises. All these matters are at present the subject of court proceedings in the ordinary way and the licensee has to satisfy the police authorities and the court of the reasonableness of the alterations and, in the case of destroyed premises or adjoining premises, he has to make his case before the court.

Here you have the position created where all these safeguards are set aside and the Minister's will obtains. The Minister cannot possibly be expected to be familiar with the measurements and the accommodation of every camp canteen. He cannot be expected to be familiar with the necessity for structural alterations, and I submit that you are giving there a power to an anonymous civil servant to advise the Minister on matters which should properly be thrashed out in open court.

How does the district justice get that information—by inspection of the premises?

There is inspection of the premises by the Superintendent of the Gárda or by one of his subordinates. The applicant has to go to court and make his case. The police are there to say whether or not the alterations proposed will render more easy or more difficult, as the case may be, the supervision of the premises. These, are the proper authorities to ensure that no camp commandant could set up a secret den where he and his pals could evade the licensing laws. That could conceivably happen.

It happens outside turf camps.

It might not be a very serious matter, but I can see cases arising where the Guards will be put to the pin of their collars to supervise. These things go to the whole root of the present procedure. The principle of setting aside the entire procedure, the safeguards given to the public in these matters and the jurisdiction of the courts, is a very vicious principle and one which we on this side of the House cannot endorse because we have no guarantee that in the course of time the Minister's colleague, the Minister for Justice, may not see fit to wipe out the present procedure and jurisdiction and apply this procedure all round. We have had evidence of State interference and I submit that this is further evidence of the State mind, the Civil Service mind. It is quite clear that this is the mentality behind the Bill—"Away with the police, away with the existing procedure, we will do what we like and not only will we do these things but we will do what we wish with the profits." There is nothing in this Bill to prevent any of these things that I have indicated being done. It is giving carte blanche to the Minister's Department to play ducks and drakes with the licensing laws—that is what it amounts to.

I, from my police experience, see grave objection to putting the Gárda authorities on one side, as is proposed in this Bill. Whether the Minister or Bord na Móna may like it or not, it is essential that the police should be given effective supervision of these camps.

If you are to begin this business by setting aside all existing law and procedure, what is the inference to be drawn by the ordinary Guard? He will say: "This is the Bord na Móna republic; we had better let them do what they like there. We dare not go in because, if we do, we will be reported to the Minister. If we attempt to exercise the licensing laws, what chance have we of succeeding?" I can see that position being created. I can see a camp commandant who will regard himself as above and outside the law, resisting any supervision by the Guards. I can see an impossible situation arising, perhaps at a great distance from the Gárda barracks.

These are aspects of the matter which I mentioned on Second Reading and on the previous section and I do not want to cover that ground again. I merely want to emphasise that a simple Bill which would enable the District Court to presume a 25 per cent. increase in population would have been sufficient to give the Minister and the Department all the power they need. There would be no delay. If it is a question of urgency it could be claimed that the District Court would be empowered to hear this application at any ordinary hearing. In the matter of transfers and renewals, that also could obtain. On the question of delay, nothing untoward need arise as far as the administration of the camp or the Minister's Department is concerned. I cannot see why that could not be done and I again urge the Minister to reconsider the Bill between now and the Report Stage.

The Deputy is making a Second Reading speech.

We had not an opportunity of considering these matters before. I think the full implications of this measure were not realised on the Second Reading. I did realise some of them, but I have observed grave objections since and I ask the Minister to reconsider the whole matter. I intend to put down amendments for the Report Stage and I hope they will be favourably considered by the Minister.

I am still rather confused about the control of these premises.

Section 3 deals with the transfer and variation of licences in respect of premises in a bog.

I am about to deal with the transfer and variation of licences. The Minister told us that the licence would be issued in order to provide for the turf workers, and he said that all the existing liquor laws apply, with the exception of one or two to which he referred. If that is so, I presume the hours of opening and closing will apply. If the existing laws apply, how are the general public to be excluded? Is it desirable that the general public should be permitted to enter the premises? If the general public have access to the premises, can the board exercise the control that the Minister suggests, by the dismissal of an employee in the event of any disturbance?

The board will control admission to the camps. These canteens will be in the camps.

What will the hours be?

The ordinary licensing hours will be observed—possibly, more restricted hours.

Does the Minister suggest that the public will have admission to the camp?

I said on the last day that I could not lay down as a hard and fast rule that only persons employed in a particular camp would be served in the canteen of that camp. Circumstances might arise in which officers of the board from headquarters or from other camps would be visiting the camp and, perhaps, bringing with them people to advise on various aspects of the work there. They could not reasonably be excluded from the facilities of the canteen but the intention would be to confine the service in the canteen to workers employed at the bog and resident at the camp or persons who were in the camp on the board's business, or, with the board's knowledge, for some purpose connected with their business.

This section deals with the transfer of licences in respect of premises on the bogs. What would the position be if work on the bog closed down—if the bog were exhausted?

