Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 11 Nov 1953

Vol. 142 No. 12

Intoxicating Liquor Bill, 1953—Second Stage.

Minister for Justice (Mr. Boland)

I move that the Bill be now read a Second Time. This is a Bill for two specific purposes. The first is the granting of a licence for the Central Bus Station in Áras Mhic Dhiarmada; the second is the preservation of licences attached to premises which are demolished by local authorities in connection with housing schemes, the widening of streets and so on.

The first part of the Bill—up to and including Section 5—relates to Áras Mhic Dhiarmada. It provides that a licence for the bus station there may be given by the Revenue Commissioners to C.I.E. on production of a certificate from the Minister for Industry and Commerce. The purpose of the certificate is to enable the Minister to prescribe the portion of the bus station to be licensed; the Minister will also be empowered to grant, from time to time as circumstances may require, an amended certificate allowing the extension or transfer of the licence to another portion of the premises.

I do not think it is necessary for me to say much about the desirability of a licence for the Central Bus Station: large numbers of people may be waiting there before the arrival or departure of buses, and it is evident that the amenity of a licence is necessary, just as it is at a major railway station or at an airport. The licence will be in the name of C.I.E. The law relating to hours of closing and so on will apply to the premises.

The object of the second part of the Bill is to solve a problem which has for some time hindered local authorities in their housing and town planning schemes and is causing difficulties in Limerick City at present. Under the existing law, a perfectly sound public-house may have to be demolished by a local authority in the course of their housing or town planning operations and when that is done the licence lapses and cannot be renewed. This is undesirable in two respects. Firstly, the publican is permanently put out of business and, as some of those affectedhave pointed out, a lump sum in compensation, however fairly assessed, may often be inadequate recompense for the loss suffered by a person who, perhaps late in life, after spending years in the trade and acquiring a specialised knowledge of it, may have to start another type of business in which he has no experience. Secondly, the law is unfair to local authorities who have to pay heavy compensation for licences which have a certain monopoly value and which, because of a defect or omission in the law, are lost when the premises are demolished. If a public-house is burned down or otherwise accidentally destroyed, there is provision in law for the granting of a new licence. There is no reason in equity why a licence should have to lapse simply because the premises have to be demolished to comply with the development plans of a local authority. The Bill, therefore, provides that in such a case the licence may be attached to new premises on a site acquired by the local authority. If the new premises are on the same site as the old premises, or as near to it as in the opinion of the court makes no difference to other publicans in the neighbourhood, objections from other publicans will not be admitted.

A case in point would be where the public-house would be moved back a few yards to allow for the widening of a street. Where, however, there is a change in the location of the site and the change could adversely affect other publicans, a special right of objection, more favourable to the other publicans than that given under existing law, is given in the Bill. The normal ground of objection is the number of previously licensed houses in the neighbourhood or, in other words, the adequacy of existing facilities: thus if there is only one public-house in the neighbourhood and it can cater for only 80 per cent. of the trade in the area, the ordinary ground of objection would almost certainly be overruled even though the new public-house, perhaps a more modern structure with better fittings, might take a great deal of the trade from the existing one. The Bill is designed to prevent that happeningin the case of licences granted under its provisions. The test it provides is whether the licensing of the new premises would be "unreasonably detrimental" to the business carried on in other public-houses. Thus, even though existing facilities may not be fully adequate, the licence may be refused if the new premises would take an appreciable amount of trade from other public-houses in the neighbourhood. This provision is, therefore, heavily weighted in favour of existing publicans, but I consider that it is better to have it that way than to run the risk of unfairly interfering with existing equities.

The Bill provides that the court may authorise the granting of the new licence only to the holder of a certificate from the local authority declaring that the old premises have been or are to be demolished by them or on their direction and that the site of the new premises has been acquired by them as a site for licensed premises in substitution for the old premises. It provides that the person with the greatest interest in the old licence—in the ordinary case that person would be the person who holds or held that licence—must get first option, but if he does not want the certificate it may be given to somebody else. If it were in fact being given to somebody else, it would, of course, normally be given to the highest bidder for the lease of the approved site or premises.

The Bill has provisions on the same lines as the provisions relating to hotels in the Tourist Traffic Act, 1952, namely, that application may be made to the court, on the basis of plans, for a declaration that premises constructed in accordance with the plans will be licensed. This is a practical necessity in the type of case in question. The prospective licensee may make this application on the basis of plans, or the local authority may do so. The main reason the right of application is being given to the local authority is that the arrangement between the local authority and the publican whose premises are to be knocked down may be that the local authority will build a new public-house for him, inaccordance with their plans for the area, instead of paying monetary compensation for the destruction of the premises—such an arrangement would often be to the advantage of both parties.

Mr. Belton

I personally oppose this Bill on several grounds. In the first place, I cannot see in the Bill where there is any guarantee that the licence proposed to be granted to the C.I.E. bus terminal in Store Street will be restricted to ordinary trading. Several years ago, the Minister gave this House a guarantee, when a similiar licence was granted to Dublin Airport, that the licence would be used only for passengers using the airport to travel to and from the country. At the present time, however, we can see advertisements in every daily newspaper for the holding of wedding and other receptions in Dublin Airport, to the detriment of trade in hotels and other licensed premises in and around the city. I may say that several hotels outside the Dublin area are feeling the effect of this competition.

I might also draw the attention of the Minister to the fact that when proposals were brought forward to erect the bus terminal in Store Street a number of years back, and when construction commenced, certain business people in the neighbourhood of Store Street were sufficiently progressive to go to their bank managers and look for extra accommodation to enable them to improve their premises. One case which I have in mind is that of a publican in the neighbourhood who improved his premises. The valuation authorities then saw fit to increase his poor law valuation to the extent of £140. That increase of £140 in valuation was, I presume, made on his premises on the recommendation of a valuation officer or of the rate collector for the area. If the Minister will take the trouble to examine the records in the Valuation Office, I am sure he will see that this extra £140 valuation was put on the premises principally because of the anticipated extra business in the Store Street area as a result of thecompletion of the bus terminal. The owner of these premises has to pay on this extra £140 but when the valuation officer or the rate collector recommending that increase in valuation submitted their report, did they take into account the fact that the C.I.E. authorities would be applying for a licence to sell drink in competition with the licensed houses in that area?

I might also draw the Minister's attention to the fact that there is a block of five houses in the Store Street area. I understand that that block includes another licensed house where no additions, no structural improvements have taken place over a great number of years. Yet, the valuation on these five premises has been considerably increased.

We might ask why these valuations on these premises in a back street area like Store Street or the end of Amiens Street have been increased—an area where there is no passing trade. It is obvious that these valuations were increased simply because Store Street but terminal was being erected in the area. In this block of buildings there is a licensed premises that will have to compete with the licensed premises which it is proposed to have in the bus terminal.

I have mentioned just two licensed premises which will mostly be affected by the granting of this licence. However, as the Minister knows well, there are eight or nine licensed premises within 100 yards of the bus terminal. These premises will be seriously affected because each and every one of them have had their valuations increased. The amount they will have to pay in rates will be considerably greater than what they were paying before the bus terminal was ever thought of. It is obvious to anybody that, if this licence is granted in respect of the bus terminal, the passengers who will use the transport services operating to and from that terminal will not bother to go outside the premises itself to partake of any refreshments or anything else that might be required.

