Seanad Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 18 Nov 1953

Vol. 43 No. 1

Intoxicating Liquor Bill, 1953—Second Stage.

Question proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

Minister for Justice (Mr. Boland)

This Bill has been introduced for two purposes. The first is the granting of an intoxicating liquor licence for the central bus station in Áras Mhic Dhiarmada. The second is the preservation of licences attached to public-houses which are demolished by local authorities in the course of slumclearance, street-widening and so on.

The Bill provides that the licence for the bus station will be granted, and renewed from time to time, on the basis of a certificate from the Minister for Industry and Commerce specifying the part of the premises to be licensed. The Minister will not be entitled to include in the certificate any part of Áras Mhic Dhiarmada which is not part of the bus station as it is only to the bus station that the Bill applies. The licence will be an ordinary "on-licence", subject to the ordinary law relating to opening hours and so on.

C.I.E. will not be required to go to the Circuit Court for a certificate authorising the granting of the licence. The reason is, of course, that once the Oireachtas has decided that a licence should be attached to the bus station, there is no case for adjudication by the court. The decision will already have been taken by the Oireachtas.

The second part of the Bill is designed to remedy a defect in the existing law. At present, if a public-house is demolished by a local authority, the licence is extinguished and, while compensation is payable, there are times when monetary compensation, however fairly assessed, does not really recompense a person for the loss of a business which may have been in his family for years. In addition, of course, the compensation payable is a heavy burden on local authorities. There is no reason in equity why, because of a defect in the licensing laws, they should have to pay this compensation or why the publican should have to give up his business entirely.

In the other House, certain fears were expressed that the provisions relating to premises demolished by local authorities might lead to a serious interference with the rights of existing publicans in an area in which the new premises would be erected. I would point out, however, that such fears are groundless, because Section 7 of the Bill provides specifically that unless the premises are erected on the old site, or as near to it as makes no difference to other publicans, the new licence may be refused by the court on the ground that it would be unreasonably detrimental to the other publicans' trade. This is a special right of objection, introduced to ensure that existing traders are fully protected against unfair interference; it is a right much more favourable to them than the right under existing law to object on the basis of the number of existing licensed premises in the area.

Finally, I would explain that there is no question in this Bill of vesting in the local authority the power to issue a licence. The local authority will issue a certificate under Section 6, but possession of that certificate is no guarantee that the court will authorise the issue of a licence. The court will give its decision on the merits; the certificate will do nothing more than indicate to the court that the application is one to which the provisions of this Bill will apply.

Professor Hayes

The Minister has the knack of making things look very simple. This is another Intoxicating Liquor Bill and this Act may be cited as the Intoxicating Liquor Act, 1953. "The Licensing Acts and this Act may be cited as the Licensing Acts 1833 to 1953." Apparently, if you want to know what the licensing law is, you have to examine legislation extending over 120 years and two Parliaments, one British and one Irish. That is a rather extraordinary state of affairs. The very great number of Acts make it very difficult to know what the law is. One would imagine there would be some effort made to consolidate these various Acts so that one could know what the law was, so that various decaying or entirely decayed branches may be lopped off.

It is also curious that the Bill consists of two parts which seem to be quite dissimilar. Perhaps the arrangement is to see that if you want one part you must take the other. I am rather neutral, like the Minister himself, on the question as to whether people are going to get drink or how they are going to get it but it is curious that there are two parts in the Bill. As the Minister spoke this evening, it was clear that the two parts of the Bill are conceived in two completely different ways. From Section 6 onwards, an effort is made, he says, to remedy the injustice which happened owing to previous legislation, that is to say, where a local body gave compensation for the destruction of a public-house the licence was extinguished.

It is now proposed that, subject to the courts, another licence should be granted and the rights of other traders in other parts of the country are protected by reference, if necessary, to the courts. In other words, if I am a trader I can be protected against other traders but nothing will protect me against a State body. C.I.E., Bord na Móna, or any of these State or semi-State bodies are put into a separate category of their own. They are entirely separate from other people and the courts are prevented from having anything at all to do with them or from having any opportunity of giving a verdict in regard to their operations. The first part of this Bill gives power to the Minister for Industry and Commerce to grant a licence to C.I.E.

Mr. Hawkins

The Revenue Commissioners grant the licence.

Professor Hayes

The Minister for Industry and Commerce is given power in this Bill effectively to give a licence.

Mr. Hawkins

No. He only certifies.

Professor Hayes

I know at least as much English as Senator Hawkins. Section 2 provides: "The Minister (that is, the Minister for Industry and Commerce) 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 granting of the licence."

It says that the Revenue Commissioners shall grant the licence. In other words when the Minister for Industry and Commerce—who is the controlling Minister of C.I.E.—decides that his particular child shall have a licence no one can prevent the child from getting it. I know that technically the Revenue Commissioners issue the licence, but no court can intervene between that Minister and the licence he wants to get for his own child.

On general principles, without the merits of the particular case coming into it at all, when we create State bodies we take further steps which bring us farther and farther on the road of complete State control, not only over transport but now over courts. C.I.E. needs a bar and to have a bar it needs a licence. I do not grudge it the bar or the licence, but it does not have to submit its claim to the ordinary process of law to which every other citizen is subject. It does not need to buy a licence, extinguish a licence or establish before a court that in a particular area a new licence is required. It does not need to give evidence in public. The statement that you can do it all in the Dáil and Seanad is quite illusory. The Dáil and Seanad are not courts and it has been abundantly proved that, like most other Parliaments, they are quite incapable of carrying out the functions of a court, that is, hearing evidence and coming to fair decisions. They do not do any such thing. Under this Bill the Minister for Industry and Commerce takes the place of the judges. In effect, he grants the licence, renews it, extends it or transfers it from one part of the premises to another.

Although the Minister for Justice introduces this Bill and defends it, he himself is excluded from it. It is only because of some Civil Service notion of "keeping the file right", because when you see "licences" you say "Minister for Justice", that this Bill is given to the Minister for Justice. It should be given to the Minister for Industry and Commerce. The Minister for Justice is not in this Bill; he is engaged in making provision for somebody else's child and leaving his own children to starve. Neither he nor the officers of his Department as, for example, the superintendents of the Garda Síochána, have any function in this. Everyone knows that normally the superintendent opposes a new licence. That function is withdrawn from the Minister, from his Department and from the courts.