The licence would be extinguished.

Mr. Dockrell

I do not see any specific reference to that in the section.

That is correct. As I explained, the licence will be held by the official of the board in charge of the camp at the absolute discretion of the Minister. The Minister may transfer it or cancel it at any time and it is that fact which ensures that there will be no vested interest in the licence on the part of the licensee. He cannot transfer it or secure a property in it and that is the way of dealing with the matter at which we should aim. These camps will be only of limited life, because the men will be working a wasting asset. The job may involve 15 or 20 years' work but, at some stage, the bog will be exhausted and the camp will be closed. The staff of the camp may, perhaps, be transferred to another camp. At that stage, the licence will be withdrawn and the canteen will be closed.

Mr. Dockrell

What proof have we here that the licence will be withdrawn? We have discussed the question of vested interest in the licence. Perhaps the officials of Bord na Móna will have got a vested interest in this licence and is there any danger that that licence may go floating around the country?

This is a licence for bog premises; it is not a general licence to sell liquor. "Bog premises" are defined in sub-section (1).

Mr. Dockrell

On bog premises and nowhere else?

Nowhere else.

Do I take it that exceptional hours will be granted to the licensee in the bog?

No. The ordinary licensing hours will be observed.

I thought you said a moment ago that exceptional hours would be allowed. Suppose that some officials come there on Sunday or after hours——

——after hours—no.

What about Sunday? Will the ordinary licensing hours apply to the canteen on Sunday? The Minister indicates that they will. The sale of drink in a canteen could be abused because of its being a canteen and there may be another licensee in the locality——

If there is another licensee in the locality with suitable premises, this licence will not be granted. I want to emphasise the question of the suitability of the premises. I ask Deputies to visualise what we are talking about. We are talking about bog camps established in isolated areas where there is no human residence, not to speak of a licensed premises or of a town. Even if there were a licensed premises within some miles of that bog, the proprietor of it would be completely incapable of providing the service which workers in the camp would reasonably require. If there are within a radius of two miles of the camp suitable licensed premises, I would not regard it as desirable that a licence should be issued. In the case of some existing camps, licences would not be granted. Those are camps on the outskirts or within easy distance of large towns. Members of the House will know, from the list given in the White Paper, of the bogs to be developed. Some of them are many miles from any town and workers should be provided with reasonable facilities for entertainment.

Who will decide the suitability of the premises?

The Minister, and he will have available, at least, as much information as the district justice would have. He is given complete discretion.

I am referring to the suitability of premises outside the bog —local traders' premises?

Again, the Minister would have to decide that.

Does the Minister still adhere to the two-mile radius?

I expressed that as a personal opinion. I should say that the existence of suitable premises within a two-mile radius would be an overriding consideration, justifying the Minister in refusing an application for a licence under this Bill. If there were suitable premises within two and a half miles, he might also refuse the application but, if there were no suitable premises within three or four miles he would, probably, feel bound to grant the licence. These camps will be of different sizes. There might be a camp containing only 50 workers whose requirements could be catered for by a particular type of premises, whereas a camp of 500 workers would be inadequately catered for by the same premises. Again, the element of discretion would have to be exercised.

Would the Minister consider writing into the Bill some of the good intentions he has expressed?

I do not think it is possible to do so. The Minister is answerable to the Dáil and his action in this connection can be raised here. That is a better safeguard than putting in the Bill words which would tie up the whole business in red tape.

The Minister referred to the authorising of an officer to hold the licence.

The intention is that an officer of the board will get the licence.

If that is so, the board passes out of the scene.

They will be employing the officer and can dismiss him if he does not carry out their regulations.

If the licence is issued to an official, the board will pass out of the picture. The person responsible for the conduct of a licensed premises is the licensee. The board will not be responsible for any offence committed.

The licensee will be responsible to the board as their employee.

He will not be responsible as licensee of the premises.

He will get the sack if he does not do as he is told.

As licensee, he is responsible to the law and not the board. The Minister had better get this matter cleared up. I thought that he proposed to issue the licence to the board and that they would put in an officer as manager. But if the officer gets the licence, then he alone will be responsible to the law. There is no use in the House "codding" itself in this connection. The licensee is the only person responsible for the observance of the law. We have not got the remedy which we thought we had—of bringing this matter before the House—because it is the actions of the board and not of an officer which could be brought before the House. It is the board that could be brought before this House, not an officer of the board.

As long as the Minister has power to withdraw that licence the matter, surely, can be raised here.

There is one matter in respect of which I have a difficulty. The Minister says this licence will be subject to the ordinary provisions of the licensing laws but I cannot see where that is provided unless it is by implication in Section 4, which excludes certain parts of the 1927 Act. I would again point out to the Minister that this particular type of licence is a completely artificial creature of this Bill, that there are special definitions of bog premises, licensed bog premises, and so forth under this Bill and that these definitions do not relate to the definitions in the licensing code now in existence. There is nothing that I can see in this Bill, no matter what the Minister says, which suggests that these premises would be subject to the ordinary provisions of the licensing laws except, by implication, Section 4. I think the Minister should consider that matter.