I might add that the business peoplein the Talbot Street area were looking forward to a great boom in their business when the bus terminal at Store Street would be completed. They never visualised that a full licence would be granted there. Neither did they visualise that the ratepayers of the city and the taxpayers of the country would be providing a shopping centre in the bus terminal in opposition to businesses in that area.

I think the Minister would be well advised to confine the licence in respect of the bus terminal to a restaurant licence only, with certain restrictions on the authorities in Store Street that it would be solely for the use of passengers who are using buses to and from the city. If this licence were to be used on such a scale as is in operation at Dublin Airport at the moment, I think the Minister and the Government would be overstepping themselves considerably. They are taking taxpayers' money to compete against the taxpayers. May I say, in conclusion, on that section of the Bill— although I suppose it is no concern of the Minister's—that, to my mind, the rents in the shopping centre are fantastic?

The next section of the Bill is a section which in my view seriously affects all those people who own licensed premises throughout the country and particularly those people who own licensed premises adjacent to an area developed by a local authority housing scheme. I personally object to any local authority having the right to grant a new licence to new premises and that is really what the Bill means. It also takes away from the citizens, or any section of citizens, the right to object to the granting of any licence. It takes that right away from the Pioneer Association and from any church organisation or religious body.

This section also gives permission to a local authority to change the location of a premises and I should like to draw the attention of the House to the effect that could have. There is a public house, Mooney's, in Harry Street, and, if for some reason or other, it should be demolished, the corporation cangive that licence around the corner in Grafton Street without objection from anybody. The authority for making what appears to be that small change but what in actual fact would be a terrific change, is the local city or county manager. I think that is placing too great a power in the hands of any local authority.

Before the 1902 Act, the granting of licences for public-houses was in the hands of the local justices of the peace. Some people think that was a method of demoralising the people of this country, but it is certainly the reason why there are licensed premises all over the country, in huckster's shops and so forth. Licences were granted wholesale and the securing of a licence depended on the favour of the local justice of the peace. The 1902 Act was brought in to prevent that and the number of new licences was restricted. No new licence could be granted without the extinguishing of an old licence. I agree that in this Bill there are no new licences to be granted with the extinguishing of an old licence.

The Minister said that a publican gets compensation when a local authority acquires his premises, and I agree. He added that there has been a great deal of dissatisfaction with the amount of compensation given, and again I agree, but qualified arbitrators decide the amount of compensation to be given. Are we going to question their findings, to question the amount of compensation which they decide should be given? In this Bill, however, no consideration will be given to the amount of compensation which some people might argue the publican would be entitled to, the publican who will suffer because the new premises can be put too near his old established business.

This is a retrograde step on the part of the Minister. The Bill has been brought in because of certain arguments which can be made with regard to licensed property in the City of Limerick. If the Minister thinks that question deserves consideration and should be dealt with at Government level, the Bill should be confined to the problem existing in Limerick, without being applied to the whole country.The licensed trade is the biggest tax gatherer for the Government and, as such, deserves a little more consideration than it is getting under this section.

Mr. Keyes

I welcome this measure, and I congratulate the Minister on having brought it in so speedily. The first portion of the Bill is so obviously necessary that it calls for little comment. One could scarcely visualise a transport terminal of the magnitude of Store Street without facilities for refreshments. I do not share the fears of Deputy Belton that the operation of a licensed premises in Store Street will affect detrimentally the licensed premises in the vicinity. I think it will have the reverse effect. I never heard of the licensees at Kingsbridge, Westland Row or any other terminus complaining that the operation of a licence in the railway premises nearby has militated against their business. On the contrary, I think it has acted as a kind of magnet to attract business to the area, and whatever business is carried on in the premises at Store Street is going to help willy-nilly the people in Store Street.

I do not think that any case could be made for the suggestion to limit the use of the licensed premises to those in possession of tickets. That is not operated in the modern age, and we ought not to be retrograde. One does not require to have a ticket to use the refreshment rooms at Kingsbridge and Westland Row. If one's friends are seeing one off on the train, they can pay 2d. for a platform ticket, and I do not see why we should feel any trepidation with regard to the people seeing friends off at Store Street being able to enjoy a drink, a parting "deoc an dorais" as their friends leave. On the way back, they are bound to have another in the local.

Mr. Boland

And on the way down, too.

Mr. Keyes

They can have a couple. While the need for the first portion of the Bill is fairly obvious, the other portion of it, while it may not be so apparent, is a very urgent matter, in the eyes of some Deputies at least. Thecity I come from, Limerick, has been in the forefront of the agitation to get this alteration in the licensing legislation, and we have made the case— Deputies of every political view—time and again to the Minister for it. That action was inspired, instigated and concurred in by the licensed trade. The licensed trade were definitely responsible for that agitation, by Limerick Deputies particularly, to have this old anomaly, this anachronism in the licensing law, rectified. Where a local authority found it necessary to demolish a particular area and transfer the occupiers of the houses to another area, there were owners of licensed premises whose premises and their ownership of them went back in some cases 100 years and more.

They were being ruthlessly banished from the place where they had been born and made their living, and while they had been offered some compensation, I suggest to Deputy Belton that no amount of money or compensation would adequately make up to these people for the loss of a business in which they had been carried on by their families for many generations. They merely wanted the right to continue in their own business. Surely no representative of the licensed trade would say that it is an unreasonable thing to ask that a person who has committed no crime, who has conducted his business correctly all through those years and who is now being removed from his premises by the action of the local authority should at least get the right to bring his licence with him to a new premises.

Deputy Belton has given one definition of the 1902 Act under which he said licences were granted to hole and corner premises. I could give another definition of that Act which would differ somewhat from the Deputy's definition but if we take the law as it exists, we find that outside the boundaries of the boroughs of Dublin, Cork, Waterford and Limerick a man can transfer his licence from one point to another without question. But in these four boroughs, the licence was not capable of being transferred. The licence could not be taken from onepremises to another nor from one side of the street to the other. Apart from the particular cases now in question, I have known the case of a man who took down his premises, rebuilt them and did a decent job on them. He wanted to transfer his licence across the road to another premises whilst the original premises were being rebuilt but he would not be allowed to do so.

If the premises stood 200 yards further on on the other side of the borough boundary, it would have been quite open to him to transfer the licence across the road as he wished. Eventually he had to buy another premises a quarter mile away on the other side of the boundary and transfer his licence there while the rebuilding of his original premises was in progress. When these premises were finished, he sold the premises he had bought and went back into the original premises again. Now we are getting the same thing in a more aggravated form, because it is necessary to demolish certain premises in Limerick. The local authority are doing a decent job in their efforts to provide better housing for the people. The town planners come along and plan in a certain way, new areas are laid out and people are transferred into them. But the licensee of a premises which has been demolished in the execution of these plans comes along to his new premises minus a licence. That appears to be a glaring anomaly which we now seek to have remedied.

