I assume amendments Nos. 1 to 6 will be taken together as they have the same purpose.
Intoxicating Liquor Bill, 1953— Committee and Final Stages.
Section 1 put and agreed to.
SECTION 2.
Yes. I move amendment No. 1:—
In sub-section (1), line 33, after "licence", to add the following:—
On receipt of such certificate the board shall apply, in the name of a person nominated by the board, to the competent court under the Licensing Acts, for a certificate entitling the person so nominated to an on-licence.
The purpose of this amendment is to get the board to apply to the court for a licence to trade in the premises at Store Street. Under the provisions of the Bill, the Minister can issue a certificate and, on application to the Revenue Commissioners, the licencecan be granted without giving to the public any right to oppose or object in any possible way. An ordinary trader would be obliged to go to court if he were applying for a new licence. He would have to go to great expense as he would have to employ a solicitor and counsel and prove that the population of the district had increased to a certain extent in order to warrant the granting of a new licence. He would also have to go to the expense of purchasing an existing licence to enable him to get permission from the court to engage in trading. Under the provisions of the Bill the board can avoid all this. As each of these amendments are set out, there are various restrictions which the board or any applicant for a new licence will find imposed upon them. I am asking the Minister to give these amendments very serious consideration and put the board in the position of an ordinary licensee applying for a new licence.
Mr. A. Byrne
I only rise to ask the Minister a question. In the old days, the late Mr. Kevin O'Higgins, when Minister for Justice, insisted that when a new licence was being granted an old one should be abolished. Am I to understand that C.I.E. will get a licence without purchasing another licence and abolishing it, or will this mean extra competition in an area that is already sufficiently catering for those who want to avail of licensed premises? There might be some consolation if the people in the area who went to considerable expense and in some cases got their valuations unjustly increased knew that a licence for premises with a certain floor space was to be abolished. I think the Minister should have regard to the old Act, which stated that if a new licence was to be granted an old one should be abolished and the owner adequately compensated.
On Section 2, I should like to say——
The Deputy cannot deal with the section per sebut he can deal with the amendments.
As to the first amendment, as the Bill stands the Revenue Commissioners can grant a licence on presentation of a certificate. If the Minister consulted the licensed trade I think he would find that it is very much resented by the licensed trade both organised and unorganised, that special legislation is to be passed to enable C.I.E. to obtain this licence. It is likely to lead to a great deal of criticism. In fact, since the Bill was introduced, it has been responsible for very great criticism because, as Deputy Byrne stated, there are already sufficient public-houses in the area to meet the local demand. If a person or a group of persons or an organisation wish to object or make a complaint in connection with the granting of such a licence, to whom are they to make complaint? Are they to make the complaint to the Minister?
Exactly.
And the Minister will give consideration to the complaint. If there is an objection to the granting of an ordinary publican's licence, when licences are being renewed or granted in court, an opportunity is given for objection. I think it is most unfortunate that one company should be singled out for special treatment. This Bill gives special treatment to the company or whoever is to be nominated for the licence. I think the Minister ought at least to meet Deputy Belton's request that the person nominated by the board for the licence should apply to the court. I think that is a reasonable request. In my opinion, the court is the competent authority as to whether a licence should or should not be granted or whether the application should be adjourned pending investigation. I very strongly recommend that the proposal of Deputy Belton in relation to granting the public the right to make objections should be considered.
I think it should be to the court that objections should be made and not to the Minister in his office. The Minister has not at any time given us any information as to the form of hearingenvisaged by him in connection with objections. Assuming for a moment that there are people in the vieinity of Store Street who have reason to make a serious complaint and have grounds for that complaint, in what manner is the complaint to be made to the Minister? Will it be by letter to him, for example? Where persons have fault to find with or want to make a complaint in regard to the manner in which a licensed premises is conducted, it has been the practice for them to make a complaint to a chief superintendent of the Guards or superintendent or at the licensing sessions of the court. I think that is the right and proper way to ventilate such a grievance or complaint. This is the first time to have such complaints made to the Minister. I may be wrong.
Mr. Boland
You are wrong.
I would prefer that in the case I have mentioned the concern, that is, C.I.E., should have to avail of the same law as is there for every publican in the country in connection with the granting of licences. I would strongly urge the Minister to sympathetically consider meeting Deputy Belton's request. His request is the opinion expressed by the majority of the citizens of Dublin in this connection. Not only is it the opinion of the majority of the people in Dublin, but it is that of everybody engaged in the licensed trade throughout the country. They are alarmed at the manner in which it is proposed to grant the licence in this case.
I should like to hear from the Minister what objection he has to having this licence granted by the courts. He may have some objection but I do not know that. I should like to hear from him in some detail his reasons for having the licence granted in the manner specified in Section 2 of the Bill.
Mr. Boland
The proposal to give a licence to the bus station is entirely different from an ordinary licence in respect of an ordinary trader. Deputy Flanagan is not right when he says that this is the first time complaints had to be made to the Minister. Therewere two other occasions. One was in respect of the licence for the airport and the other in respect of the turf camps. Both licences were granted on the certificate of the Minister for Industry and Commerce. The Oireachtas is actually giving authority to have a licence issued to C.I.E. It is the Oireachtas who is doing that and we are superior to any court.
If the thing is not being run properly Deputies can make their complaints here and they need not go to the Minister's office. The Deputy can raise them in the House and the Minisster for Industry and Commerce will have to take the matter up with C.I.E. if the place is not run in a proper way. I am sure he will do that. That is the remedy.
What Deputy Belton asks me to do is to have a second certificate. The Revenue Commissioners under this Bill are authorised, as they were authorised in the case of the airport and the turf camps, to grant a licence on the certificate of the Minister. The reason he gives it is to enable him to indicate the exact part of the premises that are to be licensed. That is his object in giving the certificate. There is no point whatever, I suggest, in Deputy Belton asking to have a second certificate issued by the court. The Oireachtas is higher than any court in the land. I think he has really no case at all. When we got the amendments, we considered them carefully and there was no other conclusion that I could come to. We are definitely giving a licence to a particular place and no other court ought to be given the right to interfere.
Would the Minister not think it is a temptation to have a bar where there will be 900 civil servants?
Mr. Boland
That is a different matter altogether.
Mr. A. Byrne
Abolish a licence.
Mr. Boland
That does not arise in this case. The law is that if a licence is being given for a new premises anexisting licence must be extinguished. That does not apply in this case.