Surely it is the other way around. There is nothing in the Bill which says they are not.

I say that there is. This is a special type of licence being granted for bog premises under this particular Bill that could never be granted before the passage of this Bill and which has no relation to the definitions in the licensing laws. It is completely outside every particular section of it.

The sole purpose of the Bill is to provide that when the Minister gives a certificate the Revenue Commissioners will grant the licence notwithstanding the provisions of the licensing laws which would otherwise preclude them from doing it.

If the Minister is satisfied, well and good, but I wish to point out to the Minister that from my reading of this Bill it does not appear to me that it is made clear that the ordinary licensing laws do apply and I am warning the Minister that, if it should so turn out, what the Minister has in mind will completely break down because there are no penalties provided under this measure. If a manager of a turf camp, being an employee of Bord na Móna, breaks the law, under this Bill there are no penalties provided for his breach of the law. How is his breach to be proved? It certainly is not at all clear to me under this particular section or under the Bill that the ordinary licensing law will in fact apply to the new type of special licences that are going to be granted by the House under this Bill.

I do not think there is any doubt about it. The mere definition in Section 5 is ample to demonstrate that.

I agree with Deputy Moran. I agree with the Minister that in the ordinary way restrictions such as the prohibited hours and other restrictions of that kind apply but, when it comes to renewing a licence, if the Minister grants a certificate, the Revenue Commissioners may then, notwithstanding anything contained in any licensing Act, renew the licence.

That is right.

So that you can get this position, that even though the camp commandant has conducted his business in a most unsatisfactory manner and has rendered himself liable to umpteen endorsements and is generally loose in the enforcement of the licensing laws, if the Minister, even in these circumstances, issues a certificate, then the Revenue Commissioners must comply.

That is true, but it is far more likely to work the other way, in the sense that if the manager fails to manage the business properly, even in some respect that does not mean a contravention of the law, he still may lose his licence on losing his job with the Turf Board.

The Minister has said the camp commandant would be regulated by regulations in the exercise of his functions. There is nowhere in the Bill, I submit, anything by which the Minister may prescribe regulations.

No. It is the board. The board will be concerned with the management of the camps and they will have to see they are properly managed.

The licensee could to a great extent defy even the board's regulations so long as he kept within the law.

He could. He is the licensee in law.

He can lose his licence in a day if he fails to carry out the regulations.

He could, of course, I know, but he could still evade the law and perhaps hoodwink both the board and the Minister.

That is true—and the Guards.

And everybody for that matter.

Question put and declared carried.
Section 4 agreed to.
SECTION 5.
Question proposed: "That Section 5 stand part of the Bill."

I think sub-section (2) of this section should clear up any doubt in Deputy Moran's mind that the general provisions of the Licensing Act will apply to a licence granted under this Bill.

But despite those provisions, the renewal of the licence can be granted.

Yes. The only respect in which there is a departure from the general provisions of the Licensing Acts is in regard to the grant of the licence or the renewal of the licence.

Supposing there are proceedings and the licence is endorsed and supposing the board disagrees with the findings of the court and is of opinion that the manager has done his best to conduct the premises properly, does it mean that the licence has to be withdrawn when the unfortunate fellow loses his job?

Oh, no. The licence has not to be withdrawn but I take it that if a licensee is fined in a court for committing some breach of the Licensing Acts the Minister would be under an obligation to request from the board their observations on the incident and to consider whether the licence should not be transferred from the particular individual to some other person in the board's service. There will be two minds at least working upon the question of the suitability of continuing the licence in the person who had been responsible for lack of supervision, both the mind of the board and the mind of the Minister for Industry and Commerce.

The Minister appreciates that there is that difficulty that I see there, that the court has not the same jurisdiction.

The court has not jurisdiction to cancel the licence. The Minister cancels the licence.

That is the trouble.

That is really intended to work the other way, to involve the licensee in much more severe supervision than the courts will exercise because, conceivably, the board may impose much more restrictive regulations upon its own managers in respect of these canteens than the general law imposes on the ordinary publican and the manager might break these regulations and lose his employment with the board even in circumstances where there would be no breach of the law.

Could they make regulations that are not prescribed by the licensing laws?

They could certainly, in regard to their own canteens and their own premises.

If the ordinary licensing laws apply cannot an individual citizen insist on his rights to get a service that he is entitled to under the law.

I do not think he can insist on doing that.

It is very easy to get into a bog.

This is not merely a public house. This is a catering undertaking provided by the board for its own staff, providing all kinds of meals.

I appreciate that, but I think there is a certain amount of conflict there.

I take it the board can always refuse to serve a meal.

Question put and agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported without amendment.
Report Stage fixed for Wednesday, 13th November, 1946.
Top
Share