The Minister himself had some doubts about accepting our recommendations because he was afraid of opposition from the licensed trade but the licensed trade in Limerick were wholeheartedly behind the Deputies when they approached the Minister to make representations in regard to this matter. Notwithstanding that, we now have Deputy Belton who appears to have been briefed by the licensed trade objecting to the provisions in the Bill which would give the licences of demolished premises the right to transfer their licence to their new premises. I am working on a licensed trade brief as well and I say that the licensedtrade approved of our recommendations to the Minister and that representatives of that trade came up here with us into the Minister's sanctum. Every publicity was given to that deputation and flashlight photographs were even taken. They repudiated their action subsequently and said they had nothing to do with it.

I was approached by a representative of the licensed trade in this House who professed to see some cause for fear as to the consequence to the licensed trade if this measure were passed, inasmuch as he seemed to think that new licences might be granted indiscriminately. I see no grounds for these fears. Section 6, paragraph A, reads as follows:—

"A local authority may, if they think fit, issue to any person a certificate declaring that

(a) after the passing of this Act particular licensed premises have been or are to be demolished by or by direction of the authority in exercise of any of their functions and,

(b) a particular site acquired by them is approved by them as a site for licensed premises, in substitution for the former premises."

That section specifically refers to the fact that the local authority are clearing up the site and that the local authority can issue a certificate to a person displaced in the course of the clearing-up operations, that another particular site is suitable for licensed premises in substitution for premises demolished. Fears have been expressed by members of the licensed trade that public-houses may be opened by persons other than those displaced, but I suggest that adequate safeguards are provided in the section which I have read.

Deputy Belton also referred to the fact that no compensation was to be paid to a publican whose territory, as he stated, was going to be invaded by the new licencee. That, I suggest, is a groundless fear, because the action of the local authority in giving a certificate to enable a person to get a new licence is circumscribed, inasmuch as these certificates will apply only tonewly built areas. There are no publicans in existence in the areas to which these people are being transferred. What the position in Dublin is I cannot exactly say, but I think we hear too much of Dublin in connection with the licensed trade. The people of Limerick, I know, will be very grateful to the Minister for what is being done. A few other places will be affected as the housing operations are being extended, but I suggest that bare justice only is being done by this measure and whatever little flutter it may cause to the people in charge of the Licensed Trade Association in Dublin, I think they have no cause for complaint. This measure should be welcomed in its entirety, and I welcome it very heartily.

Captain Cowan

I want to say that I welcome this measure, substantially for the reasons advanced by Deputy Keyes. If we provide, as we have provided, a bus station in Dublin that has cost a very considerable sum of money and if that bus station is to provide facilities and amenities for the travelling public, it is obvious that these facilities and amenities must include the provision of intoxicating liquor for such persons visiting the station as require it. I feel that a case has been invented, or attempted to be invented here, in regard to the Bill for some reason that is not genuine. It would be an extraordinary thing if in the 20th century, when we have such facilities as we have at Store Street, they did not include facilities for a member of the public who is travelling or who is visiting the premises for one reason or another, to take a drink. Buses may arrive at a time in the morning or they may arrive or leave at a time in the evening, when the ordinary public-houses are not open. It certainly would be an extraordinary thing if a traveller wanting refrestments were to be compelled to leave the comfort of the Store Street building and go across, perhaps in wet weather, to one of the licensed premises nearby. I am satisfied with Deputy Keyes that instead of injuring licensed traders or business people generally in that area, the bringing of tens of thousands of additional people into the area is goingto improve trade in licensed premises and in other businesses in that area. I think the wise business people in that area realise that and that they are delighted that the provision of the bus station there has resulted in the bringing in of such a tremendous number of people into that area with the additional business that that will undoubtedly mean for them.

There is no question, in my view, of any publican in that area losing business. Whether there is a bar in the Store Street premises or not, I believe that their business will improve immensely and that very few would be anxious to leave that good business area at the present time.

I feel that to adopt the line which has been adopted by Deputy Belton, which is obviously the line that has been taken up by the Dublin licensed vintners, would really make a laugh of ourselves in regard to the simple matter of providing facilities for a drink in a bus station like Store Street. The objection to the provision of these facilities seems to me to be ridiculous. I have read the licensed vintners' criticism of the Bill and I should like to say to the licensed vintners in Dublin who are interested in this matter that they are being led very badly and very unwisely in regard to this matter.

I have read the part of their state ment where they object to two matters being included in one Bill, the matter of the Store Street licence and the matter of the licences that will bring, as Deputy Keyes says, a measure of justice to those people in Limerick and to other people similarly affected throughout the country. I think it was an impertinence on the part of the licensed trade to suggest that this House is not competent to decide what is to be in a Bill or not; a gross impertinence to suggest that these two matters should not be dealt with in one Bill.

Then they come along and suggest to bank managers and directors that they should look at the overdrafts of their own members in the Store Street area. That is what was published in to-day's Irish Independent.If I know anything about bank managers, whenthere is even the slightest whimper of anything they certainly will look into it. That suggestion comes badly from the officers of the licensed trade.

I take the opportunity of saying that in my view the licensed traders are being badly and unwisely led and that they should reconsider this matter. They are placing themselves in a false position by following somebody, who is availing of the opportunity of this Bill to whip up a national campaign against the Government. How ridiculous that position is appears from what has happened in connection with this Bill this afternoon. Deputy Belton had to explain to the House that he was adopting his line personally, that he was not committing, or could not commit his own Party to the line which he took. Nevertheless, we have a national campaign being whipped up in opposition to this Bill. I know many members of the licensed trade, and I find them all very sensible people. I beg leave to suggest to them that they should look over the declaration that has been handed out to the Press by their own organisation in regard to this Bill, and they will see how foolish it is.

We have on many occasions mentioned in this House, and I certainly have mentioned it on any occasion I got the opportunity, that as far as publicans and as far as the licensing laws are concerned there are matters that require amendment or adjustment or revision. Unfortunately, this Bill is very strictly limited, and I do not think that any opportunity will be available under it to provide any revision or improvement of the facilities that publicans are justly entitled to. But the Minister stated on a previous occasion that the question of the licensing laws was under consideration and that a Bill to remove anomalies and to revise them will be brought before this House some time in the future. When that Bill comes before this House, I think the members engaged in the licensed trade will have general support from this House in the removal of those things to which they take proper objection.

I do not think that they are improvingtheir position one bit or strengthening it by adopting the ridiculous line they are adopting in regard to this Bill by objecting to progress, by objecting to people who have to travel perhaps very early in the morning or who come in by bus at 12 o'clock at night when the public-houses are not open, getting reasonable facilities to have a drink. When an organisation adopts such a foolish line, I think they do themselves an injustice and I think that the members of this organisation, particularly the executive members, should consider whether they are being led badly or unwisely or along the wrong road. They might consider why they are being led in this way.

An Ceann Comhairle

I think we have heard enough about the organisation and that the Deputy ought to come to the Bill.