In regard to the question of such a licence as this, the public in general are very anxious to know whether there are limitations to the hours of trading. This particular right is granted to the Minister and the Minister in this case puts himself in the place of the court.
Mr. Boland
The limits are the very same as those that apply to an ordinary on-licence.
In other words, the trading hours in the bus terminal, the Store Street bus station, under this Bill, will be, during the summer months, 10.30 a.m. to 10.30 p.m. on week-days and from 1.30 p.m. to 3 p.m. and from 5 p.m. to 7 p.m. on Sundays.
Mr. Boland
That is right.
What about the restaurant? Will the restaurant have a licence like the ordinary restaurant licence?
Mr. Boland
That is laid down in Section 5. We will come to it later.
Is it not an injustice of the particular Bill that the hours should be the same as those which operate in respect of the surrounding licensed premises in the area? There can be no question but that there is a case for a restaurant licence at the Store Street bus station for travellers —a licence which will enable travellers to obtain refreshments at a time when they are unobtainable outside the station—from 2.30 p.m. to 3.30 p.m. and after 10 p.m. in the winter and 10.30 p.m. in the summertime
It seems to me to be hardly reasonable on the part of the Minister that he should enact a piece of legislation which will, beyond question, work to the detriment of the persons in the vicinity of the bus station who, to the knowledge of the Minister and all of us, have gone in recent years to fairly considerable expense in regard to the purchase of premises and the improvement and extension of them in anticipationof the trade which it was said would come to the area when the Store Street terminal was opened.
I think the Minister would be well advised to accept, if he could, the principle enshrined in Deputy Belton's amendment. The acceptance of this amendment would at least ensure that these traders would have the same right that is given to traders elsewhere when it is proposed to open a licensed premises in the district in which they operate. The public in other areas have the right to go and express their views by objecting to the Garda authorities or before the court if necessary. I do not think we can visualise a situation in which members of the House will come in here and make complaints in regard to any matters about which they may feel aggrieved as to the operation of a bar in the Store Street bus station. I think that would be unreal. I do not think that is the function of the House in any event. It seems to be a somewhat undesirable precedent that the Minister should have the power to decide in regard to the allocation of the licence.
It is generally felt not only by the particular traders concerned in the Store Street, Talbot Street and Amiens Street areas but by most people in the city that it is unfair to such traders that there should be a bar in the Store Street premises during the hours when these traders would ordinarily be making their living by dealing with customers who would be travelling and making use of the terminal. That is particularly true at the present time when the licensed trade is in a depressed condition. I think the Minister might reconsider the matter, if at all possible, and try to be a little bit more fair to the traders concerned.
Mr. Boland
As regards the enforcement of the law in connection with this, Deputies know that it is the Guards who enforce observance of the licensing laws. I suppose, in this case, if there are many complaints it is the manager of the bar or restaurant who would be held responsible. I do not know whose job it will be, but I take it that the person running the bar will be responsible, and I imagine that, ifhe does not run it properly, the railway company will hardly leave him there. I imagine that if the people have complaints to make, they will either write to the Minister or have them raised here.
There is one rather very interesting point that I would like to raise, and I am raising it on the basis of seeing that there will be fair treatment as between this bar and its competitors. The point is, can the Minister tell me what sum the Government propose to charge C.I.E. for that portion of the premises which is going to be used as the bar?
Mr. Boland
I could not tell you that.
The Minister should be able to tell me that.
Mr. Boland
I do not think it arises on this Bill.
The Minister must know. Is it not a fact that a fairly substantial rent will be charged to C.I.E. for the use of the lower floors of the building as distinct from the other floors?
Mr. Boland
That does not arise on the Bill.
I do not see how that question arises.
Comparisons have been made between this bar and its competitors. Therefore I say the rent charged for this bar should be made known if they are not ashamed to make it known.
Would the Minister consider this point? The licence for this bar is to be granted by Order of the Minister without any necessity of going to the Circuit Court for the licence. In view of that, would the Minister consider making it incumbent on those in control of the bar to apply for a renewal of the licence at the annual licensing sessions when, as we know, complaints and objections can be raised against renewals? I suggest to the Minister that it would be muchpreferable if those in charge of the bar had to apply at the annual licensing sessions for a renewal of the licence rather than have petty complaints, if there were such, arising out of the management or the running of this licensed premises in Store Street being raised here in Leinster House.
I agree with Deputy Belton's suggestion. It seems to me to be wrong to have the Minister for Justice putting himself above the law.
Mr. Boland
How can the Deputy say that the Minister is putting himself above the law in view of the fact that the law is now being enacted here? The Minister is not doing anything of the kind.
That is in connection with the establishment of this bar. I am thinking of the day to day working of the bar and I am suggesting that it should be subject to the same controls and rules as every other bar in the country.
Mr. Boland
And so it will be.
Would it not be advisable that those in charge of this bar should have to seek a renewal of the licence at the annual licensing sessions in the same way as every other owner of a bar? That would afford an opportunity to have its good conduct, or otherwise, brought to the notice of the justice in the same way as every other bar in the country.
Will the Minister say if there is any other prospective bar in the whole world that has 900 possible customers over it, on the same premises, as this one will have?
Mr. Boland
I cannot speak for the whole world, but there are some other premises in the country such, for example, as the airports where you have a great number of people employed. I do not know the number. I should like to know if the Deputy is referring to the civil servants employed in the building, because if he is I would think that three-quarters of them are teetotallers.
Well, there is a staff of about 900 there.
The Minister has rightly claimed that this House is the highest court in the land, and that it is giving this licence. Am I to understand from that, that at any time it thinks fit this House can revoke that licence?
Mr. Boland
Certainly, by repealing this part of the Bill.
That will not be too easily done.
Mr. Boland
Not if the House will not do it, but it could do it.
I think it would be better to leave this bar in exactly the same position as regards rules and controls as every other bar in the country.
Mr. Boland
In every other case there is what you might call individual control, but this is almost a State Department now.
What I am anxious to get from the Minister is, what is the proposed rent to be for this portion of the building?
Mr. Boland
The Deputy should put that question to the Minister for Industry and Commerce.
The Minister is a member of the Government and should know.
Mr. Boland
I am not the person to deal with that.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendments Nos. 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 not moved.
I take it that amendments Nos. 7 and 8 are not being moved. Amendment No. 7 is consequential, as the House has already decided that it is the Minister who is to grant the licence and not a competent court.
Amendments Nos. 7 and 8 not moved.