What we have here is, perhaps, a necessary corollary to the establishment of C.I.E.; that is to say, you nationalise transport, then you give special treatment to the bodies that control that transport and, as in this example, you oust the courts. It is a quicker procedure but it might always be quicker if we trusted the Minister and had no judges. It might not be better but possibly quicker.

The people who feel that they are aggrieved—I do not know whether there are such persons or not—get no opportunity of putting their grievance before a court and getting a decision from a person who has no particular interest. The Minister for Industry and Commerce has an interest in C.I.E.; he wants to make it pay and wants to give it all the facilities he can. He is made the judge in his own case. Previous examples quoted were, I think, Bord na Móna and Aer Lingus. That is like saying that a fellow murdered his first wife, so why should he not murder this one too. They also are State-controlled bodies.

There cannot be any analogy with Bord na Móna, with the giving of a licence for remote country places, and that of a licence for a place in the centre of a capital city. The same thing applies to airports. The real analogy is that when you set up a State-controlled body you give it special treatment, you take elaborate care—as the drafters of these Bills do and as planners generally do—to see that the judges have nothing to do with it. They are the great enemy of anyone who wants to plan everyone's existence and control everyone's movements. Incidentally, if I were amending the licensing code, there are several things I would do besides these two things in this Bill.

The argument the Minister gives for the second part of the Bill is that existing traders have their interests protected by the courts, but the first part of the Bill makes it absolutely certain no one will have any recourse to the courts in connection with it. I say, in conclusion, that I have no enmity towards C.I.E. and no objection to their getting a licence. The bus station ought to have facilities for the consumption of alcoholic liquor, but this procedure is another example of everything going into the control of the State and of ousting the courts from their proper functions.

Mr. P.F. O'Reilly

I oppose this reading for a variety of reasons. The principal reason is that the Minister has not made any case for it. He has told us we should have the Bill in regard to the bus station because he thinks it would be desirable that intoxicating liquor should be sold there and we should have the Bill in regard to the position in Limerick and elsewhere because some people have been inconvenienced through the acquisition of licensed property by local authorities. He has not given us any details or any information to support that case.

The Minister is seeking to give the Minister for Industry and Commerce the right to issue a certificate to Córas Iompair Éireann by virtue of which the Revenue Commissioners will have no option but to issue a liquor licence. Let us be clear about this. Some people appear to think that when the Minister for Industry and Commerce issues his certificate the Revenue Commissioners may refuse to issue the licence. That is not so. On the issue by the Minister of his certificate the Revenue Commissioners must issue a seven day licence for the premises mentioned in the certificate. That licence will enable the board to sell intoxicating liquor of all kinds, not merely for consumption on the premises but for consumption on or off the premises.

The Minister mentioned an on-licence, but I would like to emphasise that the licence which may be given C.I.E. will enable it to sell drink for consumption either on or off that portion of the premises mentioned in the certificate. Bus passengers may have dozens of stout and bottles of whiskey loaded up in the bus seats beside them. Later on, I will suggest—if I see the Minister is making any headway with the Bill here; I doubt if he will—that the licence be restricted to a sale for consumption on the premises only, so that we may not have the unedifying sight of bus passengers having buses packed with liquor which they bought in the bus station.

Now, perhaps the Minister is right in saying or suggesting that it would be only proper that at this bus station people would be entitled to purchase liquor. There is nothing wrong in saying that. I suggest that if we are to give the Minister for Industry and Commerce the power to issue the necessary certificate, we should first satisfy ourselves that there would be a real demand for the purchase of drink at a bus station such as this. I do not think there will be any demand beyond a very small demand.

Mr. Loughman

You would be surprised.

Mr. P.F. O'Reilly

Perhaps I may be wrong in thinking that there will not be any great demand. My suggestion, submission and view is that there will not be any demand by the ordinary decent travelling public for the equivalent of a first-class public-house at this bus station. I think that the vast majority of the travellers who will frequent this bus station, and the visitors to the bus station who go there to meet arrivals or to send off departing travellers will require not intoxicating liquor but ordinary nonalcoholic refreshments. I suggest that the facilities already available in the district of the bus station will be sufficient to meet the requirements of those people who would like a drink. I put that part of my case in that way and I think that the Minister has no answer for it. I do not think there will be any demand for drink. We, in this country, are not so addicted to drink that we must have a full licence for the sale of drink on or off premises at every station which we erect, whether it be a bus station, an airport or a turf station. We have not reached the stage that we cannot do without a drink. It is suggested here that the position will be so bad from the point of view of the drinker in this bus station that the station must have a full licence—not merely a licence to drink in the bus station, but a licence to take away a dozen of stout so that the traveller can enjoy his trip either to Clondalkin or to Skibbereen.

Mr. Hawkins

Can he not take it from any pub in the city?

Mr. P.F. O'Reilly

He will not have the temptation that he has while he is in the bus station where he can load up merely by the process of holding out his hand. Let us assume that there is such a demand for liquor. I do not believe we are so mad on having drink as some of the people opposite suggest, but let us suppose, for the sake of argument, that we are so keen on loading up with drink every time we set out on a journey. Why will C.I.E. not be obliged to go in the ordinary way, as Seán Browne must go, to the Circuit Court and there put its case to a Circuit Court judge as to whether or not it should be given an intoxicating liquor licence?

In 1902—many years ago, of course —the Intoxicating Liquor (Ireland) Act, 1902, was passed. The effect of that Act was virtually to prevent the issue of new licences—not completely but it was intended by that Act to limit the granting of new licences. Exceptions were made. A bus station application for a new licence would come within such an exception. C.I.E. would have to prove certain increases of population and they would also have to prove that there was not already a sufficient number of licensed premises in the vicinity of the bus station. If Seán Browne must go to the Circuit Court to get a new licence, why must C.I.E. not go to the Circuit Court? The answer is that C.I.E. is a nationalised concern. As Senator Hayes said, a nationalised concern——

Mr. Hawkins

Who nationalised it?