Captain Cowan

The organisation's objections have been mentioned by Deputy Belton and the purpose of them is set out in to-day's Irish IndependentandIrish Press.There is a second part of this Bill which deals with the people in Limerick and areas in other parts of the country where the local authority finds it necessary to remove a licensed premises. The Minister has adopted a very sane and sensible course in dealing with these. In Limerick, where they have met this problem as Deputy Keyes said, the licensed trade there, the local authority and the citizens generally felt that something should be done as a simple matter of justice for the people affected. Obviously, in the extension of slum clearance through the country problems such as the Limerick problem will arise here and there now and again. It is wise that these people should know that they will not have to apply for a new licence in the ordinary way, with the objections that could be put forward to the granting of a new licence.

Mr. McMenamin

Will the Deputy say why there should not be objections?

Captain Cowan

Why should therebe objections? Why should objections be permitted? These licences have not been extinguished because of any misconduct on the part of the owners or any breach of the law. The licences are being extinguished as far as the old premises are concerned because the local authority removed the premises or part of the premises.

Mr. McMenamin

Are not the people in the district entitled to say, "We do not want a public-house here"? Is not that reasonable?

Mr. Keyes

Of course it is not reasonable.

Captain Cowan

It is unreasonable because there is no sense in it. I have never met people in any locality who got together and said that they did not want a public-house. The fact is that they will get together and say that they want one. I never heard of them meeting together to say that they did not want one.

Mr. McMenamin

I did.

Captain Cowan

Therefore, I say that the machinery provided in this Bill is reasonable machinery provided by a reasonable Minister to deal in a reasonable way with the situation that has developed. It is grossly unfair that the organisation to which these four or five publicans in Limerick belong should object to a simplified machinery for giving these people licences. It looks to me to be a very strange action to take against one's own members and fellow traders. I do not think for one moment that that attitude on the part of the Licensed Grocers' and Vintners' Association will be approved by very many of their members throughout the country.

Mr. McMenamin

That is a matter of opinion.

Captain Cowan

It is a matter of opinion. I am only saying that I do not think it will be approved by the members of the Licensed Grocers' and Vintners' Association in Limerick. I am certain it will not be approved by many of the licensed grocers and vintners in Dublin who, if theirpremises were to be removed because of a corporation slum clearance scheme, would be glad to be provided with a licence in a new area of the city.

This Bill, as it seems to me, is a simple Bill to provide, in the first place, for the necessities of our bus station of which everybody in the country is so proud and, in the second place, to provide a measure of justice for certain people affected in Limerick and likely to be affected elsewhere. I think it should have the unanimous support of the House.

Mr. McMenamin

Were it not for what occurred in this House on a previous occasion with regard to the granting of a licence of this kind, I would not take part in the discussion at all. I have no interest of any kind in the matter except from a public point of view.

I bitterly resented what took place with regard to Collinstown. We had a definite undertaking given by the Minister in this House. I think I intervened at that particular juncture with regard to what accommodation was going to be provided in connection with the supply of refreshments. The Minister specifically gave an undertaking to the House that the amenity provided in the licence that would be granted would be for the travelling public. Later on I will come to what is going on.

Surely one is right to take grave exception when a statement of that kind is made by the Minister in charge of the Bill when afterwards it is openly violated and no steps taken to enforce the undertaking that is given. That is just not good enough, and I am not going to accept it. I now protest against it. This Bill affords us an opportunity of raising what occurred. I am not a flying man. My legs carry me to most of the places I want to go, but it is open and notorious, of course, that this thing is becoming a regular "do" place at Collinstown. I use that term in its widest sense.

Let us look at the promise that was given to the House and the nation. The travelling public were to be provided with refreshments. That was a right and proper thing. I do not think therewas anybody in this House who took any exception to it, and I do not think anybody could. I do not drink, but that does not make me such a pussyfoot that I am going to deny another person a natural right to use his free will. This place was provided by the money of the public and is now being used to compete against these people who, as taxpayers and citizens, put up the money.

Mr. Boland

This Bill is not for Collinstown.

Mr. McMenamin

I am dealing now with the bus station only.

Mr. Boland

What about Collinstown? I thought the Deputy was dealing with Collinstown.

Mr. McMenamin

No. The only regret I have now in regard to that Bill is that we did not state specifically in it that nobody would be provided with intoxicating drink at Collinstown other than the people who actually travel. In other words, put down in the Bill the undertaking which the Minister gave to the House when he got the power that was given in the Bill. The statement was worthless. The question is was it mala fide? One can have one's opinion about that. Was the Minister deceived in it? If he was originally deceived, why did he not take action to justify to the House the undertaking he gave when he got the Bill?

We come to a much bigger problem in this connection. I am only looking at the matter broadly. Again, I am in no conflict with the Minister about providing amenities for the travelling public. In the face of what occurred before, we will have to take steps to try to safeguard the position. Let us visualise the spectacle. The entire country will be carried to this centre. Let us keep in mind what we are doing and thus prevent some people, including clergymen of all denominations, criticising us afterwards in regard to the "hobo" we created at Store Street. The entire country will be carried to Store Street and assembled there. They will go downtown to do business during the day. As Deputy Keyes said, there will be an occasional "deoch an dorais" during the day. These people will go to Store Street in the evening to catch the last bus going to Cork, Waterford, Kilkenny, Carlow, Athlone, Galway, Mullingar and everywhere else.

Mr. S. Flanagan

I thought they do not go back to Cork.

Mr. Hughes

Some of them.

Mr. McMenamin

A fellow from Galway may meet a fellow from Kilkenny whom he has not seen for a long time. He will probably say: "Come on. Let us have a last one." Imagine the spectacle with all these people from the country assembled there and all going through this kind of performance. There are other details but we will come back to them later. Let us be quite clear about what we are doing.

Captain Cowan

As a rule do not people generally arrive just a minute before their bus leaves? Is not that the usual procedure?

Mr. McMenamin

I am as old as the Deputy——

Captain Cowan

You always get there at the last second the same as I do.

Mr. Cosgrave

As long as you can manage it.

Mr. McMenamin

——and I know as much about human nature as Deputy Cowan. We are doing this thing with our eyes open. There is going to be a huge café attached to this station. As the Bill now stands, if a man or a woman goes in for a meal they are entitled to have a drink with the meal. Will drink be carried from the bar to the restaurant and have men drunk or threequarter drunk? Does the Minister intend to do that or is he going to license only a particular part of the building that will be structurally separated from the café and the restaurant? Will that be done? Imagine the spectacle when people from the country who have spent the day in town arrive at the station in the eveningsubstantially under the influence of drink. They may go to the café where there are decent sober people who want to have a cup of tea in peace and decency. You will have half-intoxicated people going in there.

Captain Cowan

They will be in separate rooms.

Mr. McMenamin

Deputy Cowan started to make the case that this thing is not going to injure traders in the neighbourhood. Is it not? Is he deliberately trying to pull a cloak over that part of it in order to justify this?

Captain Cowan

These traders are my constituents.

Mr. McMenamin

Under this Bill, a licence is going to be given for the sale of intoxicating drink there. There will also be on sale there coffee, tea, luncheons, sweets, confectionery and ice-cream. What about all the little shops in Talbot Street that sell ice-cream and confectionery and that run tea-rooms? They are paying taxes for the construction and maintenance of this building and, under this Bill, their livelihood is being taken away from them. Has Deputy Cowan talked about that to his constituents? They are not my constituents, but they are my fellow-citizens and I, as a public representative, am interested in their well-being. I am interested to see that their livelihood is not taken away from them.