There is a small point I would like to raise on amendment No. 7.
The Deputy can do that on the section.
Question proposed: "That Section 2 stand part of the Bill."
I should like to draw the Minister's attention to the point that was aimed at in amendment No. 7. The wording of that amendment was as follows:—"together with the certificate of the competent court under the licensing Acts, and provided always that the valuation of the premises to be licensed is not less than £500." Can the Minister tell me what the valuation of the premises proposed to be licensed under this Bill will be?
Mr. Boland
I do not know, but it will be over £30.
I know it will be over £30, but the valuation of a certain hotel in that district was quite recently increased to £490 while the valuation of a certain licensed premises adjacent to Store Street was increased by £140 —that is, from £60 to £200. These premises will be trading in opposition to this bar whose overheads will not be anything like the overheads of outside premises owned by private individuals. Might I also say at this stage that I doubt very much if the same wages will be paid to the employees in this bar as are being paid to the employees in outside premises?
Mr. Boland
Deputy Davin will look after that.
In outside premises you can only employ men, but in this place ladies will be employed. That is a matter which the Minister should consider. It seems to me that it will be very unfair if the valuation of these premises is far lower than the valuation of a licensed premises in the adjoining district.
Mr. A. Byrne
I should like to support what Deputy Belton has said on that last point. It is one that I had intended to raise on the Bill myself. Iam aware that the owners of licensed premises in this district, in anticipation of the increased trade they expected to get from the erection of this building in the district, improved their premises at considerable cost to themselves. As soon, however, as they had done that, the Valuation Commissioner increased their valuations considerably. Would it not be possible for the Minister to recommend, in view of the fact that the increase in trade which those people anticipated is not likely to come about, that the valuation of their premises should be restored to its former figure? When this bus station was put up, all those people were looking forward to an increase in trade. Now, they are not likely to get that trade, and so I suggest that the increases made recently in their valuations should be reduced accordingly.
Mr. Boland
Are we on the amendment or on the section?
As amendment No. 7 was consequential on other amendments, and was not moved, I allowed Deputy Belton to make his point on the section.
Mr. Boland
It would be impossible for the Minister to ensure what the Deputy asks. His function is to determine or indicate what portion of the premises will be licensed. I do not see how he could subdivide the valuation. On the Second Reading we debated the point as to how the area would be affected. I am not quite as long in Dublin as Deputy Byrne—although I have lived here all my life—but I am perfectly certain that that area is going to improve immensely. I am not responsible for increasing or decreasing valuations, but I have no doubt that both the licensed premises in that area and the other business houses will benefit enormously by the fact that the new station has been erected. Although we are only guessing, I am quite sure that Deputy Byrne believes that also.
Although I have not taken part in this contentious debate and only to a small extent in connection with the site of the bus station,I am perfectly satisfied that neither the site of the bus station nor the merits of this Bill are what really count. This is a contest really between certain sides of speculators, one side having won and some others having lost in the battle for the site of the bus station. I am being quite frank and I want to see fair competition between citizens who are engaged in the same kind of trading competition. I want to see it in this case as in every other case but Deputies are not discussing this matter on the basis of reality. Deputy Byrne and other Deputies who are interested, who represent the area and have won this battle for the moment are now discussing on this section of the Bill the excessive valuation that has been imposed in anticipation of certain trade coming to the bus station area if there was no licensed premises on the bus site itself. Deputy Belton has made a very good point and although the Minister himself is not the Minister responsible to this House for the activities and for the policy of the Valuation Commissioner, I would say that this is an outrageous state of affairs. I believe it is correct to state that one house that carried a valuation of £60 up to a short time ago is now having its valuation increased by £140 to £200. I do not know on what basis that increased valuation has been fixed.
The Deputy is disgressing a little from the Bill.
We are not on the question of reality so far as the section is concerned. In regard to the value of the business that will come to the bus station, the people in the bus station who run this bar will have no fixed valuation. They will have to pay a rent and the Minister is ashamed or afraid to mention the amount of the rent.
Mr. Boland
I do not know.
You should know.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 3.
Question proposed: "That Section 3 stand part of the Bill."
I want to ask the Minister to provide for renewal of the licence by the Circuit Court each year. If the Minister could see his way to do that it would help to smooth many of the difficulties in the way of this Bill. Personally, I do not see how there could be any objection to that.
Mr. Boland
I suggest that this is consequential on what we have been discussing; it is the same principle, to give the court power to refuse or renew the licence.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 4.
I move amendment No. 9:—
In sub-section (1), line 4, after "alteration," to add the following:—"provided always that the amendment or amendments of the licence approved under this section have been notified to the superintendent of the Garda Síochána for the time being of the district in which the premises are situate at least 21 days before they are implemented, and that the said officer or any officer acting on his behalf raises no objection to the amendment or amendments on the ground of effective supervision of the premises, and in the event of such an objection being made and not accepted by the board the Minister shall withdraw the certificate until the superintendent's objections are overruled by the competent court under the Licensing Acts."
In Section 4 the Minister would give himself the right to extend the licence or to have it transferred to another part of the premises of the bus terminal and to issue to the board a certificate approving of the alteration. I gather that this would only apply to that portion of the bus terminal which would be leased by Social Welfare to the board. Does it mean that the licence would only be granted for thepart of the bus station occupied by C.I.E.?
Mr. Boland
That is all.
If at some future date C.I.E. got the whole of the premises, would this licence apply to the whole building?
Mr. Boland
Only to the portion indicated by the Minister. He would have to set out in a certificate the portion that would have to be licensed, and it would be limited to that.
I think when the Minister is discussing the extending of the area affected by the licence that I could mention exemption orders. Would the Minister require to apply to a Circuit Court in this case for an exemption order?
Mr. Boland
Yes.
The Minister would have to apply for an exemption order?
Mr. Boland
C.I.E. would apply for it.
Or rather the licensee would apply.
Mr. Boland
That would be C.I.E.
If it was decided to hold a wedding reception in the Store Street bus terminal, would the licensee have to apply to the Circuit Court for an exemption order?
Mr. Boland
Yes.
Is the Minister in a position to state whether it is intended to carry on in the bus terminal such trading as dinners, annual functions, wedding receptions, and so on, as is done in Dublin airport?
Would we dispense with the amendment first and then go on to the section? Does that arise out of the amendment?
I am not quite certain.
If the Deputy thinks it arises out of the amendment, I will allow him to proceed.
I put that question to the Minister. Is it the intention to carry on trading such as that?