Mr. P.F. O'Reilly

We did—but I am endeavouring to ensure that we are not going to nationalise licensing and that we are not going to take away from the courts the power to grant licences. I want to ensure that nationalised concerns will not be treated in any preferential way. I want to see that they will start with the same difficulties and the same restrictions as the ordinary citizen. The ordinary citizen does enough for nationalised concerns. I do not think we should enable nationalised concerns to contend with him on more favourable terms than he can get. I see no reason why any facilities should be given to anybody or any concern— nationalised or otherwise—in regard to the granting of new licences. I am sure that we will be told—not merely once but several times—that we have precedents for this. We have Bord na Móna huts, the airport, this and that. I am not bound by precedents. Further, neither of these two cases—the airport or Bord na Móna canteens— is on the same lines as this licence. The canteens were in the main, miles away from, say, licensed premises where a person could get a drink. The airport also was far away from licensed premises. We had persons there going on exceptionally long journeys who required to be catered for. I will not say anything about the airport licence: perhaps it would not be fair to the airport, but it might have been much better off if we did not give the airport a licence at all. However, that is a matter on which I may be wrong. I say that no case whatever can be made for a licence for this bus station—none whatever.

There are ample licensing facilities in the immediate vicinity of the bus station, if people want to avail of such facilities. I further say that I am not at all of the opinion—as apparently a number of people are— that all these bus travellers who will be travelling either to Ballyfermot or Ballydehob, will want to be loaded with beer, wine and spirits, prior to or during their journeys.

Mr. Hawkins

You suggested that they would.

Mr. P.F. O'Reilly

My argument was that the Minister will have to say that in order to justify his claim for this first part of the Bill.

Mr. Loughman

Not necessarily loaded up, anyway.

Mr. P.F. O'Reilly

You may use the Irish for it if you wish, but I think that the expression "loaded up" is a good one. I am in a great difficulty about Part I of the Bill, that is the sections down to and including No. 5. I am, however, in a greater difficulty still in regard to the remaining sections. I assert that the Minister cannot made any case whatever for the latter part of the Bill. I should like to know from the Minister if the local authority in that part is the county manager or the council itself. I want to know if this matter will be solely in the hands of the manager or whether it will be a function of the council. At any rate, whoever will have the right in the matter, he will have a right to issue the certificate. There is no obligation on him to do it. Mark you, if he issues the certificate he will issue it in respect of a particular site acquired by the council and approved by them as a site for a licensed premises. I do not know what power a local authority has to acquire a site for a licensed premises. If a local authority acquires property—I am speaking generally, now—it acquires it for housing or for road widening. If they are to acquire property for one of such purposes, I do not know how they can give it for use as a site for licensed premises.

Mr. Hearne

They can acquire land compulsorily. It is in the exercise of their functions.

Mr. P.F. O'Reilly

I suggest that one of the functions of a local authority is not to acquire a site on which may be built a licensed premises. The person to whom this certificate will be given is to be a person who has already lost a licensed premises. That is the way it is put—"lost a licensed premises." Mark you, however, that he has lost his premises for which he has been given proper compensation. Where premises are acquired by local authorities, either the owner accepts his compensation by agreement, where he is satisfied with the offer made by the local authority, or he challenges the amount of the offer and goes to arbitration. The arbitrator is either selected by agreement between the local authority and the owner of the property, or, in default, is appointed from a panel. Such an arbitrator, sitting to hear claims for compensation, takes into consideration the fact that a licensed premises is a licensed premises, that it has a value as such, and makes his award accordingly.

The arbitrator having made his award to the property owner, the Minister now seeks to give further compensation to the property owner because his property was acquired, but the Minister apparently overlooks the fact that he has already been paid for the property acquired. I cannot follow why, in such circumstances, the Minister should now seek to put such a person in a position in which he may, on getting a certificate from the local authority, proceed to build a new house.

The Minister has told us that he must go to the Circuit Court and pass the circuit judge. I do not think he should have any difficulty in passing the judge, having got a certificate from the local authority, and I should like the Minister to tell us why he seeks to give a new site on which a licensed premises may be built to a person who has already been fairly and properly compensated for the licensed premises acquired.

Mr. Hawkins

Local authorities are not as foolish as you imagine.

Mr. P.F. O'Reilly

In what way do I imagine they are foolish ?

Mr. Hawkins

That they are going to give a man compensation and a licensed premises.

Mr. P.F. O'Reilly

They must pay him for the property they have acquired from him.

Mr. Hawkins

As property—not as a licensed premises.

Mr. P.F. O'Reilly

Let us be clear about this. The person from whom the licensed property is acquired is paid compensation, according to the value of the property, in the opinion of the arbitrator. Once he makes his award for the licensed premises, the local authority pays that money and I challenge any Senator to show me in this Bill or in any other Act where a local authority, in such case as is covered by this certificate, may withhold 1/- of the compensation. I cannot follow this at all, but perhaps the Minister will clear it up for me.

With regard to the bus station, as I understand the position at the moment, the State is the owner of the entire premises and they have let portion of the premises to C.I.E. I should like to be told—I want this to check up on the licence duty—what is the rent paid by C.I.E. for the part of the premises they are occupying and also what is the poor law valuation of that part of the premises? I ask the Minister to reconsider this whole matter and withdraw the Bill. Perhaps he thinks I am not serious.

Mr. Boland

I certainly do.

Mr. P.F. O'Reilly

I certainly am serious, and, if the Minister gets half an hour to reflect on it, he will withdraw the Bill. He is seeking by this means to create a precedent by which every institution here which is in any way concerned with a nationalised business or industry has merely to approach the Minister and say: "I will have certain difficulties if I am put in the same position as the ordinary citizen. Will you bring in a Bill and de-license me or enable me to get a licence?" That is all wrong. I ask the Minister to reconsider it and withdraw the Bill.

Mr. Yeats

We have heard a great deal of talk on what is really a very simple matter in relation to the Store Street bus station. We have heard about the position of the courts and the main objection to the provision in this Bill appears to be that the matter is not left to the courts. One obvious difficulty is that, as the law stands, in spite of what Senator O'Reilly says, the bus station at Store Street could not get a licence. Senator O'Reilly points out that the 1902 Act provides that if there is a sufficient increase in population a licence can be got, and suggests that that applies to Store Street. But where is the increase in population? I do not know that there is any increase in the population in the Store Street area, so that, as matters stand, a licence cannot be got. Therefore, some form of legislation is required.