Captain Cowan

They will make a fortune.

Mr. McMenamin

I am concerned about those poor people who have invested their money in trade there. They are trying to earn a few pounds to keep themselves and their children. They have tea-rooms, and they sell confectionery, cigarettes and a lot of other little things. They are half huckster shops trying to eke out a living for themselves. All the things which they sell are going to be sold under licence in this building and by an organisation that has a monopoly. We should remember that millions of pounds of the taxpayers' money have gone into the erection of this building.

This organisation was not able to complete the building of it without getting more money from the taxes taken out of the earnings of these poor people living in Talbot Street and down around Amiens Street.

Captain Cowan

The Deputy did his best to prevent them getting the bus station at all.

Mr. McMenamin

It is the Deputy's kettle of fish, not mine.

Captain Cowan

I helped to put it there.

Mr. McMenamin

As a public representative, and as one who knows that district, I am entitled to deal with this. It is my duty to protect the interests of these poor people as far as I can, and to see that their livelihood is not taken away from them. They will not know that until the Bill is passed, and then it will be too late. What does Deputy Cowan think about that?

Captain Cowan

I think it was a great thing to get the bus station for them.

Mr. McMenamin

Take the position of men who, within the last five or six years, bought public-houses and other premises in that area—that is, since the erection of this building was first mooted. They paid exorbitant prices for their premises, owing to the fact that the erection of this building was mooted. They thought it would bring enormous trade to the district. They now find themselves saddled with heavy responsibilities and with overdrafts in the banks, while at the same time we are, by statute, going to create a competitor against them, and with the money which they had to put up for the erection of this building. These people will have to contribute in the future, as they have in the past, to meet the losses of this institution.

I am sorry that there have been losses, but that is the fact and we have to face it. What we are doing is, we are providing by statute a competitor against those people. I am endeavouring to put the public point of view on this. I have no interest at all in it.I represent nobody in Dublin, not even myself. I do not even have the trouble of voting at elections in Dublin.

I am then down in my own constituency, and politically, locally or nationally I have no effect at all in the City of Dublin. But this is a public matter that has been instigated by an organisation that has a monopoly. It has a monopoly of the transport of the country which it enforces rigidly. A man, for example, cannot carry a bag of apples for a neighbour.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Surely that does not arise on this Bill.

Mr. McMenamin

It certainly does. This organisation is going to be granted a licence by this House.

Captain Cowan

You can make cider out of apples.

Mr. McMenamin

Apples are also going to be sold in Store Street. I would ask the Minister to look at this thing in a broad way and see that the portion of the building which is to be licensed for the sale of intoxicating drink will be structurally separated from the coffee rooms or restaurant. I have not been inside the building, but I am anxious to ensure that the travelling public who go there and want to get drink will be served in a place that will be structurally separated from the portion of the building frequented by the general public. I do not want to have the general public annoyed by drunken or half-drunken people. They should be able to get their coffee in peace. I am not opposed to the provision of reasonable amenities for people who want to get a drink, but I can see the problem that may arise from the conduct of this place.

Captain Cowan

There is a bigger problem than that. You should have buses for sober people and buses for people who take a few drinks.

Mr. McMenamin

We are already providing, out of our earnings, the ammunition which keeps the buses running. I would ask the Minister tolook into this again as distinct from what is provided in the Bill. In my opinion, this Bill is too broad. I am prepared, and I suppose the House is prepared, to give the Minister a reasonable measure for the provision of amenities for the travelling public.

I do not want what occurred in the case of Collinstown to happen again. I do not want to see the Minister committed to the making of a statement here, and then the moment it is made to have the whole place flooded by the people to whom authority is given. I think this House should not be treated in that way and that it should not allow itself to be treated in that way. If it does, then anything is too good for it.

These people will go to the Minister and, across a table in his room in Government Buildings, will say: "Oh, that will be all right; we will not do that at all." The Minister will say: "All right, we will let it go that way." But the moment they get the power they will immediately snap their fingers at the undertaking which they had given the Minister and at the confidence which the Minister had put in them, and will completely ignore it.

For these reasons I think the House should insist that a provision is put in this Bill to ensure that the terms of it will be rigidly enforced, and that this place will not be flooded by a company that gets a monopoly from this House under, I will not say, deliberately false pretences, but still false pretences. I think it is a cruel thing for anybody to come to this House and seek special powers which are only given as a limited privilege and then, the moment they get them from the Minister, take advantage of that privilege. They do that the moment the Bill is enacted and the Minister is made a cod of. I do not want to see any Minister of this State made a cod of by anybody, at home or abroad. That treads on my corns immediately. I am asking the Minister to protect himself.

As I have said, I have no interest in this thing at all. We are dealing here with people who have already been given a monopoly which they are rigidly enforcing. I have no particular objection to their getting powers but,when we are dealing with them, let us see that we take steps to protect the people against whom they are entering into competition. They allow no competition themselves. Is it not our duty as public representatives to see that they do not crush out poor people who are eking out an existence in that area, and who have to pay tax to maintain this monopoly? Surely, that is a fair thing to ask.

In asking that, we are not doing an injustice to anybody. It is our duty to see that justice is done between all sections of the community, and particularly the poor and the weak—the constituents of Deputy Cowan. I abhor that advantage should be taken in this House to give statutory effect to the destruction of the livelihood of these poor people. I repeat I am the last person in the world who would object to reasonable amenities for the travelling public. They must have these facilities and they will get them somewhere. Therefore, the House is not acting illogically in providing amenities for the travelling public but it should be the travelling public. These licensed premises should not be allowed to be turned into a brawl shop with everybody congregating in it. The management and control of these premises would be a very onerous task and it would take a very efficient person to cope with the conditions under which he would work. No matter how efficient he would be he would have great difficulty in conducting it in an orderly way. I am picturing myself as the manager of this place with hundreds of people half-intoxicated rushing into this place. We must remember that the very livelihood of the poor manager is dependent on this; if anything happens while some of these people are on the premises it may result in his losing his position. Anybody who knows anything about this matter will realise that in practice we are going to create a problem and that perhaps we will have to come back some day and undo some of the things it is purported to do under this Bill.

Mr. Corry

I congratulate the Party opposite because I always thought that we in these benches possessed inDeputy Allen the only Father Mathew in the House; apparently there is another Father Mathew on the Opposition benches. It is rather a pity that due to the facilities afforded to Deputies for travelling, there is not now the same number of Deputies travelling by rail or bus that there used to be in other days.

Mr. D.J. O'Sullivan

Or Ministers

Mr. Corry

If there were they would learn something. If Deputy McMenamin made a few trips by rail he would perhaps be enlightened on these matters. I would advise him to go over to Kingsbridge Station and he will see side by side the very thing he is complaining of in this Bill. He will see licensed premises at door number one, and the restaurant at door number two.

Mr. McCarthy

With a connecting door.