Mr. Boland
As far as I know it is not but while I am on that point, and since I see Deputy McMenamin is here, I would like to refer to an accusation he made against me last week. He said I was guilty of bad faith. I did not know he was referring to me at the time but I was the Minister who put through the Licensing Act which gave the airport a licence. He said I had given an undertaking that it would not be used for any other purpose than to facilitate the travelling public. I could not remember ever having given such an undertaking but as I was not prepared to rely entirely on my memory I decided to wait until I had the record of the debates searched. At no time did I give such an undertaking and no Deputy asked me to do so.
I would like for the sake of the record to say that because on two occasions Deputy McMenamin accused me quite openly of breaches of faith. In view of what has been said here I hope he will take the opportunity to withdraw that because it is not correct. He probably thought he was right but he was apparently briefed by somebody who had not taken the trouble to look the matter up.
Has a copy of a map of the portion to be licensed been lodged with the Department?
Mr. Boland
I have put my disclaimer on record anyhow. If Deputy McMenamin will not withdraw what he said he just will not withdraw it and I cannot help that. I want to have my denial there anyway. I do not know what the intention of C.I.E. may be and I hope that on some future occasion the Minister who put this particular Bill through will not be accused of saying there would not be any such thing. I do not know whether there will be or not. I do not know what their intentions are.
Would not the Minister be well advised to have that made clear with C.I.E.?
Mr. Boland
That is a matter which might properly be raised with the Minister for Industry and Commerce to see if that will be done. I cannot give any promise. I do not imagine they will but I cannot say.
But once they get this licence then they could do it if they liked?
Mr. Boland
They will have to apply for exemption orders and if the Minister for Industry and Commerce objects to that policy he can say so. I think that is a pretty good safeguard there.
Does not every restaurant do what it likes when it gets a licence, subject to extension of time?
Mr. Boland
I suppose they do what they consider best for themselves but I think C.I.E. will have enough to do to carry on their business and run their buses to schedule.
Will there be ingress and egress from the bar to the restaurant?
Mr. Boland
I imagine there will be, but I am not sure about that. They may be on different floors.
Is it not also well known to the Minister that the railway refreshment rooms in Dublin and elsewhere close before the normal public-houses at 8 or 9 o'clock?
Mr. Boland
I do not want to say that they will not remain open until 10 o'clock or that they will close at the ordinary time for railway refreshment rooms. I think that is what they intend to do.
Did the Minister get a map of the place?
Mr. Boland
I am surprised the Deputy did not take an opportunity to withdraw that statement of his.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 4 agreed to.
Amendments Nos. 10 and 11 not moved.
Section 5 agreed to.
SECTION 6.
I move amendment No. 12:—
Before Section 6 to insert a new section as follows:—
Notwithstanding anything contained in the Licensing Acts it shall not be lawful under the licence granted under this Act to supply or sell intoxicating liquor for consumption off the premises.
There is one point I would like to make on this—it is a question of selling drink for consumption on or off the premises—will this licence enable the members of the travelling public to purchase bottles of whiskey or a half-dozen of stout and bring them away on the bus?
Of course it will. You are not so innocent. You know what the meaning of a licence is.
Why ask the question, then?
The ordinary licence granted to a licensed premises whose trading hours will be similar to the trading hours at the bus station would not cover selling drink to bona fide travellers during the hours this licence will allow the bus terminus to operate.
Mr. Boland
There are only two types of licences, the one "on" and the other "off". The holder of an "on" licence can sell for consumption either on or off the premises, and that would apply to this case because it is an "on" licence that is being granted to C.I.E., and the ordinary hours apply. If we were to accept this amendment they would not be allowed to sell for consumption off the premises and I think you could not enforce that at all. You would have to change the whole licensing system. I think Deputy Belton must realise it would be impossible to impose that and it would be inconsistent with the rest of the law.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 13:—
In sub-section (1), line 16, to delete "may, if they think fit," and substitute "shall".
The purpose of this amendment is to make it mandatory on the local authority to grant a certificate to a person whose premises is about to be demolished, or has been demolished, under a clearance order. The Minister will note that the section is phrased in the words that the local authority "may if they think fit," and I want to substitute the word "shall" for "may". I understand this section is designed to cover in particular the cases that were referred to in Limerick but I have knowledge of a case here in the City of Dublin where a clearance order is in process of being made and the occupants of all the houses have already been removed leaving almost as sole occupant of the particular area that was formerly a village, a publican. The owner of a premises in question was approached by the corporation officials on the grounds that they would offer compensation in the ordinary way, but between the delay in the payment of the compensation and the actual making of the order the owners is in this difficulty that the residents who formerly made up his customers have been removed to alternative accommodation and he is left in what is virtually a derelict area.
I think, in circumstances like that, that the local authority should either pay compensation speedily or, in the circumstances envisaged in this section, grant a certificate which would enable a person to take steps to get a new premises. It should be mandatory on the local authority where a compulsory acquisition order is made to grant a certificate so that a person may be in a position to elect as to whether he will take compensation or have an alternative premises provided for him.
As far as the local authority is concerned, if an applicant wants a licence they should be obliged to give it to him. I do not know whether Deputy Cosgrave has, in fact, surmounted the difficulty because I think he intends to substitute "shall" for "may", leaving the following words.
I have deleted the words that follow.
"If they think fit" is gone.
In that case I think Deputy Cosgrave's amendment seems to be the proper way of dealing with the matter. I think the Minister feels himself that there is so much to be said for it that the amendment could be accepted.
Mr. Boland
If that could always be done I would agree to accept it and I think the local authority, if they were in a position to do so, would grant a licence; I think, however, it would be a mistake to make it mandatory on them.
They do not grant a licence. They grant a certificate.
Mr. Boland
I should have said certificate. The local authority may not have a site available or the site proposed may cut across their housing policy. A local authority is a domestic body and if the matter is left to them they will go fully into it. We are authorising them to grant a certificate and I think that, generally speaking, they will give that certificate. It might happen that they might not be in a position to grant such a certificate and, if we make it mandatory, the local authority will be required to do something which they are not in a position to do. That is my case against putting "shall" instead of "may as they think fit". I think the Bill is better as it stands.