The suggestion is that this legislation should be brought in, assuming that we decide a licence is required, and that it should be then left to the courts to give the licence. Surely the matter at issue is one which Senator O'Reilly spent a considerable time in discussing—whether we feel here, as the Dáil already has decided, that a licence is required at Store Street? If we decide that, if the two Houses of the Oireachtas decide that a licence is needed, where do the courts come into it? I take it that Senator Hayes and Senator O'Reilly do not intend that the part played by the courts should be purely formal, that we should decide a licence is required for the central bus station and that the courts should then sign on the dotted line and hand out the licences. If their interest in the preservation of the rights of the courts is to be at all realistic, it can only mean that they wish the courts to be entitled to overrule the expressed wish of the two Houses of the Oireachtas and should be able to say: "Admittedly, the Dáil and Seanad decided that there should be a licence, but we feel, for this, that or the other reason, that there should not." Surely that is not a matter for the courts. It is a matter for the two Houses of the Oireachtas.

If we decide, whether we be right or wrong, that a licence should be part of the new bus station, the courts should not enter into it. It is not a function of the courts to decide a matter of that kind. The ordinary licensing law is administered by the courts because the State decided over the years that, in regard to the thousands of different cases, involving different types of applicants and premises and those looking for premises, the courts are the obvious instrument to make the decision, to decide to whether the prospective licensee is fit to hold a licence, whether the premises are suitable and whether there are already enough premises in the neighbourhood. The State decided that these matters are best left to the courts.

Let us take one individual instance, such as the bus station. It need not be a nationalised concern; it could be a private company or firm. If the Oireachtas decides that a licence is required, it is very difficult to see where the courts come in at all. I can see no advantage whatever in leaving it to the courts as a purely formal matter, that they should hand out the licence once we have decided the matter.

We come, therefore, to the only problem involving the Bill—whether we feel that a licence is required. My own view would be that it is almost self-evident that, in a bus station of this nature, it is desirable that there should be such a licence. Every railway station in the country of any size whatever has such a licence and presumably all these railway stations have had the licence for many years past because the demand was there. Senator O'Reilly admitted that it was required at an airport where one might be going a long plane journey——

Mr. P.F. O'Reilly

A better case could be made for it.

Mr. Yeats

——whereas, if one were going to Ballydehob, one would not require it. I suggest that there is no place in the whole of Europe which cannot be reached more quickly by plane than you can get to Cork by bus from Store Street.

Professor Hayes

And particularly to Ballydehob.

Mr. Yeats

I think it is perfectly clear. In fact, a very strong case has been made for installing a licence on those premises. That being so, I think there is no derogation in regard to the court in proceeding the way we are. It has nothing to do with whether C.I.E. It has nothing to do with whether C.I.E. is nationalised or not. If they were still a private company, exactly the same provisions would have to be made. If we decide that a licence is required, this is the only practical way of dealing with the matter.

I suggest that Senator O'Reilly is travelling a little off the beam when he suggests this is going to force local authorities to pay twice over, to pay compensation to a man in addition to giving him a new licence. I think the position there is also reasonably simple. If a man gets compensation it implies that he has been paid for his loss. If he suffers no loss he gets no compensation. That is clear enough. If he is given a new premises and licence, it offsets against the original premises and licence which were held to be nonexistent. Otherwise, the compensation is much smaller than it would have been. It is very difficult to see why a person should be paid compensation if he suffered no loss.

Mr. O'Higgins

The Minister for Justice comes in here carrying the bag for the Minister for Industry and Commerce, and Senator Yeats acts the part of the urchin who pulls the string and lets the cat out of the bag.

Mr. Hearne

Senator O'Reilly acts as counsel for the Licensed Grocers' and Vintners' Association.

Mr. O'Higgins

I hope the defence put forward by Senator Yeats will not be adopted by the Minister. The whole character of Senator Yeats' contribution was: Why have courts at all? What have courts to do with it? We have spoken. Let the courts remain silent.

Mr. Yeats

The courts interpret.

Mr. O'Higgins

That is exactly what Senator O'Reilly, Senator Hayes and myself propose to object to. I object to that mentality. I think this is an outrageous proposal and particularly outrageous that it should be brought in by the Minister for Justice. I should imagine that if the Minister for Industry and Commerce or the Minister for Lands were to come in here with this proposal you might find some excuse for them. I find it very hard to excuse a proposal of this sort emanating from the Department of Justice and formally presented to both Houses of the Oireachtas by the man charged by the Government to see to the administration of justice in this country.

What does this Bill amount to? I am referring to the part which empowers the Minister for Industry and Commerce to decide whether or not a premises is to be licensed. It amounts to this. We have had over a period of about 120 years carried forward to the present day the particular pattern of licensing law. That may be good or bad. I am perfectly well aware that many people feel that the licensing laws require urgent amendment. But in any event you have the pattern there and you have the courts set up charged under the licensing code to decide whether a particular premises should or should not be licensed. Senators Yeats and O'Reilly have indicated to the House the matters which the court must consider in deciding whether a licence should be granted or not.

These are matters of public knowledge because licensing cases are usually fairly fully reported in the newspapers. The Courts can refuse a licence if they feel the character of the applicant is such that a licence should be refused. They can refuse a licence if they decide that the premises are not suitable and by virtue of the provisions of the 1902 Act if a licence is sought at the moment—I am speaking about a licence for the ordinary individual—he must satisfy the court with regard to a particular percentage increase in population, I think it is 25 per cent.

I understand there might be difficulty in the particular civil parish in which the Store Street bus station is situate in fulfilling that condition but so far as I know there is not another civil parish in Dublin where the 25 per cent. increase in population has not occurred and I think if the figures were given for this particular parish it would be found that the percentage increase has occurred. However, the Minister did not even bother informing the House whether that condition would have been complied with or not. It is a simple matter for him to get that information from his officers and at least it is information which is relevant to this Bill and should be put before the House.

My main objection to this provision is that I believe it is entirely wrong for a Minister, particularly, as I say, a Minister for Justice, to introduce legislation of this type differentiating between the treatment meted out to the ordinary trader and the favouritism being shown to a State body or State concern. I believe that that is bad and it is unfair to the traders in the locality and it certainly should not be encouraged as a precedent in this House. I know that the cases of Aer Lingus and Bord na Móna have been quoted as precedents.

Mr. Hearne

What about hotels under the Tourist Acts?