Mr. Corry

Yes, with a connecting door. There are Deputies here who have frequently travelled into both of them, but who never saw there a drunken man or anybody under the influence of drink. It might be different in Donegal; we southern people have a bit of sense in that line. He will also see, if he travels by rail, a bar on every train the whole way down for fear they would become dry on the road. The Pullman is there also for the supply of tea or any refreshments required. I have never seen in my travels any of these hard-drinking men who have been described by Deputy McMenamin. Apparently Deputy McMenamin is one of those who have an inferiority complex. I notice all his speech has been devoted to the travelling public. He has the same idea as both Front Benches seem to have, that the country boy is not to be trusted unless he comes to Dublin for a drink. I expected when I saw another Intoxicating Liquor Bill being brought into this House that it would contain provision for clearing out of the way an Act which is against the Constitution of the State.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I cannot see how the Deputy can discuss all thelicensing laws on this Bill now before the House.

Mr. Corry

I am suggesting to the Minister that this Bill should contain something to remove a blot on the Constitution which guarantees equal rights for all citizens. We have in our licensing laws an Act which allows a Dublin jackeen to go out of one door on a Sunday, walk in the next door sit down there for three or four hours, walk out for another hour and come back again. That is the law for one section of the community in this country.

Mr. Boland

I think the Deputy is widening the matter altogether. I suggest, as this is a very limited Bill, he ought not to be allowed to widen it to include the matters he is discussing.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Chair has pointed out to Deputy Corry that this would not be relevant on the Bill now before the House. This Bill deals with the sale of intoxicating liquor in Árus Mhic Dhiarmada.

Mr. Corry

Yes and I am suggesting that before the Minister would afford further facilities to city people to indulge in drink in the city—I understand this place will carry an hotel licence—he should consider the ordinary man down the country who has to get up in the morning and provide milk for the city jackeens; and if he dares, after going to Mass, to go in for a pint he has to walk three miles, whereas the city people can go from one door to another.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

This has no connection with the Bill before the House.

Mr. Corry

I am suggesting the Bill before the House should be enlarged and that the first step in regard to legislation dealing with intoxicating liquor should be to remedy the wrong that has been done. Deputy McMenamin seems to have the same view as the Minister, that the country boy cannot be trusted. His whole speech was an attack on the country peoplewho would go in and have several rounds of drink.

Mr. Boland

I was only dealing with the bus station, and certain premises demolished by a local authority.

Mr. Corry

Before he passes this legislation, the Minister should enlarge it and give the ordinary countryman an opportunity to get a drink on Sunday without having to go three miles for it. We know the spectacle we have in the country outside every country public-house—40 or 50 cars there till 12 o'clock at night and everyone travelling the road in danger of his life.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy will have to come to the Bill. This has no connection with the Bill before the House.

Mr. Corry

My argument is that it should not contain provisions to give further facilities in this city while no improvement is made in the outrageous condition of affairs throughout the country. I have seen Deputies on both sides of the House carry out the same injustice before. I have seen them trot up into the Lobby and march in to vote against the countryman having a drink and to vote that the facilities for the city should be improved—and then they pretend to be pussyfoots like Deputy McMenamin.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

This Bill is restricted to the sale of intoxicating liquor in Áras Mhic Dhiarmada.

Mr. Corry

Does the Department of Justice legislate for anywhere else except Dublin? Does it keep the mailed fist for down the country? The Minister should consider widening this Bill and bringing in the suggestions I have put here, if he is going to see any fair play done to the ordinary country people.

Mr. O. Flanagan

I have read over the Bill very carefully. It does not appear to give us any details of the nature or extent of the proposed licence for the sale of intoxicating drink at the bus station. I think the House would like to hear whether thisis going to be a six-day or seven-day licence and whether it is going to be limited to any particular hours.

Captain Cowan

It must be a seven-day licence, obviously.

Mr. O. Flanagan

The Bill does not say that.

Captain Cowan

It need not say it.

Mr. O. Flanagan

It should say it in order to clarify the position. We are not all solicitors. Deputy Cowan should know that.

Captain Cowan

We are not all sensible enough.

Mr. O. Flanagan

We should also be given an idea of the proposed opening and closing times at Store Street. Is this to be a 24-hour licence, continuous during the round of the clock? When the Minister presents the House with a Bill of this kind asking us to give him power and authority to issue a certificate on which the Revenue Commissioners shall grant a licence for the sale of drink at a bus station, more details of the licence should be specified in the Bill. In the course of his remarks introducing the Bill, the Minister failed to satisfy a number of Deputies as to the extent of trading under the proposed licence.

First and foremost, I want to object very vigorously and very strongly to this. We have heard much of Store Street and we have been listening to it on the lips of members of this House over a long number of years, and we have now reached the stage when Store Street is to be turned into a licensed premises. It was originally intended to be a bus station. We now find that it is the offices of the Department of Social Welfare, the offices of the Minister, the bathroom of the Minister; and we see now that it is also to be a licensed premises.

Further, according to my reading of the Bill, the sale of drink can be in any part of Store Street. What guarantee have we that, in accordance with the Bill, in the offices of the Minister for Social Welfare we will not have the sale of intoxicating drink?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

That does not arise on the Bill.

Mr. O. Flanagan

Section 4 says that the Minister, if he thinks it proper that the licence should be extended or transferred to another part of the omnibus station or to cease to apply to any part of the station, may issue to the board a certificate approving of the alteration. That Section 4, according to my limited intelligence, means that if the Minister for Justice so desires he can authorise the sale of drink in the offices of the Minister for Social Welfare.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

That is not part of the bus station. The Bill clearly defines the omnibus station.

Captain Cowan

Store Street is Áras Mhic Dhiarmada and the bus station is Áras Bus.

Mr. O. Flanagan

Whether it is Ára: Bus or Áras Mhic Dhiarmada or Áras Cowan, it is all the same to me. I look upon the place as one premises. The ordinary publican's premises includes his out-offices—and they are valued in accordance with that idea. The Minister knows quite well that a publican can be charged with a breach of the licensing laws, in the event of any of his customers being found after hours in any of his out-offices or outbuildings.

Captain Cowan

That is, if they are licensed.

Mr. O. Flanagan

There is no section in this Bill that satisfies me what part of the building is the property of the Minister for Social Welfare and what part is the property of C.I.E.

Captain Cowan

Does it not all belong to the Minister for Social Welfare, who has let portion of it to C.I.E.? Deputy Norton bought it, you must remember.

Mr. O. Flanagan

I am not concerned with who bought it but with the licence proposed to be given for the sale of drink in Store Street. From my reading of the Bill, it will be a 24-hour licence. If I am wrong, I am open to contradiction.

Mr. S. Flanagan

You are.

Mr. O. Flanagan

Are we to have drink sold all through the night here in Store Street?

Mr. S. Flanagan

The Deputy is talking through his hat.

Mr. O. Flanagan

What are the proposed hours for the sale of drink at the omnibus station, to make it clear enough to satisfy Deputy Cowan? There is nothing in the Bill to tell us.

Mr. Kenneally

Section 2.