I have some little experience of this matter. Local authorities are not free agents and there are instances in which other people are inclined to use their influence to prevent a public-house being established in a particular area. No later than this morning in the Dublin Town Planning Committee we were up against a problem where a citizen wanted to build a cinema, quite a long distance from a church, and we were bluntly told that the proposal to grant a cinema licence would not be accepted. That is what I fear in connection with this matter. Pressure will be exercised to prevent a man getting a licence. For thatreason I am strongly in favour of Deputy Cosgrave's amendment. If the phrase "may as they think fit" is left in the Bill all sorts of troubles will arise. Indeed, it would probably be simpler for a man to go into court and get a licence there rather than approach his local authority.
Mr. Boland
If we make it "shall" we may be giving the local authority a job that they cannot carry out.
Would the Minister not consider throwing it in as one of the things to be considered by the arbitrator? An exactly similar provision was included in another Bill and I suggested that it ought to be "shall" instead of "may if they think fit", and I got an assurance at the time that that particular construction would be dealt with in a certain way. It now appears that departmental assurance follows without question but a subsidiary body is not prepared to carry out that assurance. The same position may arise here. I am sure that if it were the Minister's Department that was dealing with this matter he would give an assurance that it would be done wherever it is possible to have it done. But it is not the Minister who will determine the matter. One could introduce an amendment that the local authority "shall" unless the arbitrator who determines the acquisition certifies that it is not feasible to grant a licence; possibly one could get around it in that way.
I take it all Parties are doing the best they can to protect the interests of dispossessed publicans. I am inclined to thing that the Bill as it stands provides a better protection than does the amendment proposed by Deputy Cosgrave. If one says "shall", that is an injunction. We know that a local authority is bound to give compensation in respect of structurally sound houses which have to be removed under a clearance order. Licence or no licence, compensation must be paid. The arbitrator makes his report and if the question of a licence arises that considerably influences the decision of the arbitrator. If we provide that the localauthority shall give a licence, that will be that. There are cases where the owner of a licensed premises may not want to take another licence and would prefer to have compensation instead. Under the wording of the Bill as it stands there is a certain elasticity. The possibility of too many licences being extinguished, if we accept this amendment, might arise or, on the other hand, too many licences might be diverted into a particular area. If "shall" is stronger I am prepared to accept that, but I think the particular interests are better protected within the elasticity of the section as it stands.
Different circumstances govern different localities and the substitution of "shall" here will not make it mandatory on a local authority to provide an alternative site. The local authority can give a certificate but there is no obligation on them to force a particular person who has been dispossessed to take that certificate. The case I have in mind is where an area is being cleared and there will be no rebuilding in that area. Transferring the licence holder to an alternative site will only have the effect of putting him into competition with already established publicans. On the other hand, leaving him in the area which has been cleared will have the effect of leaving him without customers. Under my amendment, it will be a matter for his own discretion to decide whether he will accept compensation or an alternative site.
I know this is not the Minister's particular responsibility, but there is considerable delay in the payment of compensation and I am trying to ensure that a person whose property is acquired will have a quick decision available to him, either by way of compensation or by way of a certificate granting him a new premises.
There is a further point to be considered. If the intention is that a licence will be given to a particular place there can be very violent objection on the part of certain licensed traders to another licence going there, and substantial influencecould be brought to bear on individual members of the local authority not to grant it. We all know that that sort of thing happens. For that reason I would much prefer to see the word "shall" in the section than the word "may".
Surely the individual members of local authorities have nothing to do with this. This is a managerial function.
I shall refer to that in a moment.
I am not quite sure whether the point I wish to make arises on this amendment or not. Under the Bill the local authority are permitted to offer a dispossessed publican premises in another area, and if he is not satisfied and will not accept it they can offer him compensation which, I presume, will be decided by arbitration. Then they can offer his old licence to the highest bidder irrespective of what the amount of compensation was. Does the Minister not think that that is an injustice to the old licensee?
Mr. Boland
He could take the licence if he liked, could he not?
Take, for example, a certain clearance area. Take one end of Parnell Street and suppose a publican had a premises there. Last week the Minister said that many publicans were most dissatisfied with the amount of compensation which they received for their premises. If that publican in Parnell Street sought other premises from the Dublin Corporation, and on examination of the district, population and other relevant matters he and his advisers were satisfied that he would not do anything like the same trade in the new premises as he was doing in his premises in Parnell Street, and if he refused to accept the new premises he would have to accept the compensation which would be decided by arbitration and the corporation could then sell his old licence.
Mr. Boland
All that that shows is that he made a bad bargain. If they were able to get a better price than he or his advisers thought it was worthit would show that he made a bad bargain.
The arbitrator often steps in.
The Minister agreed the other day that the arbitrator does not always give the publican all that he desires.
Mr. Boland
Nobody ever gets enough. I know the point the Deputy is making but I do not want to put something in the Bill which it would be impossible to carry out. That is what you would be doing in this case. There is also the point that Deputy Keyes made, that it might mean that they could not get compensation if they did not want to take the premises whereas, if you leave it as it is, it is elastic enough. Generally speaking, the local authority will try to give a fair deal. I think Deputy Cosgrave ought not to press the amendment.
A question was asked as to whether this is a managerial function or not. I do not know whether it is or not. I take it that unless it is expressly defined to be a reserved function it would be a managerial function. That is a matter which the Minister might look into. In Dublin we do not worry about what is managerial and what is not because we operate under a system whereby the manager refers all these things to the appropriate committee and carries out whatever the committee decides. We have not the same difficulties as they have in other parts of the country in regard to the division of responsibility between local authorities and the managers. I should like to consider the question as to whether it should properly be a managerial function or a reserved function.
We are pretty happy about managerial and non-managerial functions in Kildare because we agree but I see two Deputies from County Laois here; they would not agree in the same happy way; their experience is most unhappy.
Mr. Boland
In Limerick City the manager and the members of the corporation work very happily.
The way indicated by Deputy Cowan is the right way to work. Unfortunately, that is not our position.
Is it a managerial function? Is it a function of the county or city manager?
Mr. Boland
I could not say. The issuing of the certificate is for the local authority. Whether that is a managerial function or not I am not able to say.
The Minister could look into that.
I am sure it would be a managerial function.
Mr. Boland
I am unable to say offhand.
I could not share Deputy Cowan's views on that if it is a managerial function.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendments Nos. 14 and 15 may be discussed together.
I move amendment No. 14:—
In sub-section (1) to delete paragraphs (a) and (b), lines 18 to 24, and substitute two new paragraphs as follows:—
"(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 their rights to declare an area a clearance area, and
(b) a particular site acquired by them within the clearance area is the nearest site, having regard to all the reasonably relevant considerations of replanning the area for the purpose for which it was cleared, to the demolished premises that could be approved by them as a site for licensed premises in substitution for the former premises, and is so approved by them."
