I move that the Bill be now read a Second Time. This is a Bill for two specific purposes. The first is the granting of a licence for the Central Bus Station in Áras Mhic Dhiarmada; the second is the preservation of licences attached to premises which are demolished by local authorities in connection with housing schemes, the widening of streets and so on.
The first part of the Bill—up to and including Section 5—relates to Áras Mhic Dhiarmada. It provides that a licence for the bus station there may be given by the Revenue Commissioners to C.I.E. on production of a certificate from the Minister for Industry and Commerce. The purpose of the certificate is to enable the Minister to prescribe the portion of the bus station to be licensed; the Minister will also be empowered to grant, from time to time as circumstances may require, an amended certificate allowing the extension or transfer of the licence to another portion of the premises.
I do not think it is necessary for me to say much about the desirability of a licence for the Central Bus Station: large numbers of people may be waiting there before the arrival or departure of buses, and it is evident that the amenity of a licence is necessary, just as it is at a major railway station or at an airport. The licence will be in the name of C.I.E. The law relating to hours of closing and so on will apply to the premises.
The object of the second part of the Bill is to solve a problem which has for some time hindered local authorities in their housing and town planning schemes and is causing difficulties in Limerick City at present. Under the existing law, a perfectly sound public-house may have to be demolished by a local authority in the course of their housing or town planning operations and when that is done the licence lapses and cannot be renewed. This is undesirable in two respects. Firstly, the publican is permanently put out of business and, as some of those affectedhave pointed out, a lump sum in compensation, however fairly assessed, may often be inadequate recompense for the loss suffered by a person who, perhaps late in life, after spending years in the trade and acquiring a specialised knowledge of it, may have to start another type of business in which he has no experience. Secondly, the law is unfair to local authorities who have to pay heavy compensation for licences which have a certain monopoly value and which, because of a defect or omission in the law, are lost when the premises are demolished. If a public-house is burned down or otherwise accidentally destroyed, there is provision in law for the granting of a new licence. There is no reason in equity why a licence should have to lapse simply because the premises have to be demolished to comply with the development plans of a local authority. The Bill, therefore, provides that in such a case the licence may be attached to new premises on a site acquired by the local authority. If the new premises are on the same site as the old premises, or as near to it as in the opinion of the court makes no difference to other publicans in the neighbourhood, objections from other publicans will not be admitted.
A case in point would be where the public-house would be moved back a few yards to allow for the widening of a street. Where, however, there is a change in the location of the site and the change could adversely affect other publicans, a special right of objection, more favourable to the other publicans than that given under existing law, is given in the Bill. The normal ground of objection is the number of previously licensed houses in the neighbourhood or, in other words, the adequacy of existing facilities: thus if there is only one public-house in the neighbourhood and it can cater for only 80 per cent. of the trade in the area, the ordinary ground of objection would almost certainly be overruled even though the new public-house, perhaps a more modern structure with better fittings, might take a great deal of the trade from the existing one. The Bill is designed to prevent that happeningin the case of licences granted under its provisions. The test it provides is whether the licensing of the new premises would be "unreasonably detrimental" to the business carried on in other public-houses. Thus, even though existing facilities may not be fully adequate, the licence may be refused if the new premises would take an appreciable amount of trade from other public-houses in the neighbourhood. This provision is, therefore, heavily weighted in favour of existing publicans, but I consider that it is better to have it that way than to run the risk of unfairly interfering with existing equities.
The Bill provides that the court may authorise the granting of the new licence only to the holder of a certificate from the local authority declaring that the old premises have been or are to be demolished by them or on their direction and that the site of the new premises has been acquired by them as a site for licensed premises in substitution for the old premises. It provides that the person with the greatest interest in the old licence—in the ordinary case that person would be the person who holds or held that licence—must get first option, but if he does not want the certificate it may be given to somebody else. If it were in fact being given to somebody else, it would, of course, normally be given to the highest bidder for the lease of the approved site or premises.
The Bill has provisions on the same lines as the provisions relating to hotels in the Tourist Traffic Act, 1952, namely, that application may be made to the court, on the basis of plans, for a declaration that premises constructed in accordance with the plans will be licensed. This is a practical necessity in the type of case in question. The prospective licensee may make this application on the basis of plans, or the local authority may do so. The main reason the right of application is being given to the local authority is that the arrangement between the local authority and the publican whose premises are to be knocked down may be that the local authority will build a new public-house for him, inaccordance with their plans for the area, instead of paying monetary compensation for the destruction of the premises—such an arrangement would often be to the advantage of both parties.