Mr. O. Flanagan

I strongly object to the course taken here. Section 2 says that the Minister, if he thinks it proper that an on-licence should be granted to the board in respect of any particular part of the omnibus station, may issue to the board a certificate approving of the grant of the licence. It further states in sub-section (2) that the Revenue Commissioners shall grant the licence on presentation of the certificate to them. Why did the Minister for Justice not give the same facilities to the directors of C.I.E. that would be available to the ordinary citizen—to go to the local Circuit Court?

Mr. Davern

It is the Revenue Commissioners that grant every licence.

Mr. O. Flanagan

It is wrong that the Revenue Commissioners should be given the power of authority to issue a licence of this kind.

Mr. Davern

They do it for every publican at the moment.

Mr. O. Flanagan

Every Deputy will see, sooner or later, Store Street being used for receptions, wedding breakfasts, social functions and meetings of all kinds.

Nobody thought we would have wedding receptions in Collinstown. The publicans of Dublin City to-day find trade very bad. Their takings have never been so low. That cannot be denied. Since the introduction of the last two Budgets the consumption of liquor has fallen.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy cannot discuss the consumption of intoxicating liquor under this Bill.

Captain Cowan

Does he object to consumption falling, with his pioneer badge?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

This is not relevant.

Mr. O. Flanagan

Licensed premises adjacent to Store Street will be seriously affected as a result of this measure. Travellers who would normally seek refreshment in adjacent bars will now have a bar available to them on the premises in Store Street, to the detriment of local trade. Deputies who represent that constituency know that the valuations have been increased in that area and owners of licensed premises have now to pay more for their licences for drink and tobacco, with higher rates and higher electricity charges. This Bill will cause serious damage to them because it will affect the livelihood of business people in the area.

I object to the manner in which the Bill gives power to the Revenue Commissioners to issue a licence on presentation of a certificate from the Minister. The Circuit Court should have some say in this matter. Assuming there are objections to the granting of this licence, under what sections of this Bill can an objection be raised? To whom can the objectors make their objection? Assuming there are complaints that the premises are not properly conducted and that they are frequented by rowdies until 3 o'clock, 4 o'clock and 5 o'clock in the morning —if there is a 24-hour licence—someone should be in a position to object to that and machinery should be available for the hearing of such objections. I think the Circuit Court is the proper authority before which to make objections and the decision of that Court should be upheld.

It is wrong for the Minister to come in here with special legislation for the purpose of granting facilities to a new political concern in which the Government has a very major interest. The next thing we will have is the Minister coming in with a Bill to make the reconstructedpremises in Dublin Castle a licensed premises. After that we will have a Bill to license the National Stud, followed by a Bill setting out different regulations for licensing An Tóstal. A line must be drawn somewhere. Ample facilities are already available in this area. If this licence is granted I hope the facilities available will be confined to travellers.

Will this licence have to be renewed each year or will the one licence be granted in sxcula sxculorum?We are not told under any section of this Bill whether the licence will expire at the end of 12 months. A concern of this kind should not have more facilities available to it than the ordinary citizen has available to him. Business houses in the area will be very seriously affected. Not only that, but we are told now that in another part of this premises confectionery, sweets, apples and oranges, etc., will also be on sale. That, too, will affect local business premises. In a sense, I am not one bit sorry for the majority of the traders in that district, because they thought they would never see this Government back quick enough in order that Store Street would be available as a bus station and, for that reason, they helped this Government financially.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

That has nothing to do with the Bill.

Mr. O. Flanagan

I believe there was an undertaking given to certain publicans that there would be no licence provided for Store Street, and because of that undertaking certain financial suppórt was forthcoming from that district for the present Government. We know the Government have secured office by giving undertakings such as this and we know that they have failed to honour their undertakings. Once more, they are failing to honour the undertaking given to the traders in that area. A definite undertaking was given by the Minister's Party that there would be no licensed premises or shops in this particular structure. The Government has now changed its mind to the detriment of the business people in that area.

With regard to premises demolished by local authorities I hope the county manager will consult with the respective local authorities in that matter. In Section 6 it is stated that:—

"A local authority may, if they think fit, issue to any person a certificate..."

I think it should be specifically stated in the Bill that it is the local authority that should deal with this matter and not the county manager. In most cases the county manager acts as the local authority. He has got the most extraordinary powers and these powers are coming into conflict daily with the general public and the elected local authority. In a case of this kind I think the elected representatives of the particular local authority should have some say with regard to the issue of the certificate. In the case of the granting of a cinema licence it is the elected representatives who advise the county manager and the county engineer in relation to the granting of such licence.

The Cinematograph Acts provide that the local authority should have the renewal of licences in the case of cinemas. In respect of the issue of certificates by the local authority, as provided in Section 6 of this Bill, the elected representatives should have some say. Although the certificate may be issued by the county manager it should be on the recommendation of the elected representatives.

As Deputy Keyes has pointed out, a number of injustices exist and certain sections of this Bill attempt to remedy them. The Minister was right in introducing legislation to remove genuine grievances such as exist in Limerick and other districts.

I would urge upon the Minister the importance of having the opinion of the local authority, by which I mean the elected representatives, apart from the personal opinion of the county manager. In most cases the county manager is advised by his engineering staff or by the medical officer. There is complete disregard for the common-sense and sound opinion of the elected representatives who have intimate knowledge of local conditions. Therequest that it should be specified in the Bill that it is the elected representatives and not the county manager who should issue this certificate is, in my opinion, very reasonable.

Mr. Davern

Deputy Flanagan need have no fears about all the rooms in Store Street being licensed. One of the first matters in respect of which the Revenue Commissioners must be satisfied is the specific rooms proposed to be licensed. These rooms and only these rooms can be used for the purpose of supplying and consuming intoxicating liquor.

The Deputy seems to be worried because the Revenue Commissioners have the granting of this particular licence. It is the Revenue Commissioners who grant every licence. A judge or district justice cannot grant a licence. They can issue a certificate which is sent to the Revenue Commissioners who grant the necessary licence.

I am one of the people in this country who feel that we have enough licensed premises. In this particular instance I think a special case can be made but I sincerely hope that we have come to the last of the special cases. In the British days, in 1902, they seemed to think there were sufficient facilities for the consumption of drink in this country. I cannot discover any great reason for further extension of licensed houses. The owners of existing licensed premises are able to meet the needs of the community.

I would like the Minister, if at all possible, to confine the consumption of intoxicating liquor at Store Street to the travelling public. There are many other people housed in Store Street. It would not be right that the licensed portion of Store Street should be open to the people who work there. The Minister should consider that matter seriously. Just as the licence granted to C.I.E. in respect of other places is confined to the consumption of drink on the premises by the travelling public, the Minister should give an assurance to the House that that will be the case at Store Street.

The House has been told about the dangers that may accrue from the fact that local authorities are given powers under Section 6 of this Bill. We are told that corruption may creep in in the matter of deciding that a particular premises should be demolished and a substitute house erected in a more populous area. If there could be even a remote danger of any personal or political spite or, on the other hand, favouritism in this matter the Minister should undertake microscopic examination of this Bill with the officials of his Department and his best legal advisers to make certain that this Bill will not in any way make it possible for members of a local authority, county managers or anybody else, either through favouritism or spite, to enhance the business of any person or persons.