Amendment No. 15 proposes the substitution of two new paragraphs which would deal with the position in a better way than it would be dealt with by the section as drafted. The two new paragraphs are as follows:—
"(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 their rights to declare an area a clearance area, and
(b) a particular site acquired by them within the clearance area is approved by them as a site for licensed premises in substitution for the former premises."
Amendment No. 14 deals with the location of the new premises. If licensed premises in a clearance area were demolished, there would be no uneasiness if new premises were erected on the same site or near the same site. Where the site is in, say, another street, the Minister will see the grave injustice that could be done to other traders. I mentioned last week as an example that if an area at the top of Grafton Street had to be demolished for any reason, such as housing, street widening or removal of dangerous buildings, and Mooney's public-house in Harry Street were moved 20 feet, it would become a public-house in Grafton Street rather than a public-house in Harry Street. Under this section, the local authority would have permission to give a licence for premises in another area, and that could be very detrimental to existing traders. It is arguable that a licence for a public-house in the middle of Moore Street could be transferred to premises in Henry Street. The authority to decide whether that would be detrimental to the business of other traders in the Henry Street area would be the city manager. I think that the Minister should consider this amendment or, as the Ceann Comhairle suggested coupling these two together, these two amendments. Where demolished licensed premises in a clearance area in the city could be moved outside to another area, that would seriously again affect trade. I think the Minister should give this veryserious consideration, and I am quite sure that he realises how uneasy the people in the licensed trade are. The capital value of licensed premises in this country is something over £40,000,000. The capital value of those premises enables their owners to secure trading accommodation from their banks to enable them to carry on business as they think fit. How is the fact that the licences can now become mobile, more or less, at the behest of the local authority, going to affect the security that licensed traders can offer their banks? I think that the Minister could deal with the three affected ladies in Limerick rather than introduce sections such as these which seriously affect the trade in general throughout the country, and that the Minister should, if he saw fit, deal with the Limerick situation as an exceptional case.
It was stated last week by some of the speakers here that the licensed trade in Limerick were completely behind this Bill and were completely in favour of it. That is not true. This Bill, as the Minister knows, was introduced to correct some irregularities— I may use the word for want of a better one—that occurred, or some injustices that occurred, in the Limerick area. There were three widows, publicans, in Limerick who were affected by a clearance area. Every public representative and every person in the licensed trade in Limerick supported the case of these three widows, but the members of the licensed trade in Limerick did not realise that when they were putting forward a case for those three widows they were opening this door so wide. They are not, I am informed, in favour of this Bill. They are strongly opposed to it even though they are in favour of the three Limerick widows been satisfactorily dealt with by the Minister. That, I understand, is the position, and I would ask the Minister to give this matter very serious consideration because it is believed generally, and particularly in the trade, that in giving any local authority permission such as this the publicans' trade and the Government will eventually suffer. In 1902 restrictions were put on the numberof licences that were to be issued in this country. There were numerous new licenses granted for various reasons prior to that. The 1902 Intoxicating Liquor Act was introduced to curb the granting of new licences and it is a fact that since 1902 no new licences were granted except an old licence was extinguished. In other words the number of licensed houses in the country at the moment is not greater than the number of licensed houses that there were in 1902. I believe that there are something like a couple of thousand fewer now than there were in 1902, but in this case I can see that the number of licences will increase. I would ask the Minister to give these two amendments serious consideration as I think they affect a great majority of the people who are interested in the licensed trade.
Mr. Boland
I think there is no point in this amendment at all. There is a provision in Section 7 which lays down that the court must have regard to whether the granting of a licence in a new area would detrimentally affect —would be unreasonably detrimental to—the trade in existing premises. It would be quite impossible in some cases anyway to confine the issue of a new licence to the actual area that had been demolished. I think I am right in saying that this would nearly be the reverse case to that made by Deputy Cosgrave in his amendment if that was to be mandatory, that they would provide a licence if that had been accepted. I could not agree with that either because it might not be possible to do that; it would mean probably having to go to some area outside the demolished area. I think that the safeguard we provide under Section 7 requiring the court to be satisfied before they issue a licence in a new area other than an area that had been demolished that it would not be unreasonably detrimental to the business carried on there is as good a safeguard as can possibly be given. I discussed this matter with some representatives of the licensed trade only yesterday. I am not going to say that I satisfied them because I know that I did not, but I might point out that they made their point and I asked them to get mebetter words. They had drafts with them and the particular word that we have in this, the word "unreasonable," occurred at least twice in some drafts that they had. The court has experience in licensing matters and it should be up to it to decide whether the proposed new location of the public-house is going to be unreasonably detrimental. I think that is as far as it is possible to go. I think that Deputy Belton on consideration will admit that this is giving more protection than they actually have at present, because I think he knows that the court can give a new licence now where there has been a certain increase in population even though it may affect existing premises. I know myself of cases not far from my own neighbourhood where it has affected existing premises, but nevertheless, under the existing law, the court was not required to look at that—what they had to look at was the general convenience of the people in the area. In this Bill they are required not alone to do that but to be satisfied that it would not detrimentally affect the business of existing premises. I think that is as good protection as we can give them.
Should not the price of the commodity influence it?
Mr. Boland
We hear that ad nauseamon some other occasions and I fear we will hear it again but I submit that it does not arise here.
Would the Minister provide that in this event a new licence would be confined to, say, a clearance area or to a newly developed area? Take, for example, Suffolk Street. You have two licensed premises in Suffolk Street, a very short street, and the corporation sell or own a premises there—Walpoles. I do not know whether they do or not, but assume that they do; an area could be demolished in Christ Church Place and the corporation could offer those premises, Walpoles, as a new licensed premises to the tenant of the premises demolished in Christ Church Place. The Minister can see readily how two existing traders in Suffolk Streetwould be affected by the advent of something like that. Will the Minister tell us now if the corporation are in a position to do such a thing under this Bill?
Mr. Boland
I would not say so. It might be that they would not be in a position to provide a site in the area desired; they might want to widen a road or to make a playground for the children, and the area to be taken up in that way might be bigger than the space provided by the demolished houses. They would then have to get what they would consider the most reasonable site to compensate the person whose premises have been destroyed—but it would have to be done in pursuance of this measure. The report would have to have regard to whether or not the new premises would detrimentally affect other existing premises. If they did what Deputy Belton suggests, that is, to erect a palatial public-house between two existing public-houses, I think that it would be generally agreed that it would be detrimental to the two existing houses. The person would, therefore, have to be compensated in some other way if he could not get an alternative suitable premises or site. That is a clear as it could be.