Mr. O'Higgins

I would not mind if liberty was given to serve wines with meals under an innkeeper's or a caterer's licence; nor, in fact, do I resent in any way the suggestion that the Store Street station should have liberty to have a public bar and to sell intoxicating liquor. That is not my argument at all. I would welcome that if it were done in the proper way through the courts. I would not even mind if the law was loosened up a bit if difficulties with regard to the percentage increase in population, for instance, existed. But I do object to the way this is being done, to the fact that traders in the locality and elsewhere in Dublin are being taxed, first of all, to erect this place in Store Street to the tune of £1,000,000 or £2,000,000; that they are taxed to the extent of £63,000 or £68,000 to put in furniture there and that the publicans in the neighbourhood, besides being taxed for this purpose, now find that their money is spent on the creation of a powerful rival in trade, because that is what this amounts to. Remember, that when the Aer Lingus facilities were being granted an assurance was given to the Oireachtas that that licence would be used only for the purpose of seeing that travellers to and from this country were supplied with liquor. That undertaking was not fulfilled.

Mr. Boland

If the Senator would give way for a moment I would like to explain that. That allegation was made by a Deputy and I was not able to contradict him at the time. I had the whole of the debates on the Liquor Bill of 1943 scrutinised and there was no undertaking of that kind whatever given and neither was there any asked. That brief has been given out, but there is no truth in it.

Mr. O'Higgins

If I am wrong I apologise and I withdraw it unreservedly, but I would like the Minister to check on whether an undertaking was given but was not given in the Dáil. Whether an undertaking was given or not there was an understanding there on the purpose for which the facilities were being granted and instead of allowing the supply of refreshments to incoming and outgoing travellers we find that magnificent building being used in a first class way for entertainment. Some of us may like that and others may not, but the point is that it must be taking business and trade from hotels and similar entertainment centres both locally and in the City of Dublin. I think the same thing exactly is going to happen here.

Senator Yeats says that if this House and the Dáil decide that a licence is needed where do the courts come in. I want to remind Senator Yeats that the Minister has not decided either here or in the other House that a licence is needed. All he has suggested and the most he can suggest—and probably all of us will go with him in this—is that a licence is desirable. It is an important matter and should be a matter for the courts to decide whether a licence is needed. Senator Yeats is a lawyer and he knows the procedure obtaining at the moment. He knows the type of evidence which can be given to the courts to show whether a licence is needed or not.

I referred a while ago to Aer Lingus when the Minister interrupted me. I was going to refer also to Bord na Móna. I do not believe it is fair to quote Bord na Móna as a precedent for the bringing in of a Bill of this type. Some other Senators pointed out that in the first place you have in regard to the facilities granted to Bord na Móna the question of canteens, where men are completely isolated, unable with any case or comfort to obtain intoxicating liquor, unable to get refreshment or to go to licensed premises. Apart from that it is probably true to say that the canteens, particularly those of a temporary nature to which these facilities are granted, are buildings which would be condemned by any court as unsuitable for licensing and that in that way, unless special provision was taken, there would be no question at all of these canteens being licensed. Consequently, it is not fair to quote Bord na Móna as being a parallel case. In Dublin at Store Street you have a building about which many of us have different views, but you have a building at any rate which we know would not be condemned by the courts as being unsuitable. Therefore, no parallel exists.

I take it also there is no question of the character of the applicant being objected to by the courts on the grounds that he would be unsuitable. It seems clear there would be no question of the premises being condemned as being unsuitable. What are the obstacles left?—that there is not the necessary increase in the population over and above 1902. I would have no objection at all if the Minister came in and asked to have that position loosened up if the increase has not taken place.

The next question is, if there is a need for a new licence in the area. The Minister has not suggested to this House nor has he suggested to the Dáil that there is a need. If there is not a need for a new licence in the area, why not allow he law to operate just as it would operate in the case of an individual? Why not let it be thrashed out in court; let the pros and cons be discussed there; let evidence on behalf of the applicants and on behalf of the objectors be heard by the Circuit Court judge and adjudicated by him. If he decides against the licence, C.I.E. can appeal to the High Court and have a complete new hearing with a fresh mind and a fresh judge.

Mr. Hearne

A field day for the lawyers.

Mr. O'Higgins

It has become customary in this House and in the other Chamber to jeer at lawyers, but I would suggest that the Senator might look behind him before he does it, because the last person to contribute to this discussion was a lawyer who spoke from behind where the Senator is sitting.

Mr. Hearne

He will get no briefs from the Licensed Vintners' and Grocers' Association; neither will any solicitors.

Mr. O'Higgins

I do not get the connection there.

Mr. P.F. O'Reilly

Attempts should not be made to turn this Assembly into a rough house.

Mr. Hearne

We have the example of pressure groups being brought in.

Mr. O'Higgins

If Senator Ahearne wants me to talk about pressure groups I would be very glad to get the permission of the Cathaoirleach to do so.

Mr. Hearne

You can put down a motion.

Mr. Yeats

Deputy O'Higgins talks about letting the law operate. We make it and the courts interpret it.

Mr. O'Higgins

It should not be necessary to remind anyone that this House forms part of the Oireachtas not a third-rate debating society, and the point made by Senator Yeats is a school debating society point. There is no justification for Part I of this Bill. Senator Yeats did endeavour to justify it by making the extraordinary case: why are the courts needed at all.

Mr. Yeats

I did not say anything of the kind. I said the courts interpreted the law and we made it.

Mr. P.F. O'Reilly

You want one law for the C.I.E. and another for John Citizen.

Mr. O'Higgins

Senator Yeats posed the question that if we decide a licence is needed where do the courts come in. First of all, I pointed out—and I do not believe the Minister will contradict me in this—that neither he nor Senator Yeats has endeavoured to make the point that a licence is needed. I agree that a licence is desirable. That is not the same thing. This proposal seems to me to be an outrageous one. Senator O'Reilly and Senator Hayes have dealt with what appears to be the principle of State interference which lies behind this Bill. It would be fantastic if, just because a particular concern provides a public service, they will get around the law in that way, that they can have laws enacted to take them outside the ordinary run of things.

You might just as well say that because the Land Commission in Merrion Street performs an important duty and because a number of civil servants there may have members of the public calling in to see them, they should be entitled to get a licence. Even if it were our considered judgment that a licence were needed for the bus station, is this the proper way to go about it? Senator Hayes has analysed the Bill. I would ask the Minister to consider again what is in the Bill. He is giving power to his colleague in the Department of Industry and Commerce to decide absolutely, without interference from anyone, without advice or guidance from the Department of Justice or any other Government Department, whether a particular building in this city is to get a licence or not; and he is making it obligatory on the Revenue Commissioners to grant a licence if a certificate is given by the Minister for Industry and Commerce. He goes further than that—he is giving carte blanche to the Minister for Industry and Commerce to shift and change that licence to different parts of the building whenever the Minister for Industry and Commerce changes his mind. Again, the Revenue Commissioners will have no option but to grant a licence once the certificate is produced. Even if we decide a licence is needed, is that the right way to go about it?