It would be a very bad thing if members of a local authority were the deciding factor in this case. It is much better that it should be the county manager, who would not be so intimately associated with the licensed traders concerned. Everybody knows that in small towns—in the City of Dublin it may not apply to such an extent—there is an element of friendliness or favouritism on one side and, on the other side, petty spite. I ask the Minister, therefore, to ensure that members of a local authority will not have any say, whatsoever, in a decision as to where a new building should be situated, and, above and beyond all, to ensure that this Bill will not open the gate to further applications for new licences. We feel that we have enough. The travelling public are fully entitled to have a drink in Store Street but I feel the Minister will ensure that Store Street will not become just an ordinary licence. The licensed traders in the area need have no fears because what they lose on the roundabouts they certainly will make up on the swings. Again I appeal to the Minister to make certain that this Bill is not in any way going to open the door to any person desiring to have a new licence in the future.

Mr. Carew

Speaking for Limerick City, I am very glad that my colleague,Deputy Keyes, has already given his views on this Bill and I also want to say that I welcome it. I would further say that we in Limerick Corporation are grateful to the Minister for introducing this Bill as it affects the local authority. For a number of years past it has been a very vexed question for us in Limerick. As is generally known, the housing programme in Limerick has been pushed much faster, I think, than in any other part of the country. For that reason certain areas of the city had to be demolished and acquired by the public authority.

It has from time to time been a very serious and troublesome matter for us in the council when we are confronted with the situation where people had established businesses, inherited in a number of cases, and the first question asked us was, were we going to take away their livelihood. We had to come here to the Minister from Limerick Corporation, and we came to him at that time with a request that he would introduce legislation so as to permit a local authority to transfer licences that came in the way of housing development. He has very kindly and generously met our demands in that respect. I wish to thank him for it, because we have at the present time a housing scheme in Limerick in which there are three public-houses and while all the other houses around the area have been abolished the plans of that housing scheme have been more or less held up until this legislation comes along. I am very glad to see that on all sides of this House there is a feeling that it is necessary to have legislation that will be needed from time to time. The present Minister and other Ministers had requests from local authorities of a similar nature to what we had in Limerick and the Minister had no power whatever to meet them. The result is that in Limerick City for the next few years we will be confronted with a number of cases of this kind. I take it that it is not the intention that under this Bill there will be any new licences granted. It means the transfer of existing licences to housesbuilt on the particular site by the local authority. If that Bill was not brought in and if certain business houses had to be demolished and the people concerned had to accept compensation offered it would just mean depriving them of their livelihood and the compensation was not at all adequate. As far as the people in Limerick are concerned they are accepting the transfer of the licences under this Bill. I wish to say that we members of the corporation in Limerick were pressed by the licensed trade in Limerick for this Bill at the start but for some reason or other they did not favour it later on. Perhaps they have good reasons, and reasons have been given here this evening as regards Store Street. I would be in sympathy with the licensed trade, and I am sure the Minister is too, that Store Street should not interfere with existing licences.

We must not at all encourage the State or any public authority to deprive people of their private means of living, and in so far as Store Street would interfere with the licensed trade in the area I would like the Minister to consider that aspect of the situation seriously because he can do so, I am sure, by restricting the hours in which intoxicating liquor can be had, and perhaps in some other way, so as to meet the position of the traders in that area. Some of those traders, I take it, probably have not been there very long and may have purchased their premises at very high cost, and if the Store Street area should in any way be interfered with then I would ask the Minister as far as possible to try to meet that situation.

On the whole I take it that this Bill is necessary and that it is going to serve its purpose in the cities and towns, particularly in the cities, and I welcome it for that. Not to be repeating myself, I do appeal to the Minister in connection with the private interests of publicans who may be affected by the licence granted to Store Street that he will as far as possible meet their case.

Mr. Boland

On that last point, I think that Deputy Cowan made thecase very well. My personal opinion is that the fact that a new station the size of the bus station, Áras Mhic Dhiarmada, has been erected in the neighbourhood and brought some 700 or 800 civil servants into the area, and that crowds of people will be going on the buses, means, I am perfectly certain, that thousands of people will make purchases in the Store Street and Talbot Street area who formerly made their purchases elsewhere. I have no doubt whatever about that. Those who have had their valuations increased as a result of the erection of whatever alternations may have been made in anticipation of increased trade will, I think, find that they will not be disappointed. That particular area will become a very good business area.

So far as the bar is concerned, there is not going to be all that throng there in Store Street. There will be plenty of public-houses around, and on their way down some people will say: "We will call in here; there will be too many at Store Street, and we will have a drink on the way down." Others will say when they get to Store Street: "There will be too many in the bar, and we will go out and have it on the way to town." That is all I need say about that.

I think that if it had not been for some of the lobbying that took place here last evening there would not have been a bit about it. That is my firm opinion of the position. I am very glad that Deputy Carew and Deputy Keyes have borne out what my recollection was with regard to the position in Limerick. My recollection was that when I met the deputation from Limerick I was assured at that time that the licensed trade were in favour, so I was amazed afterwards to find that they were not, and I came to the conclusion that there was pressure brought to bear on them by the organisation in Dublin to oppose the Bill.

This is a simple Bill. It is not going to restrict business to the travelling public. There is no question of that. People calling there to see somebody off can have a drink during the same hours as in a public-house. The barwill have to be closed at the hour that it is closed in Dublin, but it is not going to be restricted to the travelling public, and it would be practically impossible to do that. There is no good in passing legislation that we would not be able to enforce, and no attempt is going to be made to confine it to the travelling public. It will have an ordinary licence.

I think there is no point in what Deputy Davern said, and I am surprised that he makes the suggestion. So far as I know about those demolition orders, if the local authorities want to go ahead with a housing scheme and they mean to demolish some building, I am not quite certain, but I think that they must get the consent of the Minister for Local Government before they can go ahead. I think that there is no likelihood of that happening at all.

The question has been raised about what portion of the building in Store Street will be licensed. That will have to be submitted by the Minister for Industry and Commerce. He will have to state quite definitely what portion of the premises in Store Street is to be licensed and that will be the only portion that will be licensed. The idea of saying that it will be extended to other parts of the building is ridiculous. It is laid down quite clearly in the Bill that it is the portion of Áras Mhic Dhiarmada which comprises the bus station.

Section 2 of the Bill states that an on-licence may be granted—that is, a licence to consume drink on the premises during the hours covered by an ordinary licence.

Deputy Keyes and Deputy Cowan dealt with every point that could have been raised. I must say that I appreciate the action of Deputy Keyes and Deputy Carew. It would be rather hard on me if I had to defend that, without the House being made aware that it was at the request of the elected representatives of Limerick City that I decided to bring in this Bill. I appreciate the action of both of these two Deputies in saying openly in this House that they came to me and asked me to do it.

Mr. Keyes

Thank you, Mr. Minister.

Question put and agreed to.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

When is it proposed to take the next stage?

Mr. Boland

Is there any objection to taking all the stages now?

Mr. Cosgrave

Next week.

Mr. Boland

Very well; Next Tuesday.

Committee Stage ordered for Tuesday, 17th November, 1953.