I know that the Minister is well able to defend himself, but I should like to help to defend him against this barrage of attack that has been directed at him, on a purely false foundation.
Mr. Boland
That is very good of Deputy Davin.
How can the Minister, his advisers or the members of a court know whether, when a publican is transferred from one area to another, he will carry his former customers with him and, consequently, maintain the income which he earned before he was pitchforked out of one place into another?
Deputy Belton is in the licensed trade and, I am quite certain, carries it on in a highly dignified way. Is it not well known to him that the income of a licensed trader has something to do with the individual and the servicehe gives to his customers and the area where he has built up his premises? A good proportion of the trade is due to the publican's personal popularity and to the good service which he gives. If a publican is transferred to a newly-built-up area, it can easily be that the newly-built-up area will contain nothing but teetotallers, and how can you force teetotallers to patronise the publican and how can the publican expect to prosper if his new premises are situated in an area like that? The Minister may laugh but it is not a laughing matter to people who like a bottle of stout or a half glass of whiskey, which they are entitled to obtain as free citizens.
The spending capacity of people in a newly-built-up area has something to do with maintaining the income of the publican who is transferred to it from another area. If the Minister for Justice is now about to join his colleague, the Minister for Finance, in doubling the price of whiskey and stout, how can you expect—in a case such as you are arguing about now—to protect the interests of the licensed trader when he is taken from one area and put into another? Probably no body of official advisers could foresee what would happen in such circumstances.
Amendment No. 14, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 15 not moved.
Section 6 agreed to.
SECTION 7
Amendments Nos. 16, 17 and 18 not moved.
Section 7 agreed to.
Sections 8, 9 and 10 inclusive agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Agreed to take the remaining stages now.
Bill reported without amendments.
Question—"That the Bill be received for final consideration"—agreed to.
Question proposed—"That the Bill do now pass."
I only want to make one comment. Deputies on all sidesof the House have from time to time advocated legislation to deal with a number of matters. In some cases, legislation has been promised; in other cases, the prospect is held out that the legislation may be introduced in the future. I marvel at the powerful influences which have been at work to get this legislation introduced. Áras Mhic Dhiarmada is only a month open and, within a month of its opening, a Bill is introduced into this House to provide a pub in the premises, as well as other amenities. Whatever powerful influences have been at work, the alacrity with which this legislation has been drafted and introduced should give us all food for thought.
I want now, as I did on a previous occasion, to state, for the purpose of the records of the House, my opposition and my serious and strenuous opposition to the granting of a licence for Store Street. I think it is altogether wrong. The grounds for the serious opposition which I have in regard to this measure come from my consideration for the other publicans in the area. I feel and I think that, quite honestly, there are already a sufficient number of licensed premises in that area to cater for the needs and the requirements of the public and even of the potential travellers of C.I.E. What would be the position if the licensee or the holder of the licence agreed to sell beer, wine, whiskey and stout at even a halfpenny cheaper than the other publicans in the area? C.I.E. can afford to do so and if this bar will be conducted and run on the same financial lines as C.I.E. is at present, there may be a possibility of drink being sold cheaper in the bus station for the purpose of attracting people to travel by C.I.E. and of bringing customers into the premises in Store Street. Even if they sold stout at a halfpenny per bottle cheaper than the other publicans, I feel that considerable damage would be done to the licensed trade in the area. In the event of wedding receptions, meetings, dinners and other receptions being held there, that in itself would be bound to have a very serious effect on the hotel trade ingeneral in the city. In view of all that, I again enter my protest on behalf of those engaged in the hotel business in Dublin.
The Minister told us a few moments ago that the area in which Áras Mhic Dhiarmada is situated is prosperous and that it will become more prosperous as time goes on. How does the Minister consider that the publicans in that area will become more prosperous by the establishment of opposition in their midst? For the life of me, I cannot see how the granting of another licence to C.I.E. will bring a greater measure of prosperity to the publicans who are working in competition with C.I.E.
By having a greater movement of population.
If the Minister thinks that a greater measure of prosperity will be bestowed upon the other publicans in the Store Street area as a result of the granting of this licence, then he is welcome to that opinion and I hope it will prove to be true. I hope that it will bring an increased measure of prosperity to the area, although I do not see how that can come about.
My last point concerns Section 6 of the Bill, sub-section (1) of which starts as follows:—
"A local authority may, if they think fit, issue to any person a certificate declaring that— . . ."
I think the Minister would be well advised to arrange with the local authority, or whatever Department would be concerned, that this would be a function of the local authority and not a managerial function. I am inclined to disagree completely with Deputy Cowan; I do not know what Deputy Davin's views are on the matter. Where a local authority is to be called upon to investigate the necessity for the issuing or granting of a certificate, it should be a matter for the elected representatives and not for the manager.
The Managerial Act may be working very smoothly in some areas where there is a spirit of close co-operationbetween the manager and the elected representatives, but I feel that nobody has a better or greater knowledge of conditions prevailing locally than the elected representatives, and I suggest that where a local authority is referred to in the Bill the reference should be to the elected representatives and not the manager. Very often there is great confusion by reason of both the elected representatives and the manager being referred to as the local authority. I do not know who was responsible for it, but very likely at an early stage we will be able to talk that over in relation to other legislation, but the Minister would be well advised to see that it would be a function of the elected representatives and not of the manager. I have no objection whatever to the other sections of the Bill referred to by Deputy Keyes and others who are interested in the Limerick publicans. My objection was, and is, to the licensing of the Store Street premises.
I have to disagree with my colleague, Deputy Flanagan, because I do not think anything outrageous is being done in passing this measure. It does not create any undesirable precedent, because if one searched the records of the House I think one would find previous cases to justify this measure. I have no constituency interest of any kind in this matter. I hold certain views and I gave expression to them with regard to the location of the bus station when that was a proper matter for discussion, but when a majority of the House in their wisdom came to a decision I did not bother about the matter any further.