Surely the Minister for Justice is being very weak-kneed in this. It is his job to see that equal treatment is meted out to this concern and to ordinary traders. It should be his duty to see that the business is properly conducted, but he is shelving his responsibility, he is shovelling it off and there is not one Guard in this city who will have a right to interfere with C.I.E. or the Store Street bus station, no matter how the business there is conducted.

Senators

No, No!

Mr. O'Higgins

No matter what prosecutions are brought, if any are brought, no matter what decisions the court gives with regard to any prosecutions, the Minister for Justice will have no say in it. He is handing over all his authority and jurisdiction regarding this particular licence to the Minister for Industry and Commerce. I do not think that is good enough; I do not believe the Minister for Justice is standing up to his responsibility; I think he should have more courage, that he should see to it that he keeps the control himself.

Mr. Hearne

Might I intervene? The Senator is a professional man. If what he said were correct, that in the event of this licence being granted to the omnibus portion of Áras Mhic Dhiarmada—which is the correct name —the ordinary Guard would have no right to see that the ordinary licensing laws cannot be contravened, that no prosecution can eventuate——

Mr. O'Higgins

I said no such thing.

Mr. Hearne

The record is there.

Mr. O'Higgins

A prosecution can be brought but the police cannot oppose the renewal of the licence, even if it is contravened 70 times.

Mr. Hearne

That is a different matter. I want to make it clear that if that was the position, that the Guards could not insist on the laws being kept, on the ordinary observance of the licensing laws, I would oppose this.

Mr. O'Higgins

I want to be quite fair. No matter what the ordinary licensing laws may say, no matter what authority they may give to the Gardaí or the Minister for Justice and no matter how those laws are implemented in relation to the Store Street bus station, by the Guards doing their duty or by the Minister for Justice or the courts doing their duty, none of that will prevent the Minister for Industry and Commerce issuing a certificate again, and once that certificate is issued nothing will prevent or can prevent the Revenue Commissioners issuing a licence. I say that by allowing that situation to arise the Minister is being weak-kneed, he is shelving his responsibility and he is not facing up to the task he was put into office to do.

Mr. Loughman

Senator O'Higgins, in conclusion, gave us several "no matters"; but the fact remains that, until Senator Hearne intervened, the impression was conveyed that the Gardaí would have no authority to interfere in the conduct of the business at the bus station bar. That was the impression we got. It was the same impression that Senator Hearne had, and I am sure the records when printed will show that what I have said is correct. Senator O'Reilly began by saying that his main reason for opposing the Bill was that the Minister had made no case for it. That is the worst possible reason that a person could give. Any person who has any knowledge of the people would have concluded, on reading the Bill, that the provision of a bar in the bus station was essential for the travelling public. Evidently Senator O'Reilly has no knowledge of the people.

Mr. P.F. O'Reilly

I have a higher regard for them than that.

Mr. Loughman

In his next statement the Senator said that there was no demand for facilities for drink at this station. I say again that he does not know anything about the ordinary travelling public. He suggested that the fact that people could take drink for consumption off the premises and could load up with drink—inside or in their pockets—was a reason why we should not grant the licence. I have travelled quite a lot on buses, trains and motor cars. I might not want to take a dozen bottles of stout with me, or a bottle of whiskey, as was suggested, but I might reasonably wish to take a glass of whiskey at the bus station or at some stop on the road. If I were aware that it might be difficult to get a drink on the way, I might wish to take with me some supply, because I would like it, but the suggestion that we were going to have the unedifying spectacle of people indulging in large quantities of "booze" in our passenger vehicles was an unworthy suggestion for the Senator to make.

Mr. P.F. O'Reilly

I did not make any such suggestion.

Mr. Loughman

The Senator used the words "unedifying spectacle". I noted them.

Mr. P.F. O'Reilly

I said that the people who brought in this Bill must contemplate that all the passengers will be dying with thirst.

Mr. Loughman

The fact remains that from the bus station in my town in Clonmel a man may load up, inside him or in his pockets, with all he needs. I have travelled a lot in those buses and I have rarely seen people under the influence of intoxicating liquor. The travelling public in this country are very well conducted. I venture to say there is hardly a terminal bus station in the world like this one where you would not find a licence similar to what we are providing for to-day.

One rather extraordinary thing struck me in the arguments I heard. Someone said this was intended to accommodate C.I.E. or do harm to the traders, but there was hardly one suggestion from any person who spoke from these benches that the people who are responsible for this Parliament should be accommodated in any way. I think they are the first concern of this House. What we should be trying to do here is to see that the best possible provision is made for the people, whether they are travelling or whether they are in their own towns.

Mr. P.F. O'Reilly

Provide drink stations at every bus terminus?

Mr. Loughman

It is not necessary.

Mr. P.F. O'Reilly

Why is it not?

Mr. Hearne

It is done already.

Mr. P.F. O'Reilly

If it is necessary for one why is it not necessary for the other?

Mr. Loughman

We will come to that some time if it is necessary. Coming into this bus station will be buses from every part of Ireland—North, South, East and West. Some of them will go journeys of 140 or 150 miles. It would be a shocking thing if within the station we had no accommodation for them so far as drink and other catering amenities are concerned.

The Senator suggested that they could go out to the pubs in the area. Country people sometimes—at any rate, I find a certain type of them so —are very slow to go into pubs and certain types of public-houses. At the same time, they will go into a public-house of the kind which we are trying to set up here. I know that, from my own personal experience and from observation. I do not know whether there are any pubs in Store Street and I am merely putting the point of view that a person who might not be willing to go into a public-house in Store Street might not, on the other hand, have the slightest objection to going into the bar in the bus station, when it is opened. I think that this amenity is a grave necessity. It is just as necessary as the bus station itself— and goodness knows we have waited long enough for that.

Senator O'Higgins said that people are being taxed to provide the bus station. I maintain that they have value against that tax. We now have something which we should have had three or more years ago and which we would have had earlier were it not for certain happenings. However, we now have the bus station. The only objection that is made here is that we are not getting the licence through the courts. Senator O'Higgins was satisfied that we should have this amenity at the bus station.