I regarded this row about the location of the bus station site as a bit of a gamble by one set of organised speculators against another. Deputy Cowan's constituency won in this battle of wits. There might be more behind it than the wisdom of the people engaged in it but at any rate the bus station is now where it is and there is nothing wrong and nothing irregular, except in the eyes of people with a very bigoted outlook, in having a refreshment room in such animportant transport centre. Anybody who has travelled inside or outside the country, as the Minister and many of us have travelled, have never seen a railway or bus station without a licensed premises attached to it. The licensed premises is put there for the convenience of the travelling public and that is all I am interested in. That is why I favour the Bill—because it is designed for the convenience of at least a section of the people who come to and go from the city using the new bus station.
Has the Deputy been in the Cork bus station?
You will shake Deputy McGrath if you raise a matter of that kind.
You could not get a drink of water in it.
Deputy McGrath, if he feels like it, can now use this Bill as a precedent. We talk about fair and unfair competition but even in the case of one nationalised concern competing against another there is such a thing as fair competition. So long as private enterprise is used for the convenience of the public and competition is necessary under that system I want to see fair competition within the system of private enterprise. If there is unfair competition inside that system by one trader as against another, or by one set of traders against another set, I will favour the trader or set of traders giving the best possible conditions to those working for him or them.
Deputy Flanagan is not altogether correct when he seems to insinuate— perhaps that is not quite the best word to use—that the C.I.E. people have been carrying on trading to the disadvantage of other people engaged in the licensed trade. Deputy Cowan, Deputy Keyes or anybody else who has frequented the C.I.E. licensed premises at Kingsbridge or Westland Row——
I think that should be withdrawn.
——know very well that the charges there are higher than in the adjoining public-houses. I ask the House to consider this—at a later stage, they will find that it is a fact— that the person who carries on a licensed business fixes his charges on the basis of rent, wages and other overheads. Naturally, the valuation of the premises has a very important bearing upon the rates he pays, but when the Store Street bar is in full working order and receiving the highest possible revenue, people will then find, I have reason to believe, that C.I.E. will be called upon to pay, and will have to pay, a prohibitive rent to the Government for the use of that portion of the premises which is used as a bar. I doubt if any licensed trader in the city will be so circumstanced, so far as overhead charges are concerned. I should like to know from the Minister what are the overhead charges in relation to the proposed bar in the bus station—rent, wages and so on—as compared with the biggest public-house or set of public-houses in the City of Dublin. I think Deputies will be surprised when they get that information.
However, as I say, I believe in fair competition. Let us be realistic and fair in this matter. I have not been put up by the board of C.I.E. to back the Minister in this matter and I can give Deputies my word of honour that no member of the board and no official has spoken to me with regard to it; but is it not a fact known to those Deputies who travel from Westland Row, Kingsbridge or Harcourt Street that immediately after the last train has left—when the night mail has left Kingsbridge—the bar is closed down for the remainder of the night and publicans in the area are at liberty to make whatever profit they like? There is no such thing as keen competition between the licensed premises of C.I.E. and licensed premises in the area of a C.I.E. station, in Dublin, at any rate, and perhaps other places, in the same way as there is keen competition between licensed traders who have nothing to do with C.I.E. in the same area. The maximum possible competition is carried on by membersof the same organisation in the same area and C.I.E. does not enter into that competition, so far as I know. I am supporting the Bill as a Bill, properly brought in for the convenience of the trading and travelling public.
I welcome and I support the Bill, and I endorse it very fully. I happen to be one of the Deputies representing the area in which the bus station is located. I have heard no objection good, bad or indifferent from any member of the licensed trade in my area against the granting of the facilities asked for in this Bill. The licensed traders and the other traders in that area know very well that this bus centre is going to be a gold mine for them. It is going to bring ten of thousands of additional people into the area and anything that brings tens of thousands of people into an area obviously benefits the area.
For quite a number of years the drinking of intoxicating liquor has been held up to a certain amount of criticism and odium. That phase is fortunately passing. We are all becoming more intelligent in regard to drink and in regard to everything else. The general feeling now is that it is not too obnoxious, offensive or criminal to drink intoxicating liquor.
That does not seem to be very relevant.
I do not think we all agree to that statement.
Whether we may or may not, it is not relevant to the Fifth Stage of the Bill.
There were objections to providing this facility and the facility is provided in the Bill. To that extent it is perfectly permissible for me to refer to it. If people travel from one place to another, they are entitled to reasonable facilities for refreshment and the one party of people who have always supported the granting of these reasonable facilities for refreshment are the licensed trade. If there is a big football or hurlingmatch in town, they always look for extended opening hours so that they can provide refreshments, and quite properly so, for the people travelling into that area. In this case the one feature that struck me as being somewhat extraordinary was the attitude of the representatives of the licensed trade who opposed the granting of these facilities. I think it was very bad business to object, in the organised way in which the objection was raised, to the granting of ordinary facilities to travellers to obtain the refreshment to which they are entitled. Deputy Davin has stated that in Westland Row, in Amiens Street and in Kingsbridge facilities have been provided, perhaps not as good as they should be but reasonably good.
They are good enough, anyway.
Reasonably good facilities have also been provided in Amiens Street which is not very far from Store Street. In the last few years they have much improved the refreshment rooms provided there. Nobody has raised one objection to that; nobody has found one ground of objection, which is more important. A person who is travelling and requires refreshment has not very much time to take that refreshment. If he feels that it is necessary he takes it. A person who is not travelling will always go to the place for liquid refreshment in which he finds the most comfort— and comfort is a relative term.
And conviviality.
And conviviality. A person may go into a public-house that may not be as glamorous as Store Street, but he can find comfort and conviviality there.
And his class.
As the Lord Mayor of Cork has said, he can find pleasant companions, and can expect to find them there, but if you are travelling from Store Street you never know who will be there when you go into the building.
We know now.
I do not know if it is provided in the Bill but I do hope that somebody will give instructions that in these refreshment rooms there will be provided an adequate supply of our draught stout, which is the best drink in the world.
Beamish.
So long as it is native Irish stout, I do not mind, but instructions should be given to see that draught stout is provided in the premises.
I do not think the Bill deals with that.
With all respect, I think it does. We want to provide excellent facilities for refreshment and I think those responsible for providing these facilities should see that draught stout is available on the premises.
Milk.
It is a strange thing that the people who produce intoxicating liquor, whether they grow the raw material on the land, distil it in the distilleries or brew it in the breweries, provide an immense amount of employment for the people. Anything that helps to encourage the use of our own native brews and distilled liquors should have the support of the national Parliament.
I suppose that is why you voted against the taxes.
It helps to run the machinery of government as well.
Question put and agreed to.