I approve of the Bill 100 per cent. The section dealing with people who lost their business, which may have been in their family for 100 years or more, is only just and fair. The Minister is merely doing justice when he provides that, instead of compensation in cash, such a person can be compensated by giving him a business which his sons and his sons' sons can continue when he has gone. It might conceivably happen that the owner of a public-house which the local authority decided to demolish would not wish that another public-house be erected for him instead. I am reading this Bill as a layman, but my understanding of it is that, in such circumstances, the local authority can give the owner a cash compensation instead of erecting a new public-house for him. At any rate, that point is obvious.

I welcome the Bill, and I think that the objections to it which we have heard so far are foolish. I hope that, some time, I will have the pleasure of going into this licensed premises—and by that time, I am sure, both Senator P.F. O'Reilly and Senator O'Higgins will be converted to the view that the licence is an urgent necessity.

Mr. Kissane

I shall be brief, as a good many of the points which I intended to make have been made by Senator Loughman and some other speakers. I want to refer to the point made by Senator Yeats—a point which Senator O'Higgins made no attempt whatever to deal with. Instead, he circumvented it. It was a very simple point. It is that if we do not grant a licence to Áras Mhic Dhiarmada to sell intoxicating liquor by this method, is there any other method by which we can do so. The answer, in my opinion, is "no."

Senator O'Higgins referred to the ordinary processes of law. He knows well, as Senator Yeats pointed out, that they would not do at all here. The Circuit Court Judge would be constrained to follow the law as he finds it, even though he himself might be inclined to grant the licence. He would not be able to grant it unless, as has been pointed out, the population of the district increased sufficiently to warrant it. Are Senators in favour of giving a licence to Áras Mhic Dhiarmada to sell intoxicating liquor? They should express themselves in unequivocal terms in that regard and do away with all this nonsense about interfering with the rights of the court.

Senator O'Higgins mentioned favouritism and said that we are extending favouritism to C.I.E. If some of the Senators opposite who have spoken had their way, there would be another kind of favouritism. If the licence were not granted to Áras Mhic Dhiarmada to carry on the business of selling intoxicating drink, the local publicans would do it and I submit that they would be placed in a very favourable position vis-á-vis the other traders in this city. I see no objection at all to this measure. I have not heard any straightforward statement yet from those Senators on the opposite side who have spoken as to whether or not they are against this Bill. Senator O'Higgins said that it is desirable. I submit that it is only a very small step from something that is desirable to something that is essential. I think that it is essential for large crowds of people who have to travel on long journeys to have a place open to them in Áras Mhic Dhiarmada to which they can have access for the purpose of buying a drink, if they require one. That is the system all over the world. Anybody who has travelled abroad will agree that at the bus termini and at the railway stations there are licensed places where refreshments can be procured. We have here in Leinster House a special licence for the accommodation of members.

Mr. O'Higgins

Are we going to travel soon?

Mr. Kissane

I have not heard anybody argue that the bar in Leinster House should be closed down, that we are enjoying privileges that are not available to the public.

Mr. P.F. O'Reilly

It should be closed down.

Mr. Baxter

There are a good many arguments for closing it down.

Mr. Kissane

I have not heard any of them mentioned here.

Mr. Baxter

Do not ask any of us to make them.

Mr. Kissane

We have to indicate whether or not we agree to the granting of this licence in respect of Áras Mhic Dhiarmada. If we do not give the licence, through the Bill which is before the House this evening, we will not be able to do it at all.

Mr. O'Donnell

I want to claim official immunity, first of all, by stating that I broke the licensing laws some weeks ago in Áras Mhic Dhiamada with the connivance of the Minister for Health. I am entirely in favour of the granting of this licence. The fundamental principle that arises here— though a lot of people are avoiding it —is that which was originally raised by Senator P.F. O'Reilly, namely, the question of the licensing of a State-owned organisation. I should like to present a different aspect of the case. I am not thinking of the licensing of a premises for the sale of intoxicating liquor but of the granting of a licence to a State or a semi-State organisation. The Minister for Industry and Commerce could come along here to-morrow and make a very good case for the granting of a special licence to Gaeltarra Éireann, who manufacture a certain type of commodity in competition with certain other people. The question which disturbs me very much is that of the granting of a licence to a semi-State organisation.

I have not heard the Minister or anybody else explain why it is not possible to apply to the courts for a licence for Áras Mhic Dhiarmada. Why is it not possible? I understood Senator O'Higgins to say that it was possible for the Minister to prove that the necessary increase in population had taken place. Why, then, is it necessary for a semi-State organisation to have special legislation passed here? Is there any real reason for it? If the Minister could convince me that there is a real reason for it and that there is no other way of granting a licence I would be in entire sympathy with it, but I am very much more disturbed by the general principle involved than by the mere matter of granting a licence for this bus station.

The position is that any Minister— I do not care what Party he belongs to—can put up a good case why, in particular circumstances, special powers should be given to him to enable him to give a special type of facility to a State or semi-State owned organisation.

That is a very dangerous position. Whether it applies to the granting of a licence for the importation of yarns to Gaeltarra Éireann or a licence to Áras Mhic Dhiarmada, I think it is a dangerous precedent. I do not think that semi-State owned organisations should have any more rights than the common man and that is the only reason I object to it. It is necessary that this central bus station should have the amenities the Minister seeks to provide, but his method of asking for them leaves me rather doubtful. I do not agree, however, with Senator O'Reilly that people will go down to the bus station to get loaded up.

Mr. P.F. O'Reilly

I did not say that. It is the folk on the other side who suggested that. I do not believe it.

Mr. O'Donnell

I am sorry if I misinterpreted the Senator, but I do not believe at all that the licensed portion of the bus station will be any more abused than any other public bar elsewhere.

I am not at all convinced that, in the matter of compensation, an arbitrator—from my knowledge of them, they usually take about ten years before making an award—will grant any extra money if a licence does not go with the premises at the time of the giving of the compensation. I do not think any arbitrator will overpay, but I am really worried about the fact that we are here giving something without precedent. I agree that similar facilities were afforded to Bord na Móna, where the circumstances were different, and to Aer Lingus, where they were slightly different, but here we are granting the Minister power to grant to a State-owned organisation facilities which might, or could possibly, react against individual citizens. It is only on that ground that I am inquiring whether there is a way out of the Bill, because I am entirely in favour of granting a licence to Áras Mhic Dhiarmada.

Mr. McHugh

I am completely in favour of giving this licence to Áras Mhic Dhiarmada, if only, for the reason that C.I.E. has a licence at Kingsbridge, in Cork, in Limerick and in my own town of Ennis.

Mr. P.F. O'Reilly

Secured through the courts.

Mr. McHugh

I see no reason why they should not have it at Store Street. However, I agree with Senator O'Reilly that the method of granting the licence is wrong. If it is necessary to bring in a special Bill, I fail to see why a special Bill could not be brought in to grant the licence to Store Street on the very same terms and conditions as those on which they hold the licence at Kingsbridge. If the licence is granted on those conditions, I do not think that many of the abuses which other Senators fear in regard to this method would make themselves felt. I think C.I.E. should have this licence—I see no reason why they should not—and I am in favour of giving it.

There are a couple of points on which I should like some information. I presume that there will a responsible individual in Áras Mhic Dhiarmada to look after this bar. There are many bars throughout the country with responsible individuals in charge of them but which often fall foul of the law, not through any neglect but through sheer good nature, if you like. I could visualise a position in which the Guards might find people drinking in Store Street a few minutes after a certain time and might take certain action. It is possible that the licence would be endorsed and, in the case of three endorsements, the ordinary licence goes. If this licence is endorsed three times, if it would be endorsed at all——

Mr. O'Higgins

Or 20 times.

Mr. McHugh

——will it, like the licence at Kingsbridge, cease automatically? If it does, will the Minister for Industry and Commerce issue a certificate and will the Revenue Commissioners reissue the licence? I should like to have that point cleared up for my own information.

Mention was made here of various other places in respect of which special provision was made for the sale of liquor. In these places, special prices are charged. The people who make use of Store Street are the ordinary working men and women of the country — working men, farmers, tradesmen and business people. These people are already paying sufficiently high prices for drink and I should like some attempt to be made to ensure that C.I.E., who are getting special privileges under this Bill, will not charge extra prices there.

They already do so in many of their other bars, but they are getting a specially privileged position under this Bill, and I suggest that some Minister —possibly the Minister for Justice or the Minister for Industry and Commerce—should suggest to them that they should not take the fact that they are getting a special bar licence from the Oireachtas as a licence to extort money from the public through excess prices. The ordinary man and woman are paying enough in the normal public-house prices and I do not think C.I.E. should be given any opportunity to extort extra prices from them. I am entirely in favour of the other provision in the Bill and I have no comment to make on it. I think the Bill is one which should be passed. The method by which C.I.E. are to get the licence is debatable. My friends do not like it, but I make no comment on it.

Mr. Boland

Great exception has been taken to the method by which the licence is granted. I can see nothing wrong with it. What is happening here is that the Oireachtas, when it passes this Bill—the Bill passed through the other House without a division—decides that this bus station ought to get a licence, and the function of the Minister for Industry and Commerce in the matter is to indicate what particular portion of the bus station in Áras Mhic Dhiarmada the licence should apply to.

With regard to the point raised by Senator McHugh, as to whether or not the licence would be endorsed if there is found to be illegal drinking there, the idea of endorsing a licence is that, when a certain number of endorsements have been put on it, the man running the public-house loses it and is put out of business. What will happen here, I have no doubt, is that if the Guards, in the exercise of their duty, discover that the premises are not being properly conducted, that rowdy conduct is allowed and that illegal drinking is going on, the man in charge of the bar will lose his job. That is the same thing as a publican having his licence endorsed so many times.

Mr. McHugh

I do not think it is. I said that the man in charge may be a responsible individual, no doubt, but responsible individuals throughout the country have found their premises being raided a few minutes after a certain time, with resultant endorsement of the licence. There is no rowdy conduct. It could happen through inadvertence. I am putting a case that might not happen. I want the information for myself. What would happen, Sir, if three endorsements are put on that licence?

Mr. Boland

Nothing I would say. That is my opinion. Senator Hayes thought I was trying to codify the licensing laws. Work in that connection is proceeding slowly in regard to other laws. We have not yet got near to codifying the licensing laws. I cannot see where the court should come in. I think Deputy O'Higgins dealt with that himself when he said that the court decided whether the person looking for the licence is a proper person to have a licence or whether the premises are suitable.

Mr. O'Higgins

Or whether there were sufficient other licensed premises.

Mr. Boland

Those are the things the court should decide. We are deciding where there ought to be a licence. The Minister simply gives a certificate that such and such a portion of this bus station will be reserved for the licence. If in some time to come it is found that it is in a different portion of the premises, then in the certificate the Minister will say that it should be changed to this portion. Senator O'Reilly raised the point in connection with county managers. I am referring now to that portion of the Bill which makes provision in the case of a demolition and a certificate for a licence has been issued in substitution for the other district. The certificate will be issued by the county manager, but the selection of the sites and all the rest of it will have to be done under the Housing Acts by the county manager in conjunction with the local authority. Both will have to work together in such a case.

It has not been found that there was a 25 per cent. increase in the population around the Store Street area. I admit that I did not attempt to make any case to prove that there was need for a bar. I thought it was self-evident. I thought that everybody who travels knows that in every terminus of that kind there is always a bar and that drinks can be got. I did not make the point because I thought it was quite clear.

The other point made was that they would charge more. It was suggested in the other House that they would be so unfair that they might charge less in order to take trade from the local publicans in Talbot Street. If they charged more the people in Talbot Street would be very pleased, as it would mean that people would go to their premises instead of going to the bus station.

I think this is a simple Bill. With regard to that portion of the Bill which deals with giving a licence where there has been a demolition of a premises that is a long-felt one. It has held up a big housing scheme in Limerick. Dublin Corporation are also concerned about it. Where the new premises might be situated somewhere other than in the area where the houses originally stood, the Bill provides, under Section 7, every safeguard that would reasonably be expected to be given to the licensed trade. I do not think there is any danger that the legitimate business of any existing trader will be interfered with in any way. That was brought in at the request of the Limerick Corporation and of the Deputies of all Parties representing the County Limerick. I know there is a need for it also in Dublin, Cork and other big centres. Therefore, we are just making provisions for something that is very necessary.

Question put and agreed to.

Committee Stage fixed for the next sitting day.