Dáil Éireann debate -
Friday, 19 Dec 1924

Vol. 9 No. 27

INTOXICATING LIQUOR (GENERAL) BILL, 1924. - MOTION FOR JOINT CONFERENCE.

Mr. JOHNSON

I move:

That it is desirable that a Conference be held between members representing the Dáil and the Seanad upon Amendments Nos. 1, 2 and 9 made by the Seanad to the Intoxicating Liquor (General) Bill, 1924, to which the Dáil have disagreed and upon which the Seanad in their Message of the 12th December have insisted; that five Deputies represent the Dáil at the said Conference.

I hope that this will not be much less formal than the last. It will be recognised that the position of the Intoxicating Liquor Bill is difficult and the position of the Department of Justice is difficult in consequence. I am very much concerned because of the fact that by the failure of the two Houses to agree on this Bill we shall, for at least nine months, possibly for considerably longer, be in the position that the powers that have been sought to deal with illicit distillation and with the traffic in methylated spirits will not be granted. The present condition of the law with regard to those two items will continue in force and the greater powers sought for by the Ministry which I think the House unanimously approved of will not be given. I say it is mainly with a view to ensuring that the powers in respect of those two evils shall be strengthened that I would urge that some effort should be made before the close of this part of the session to reach an agreement in respect of the Intoxicating Liquor Bill. There is a provision for a Conference made in the Standing Orders as revised, for the purpose of meeting such difficulties between the two Houses, and therefore I have put down this motion. I understand that the Seanad has inconvenienced itself to meet to-day for the purpose of hearing whether the Dáil has agreed to such a conference.

If the Dáil agrees to a conference, a similar motion, I understand, will be moved in the Seanad, and I have good reason to believe that a conference will eventuate. The conference might be held during the dinner hour and if agreement be arrived at the references or recommendations of the conference will be conveyed to both Houses. If there be agreement, the Bill will become law with any amendments that may be decided upon. I move the motion.

Mr. P.J. EGAN

I beg to support Deputy Johnson's motion. I think it would be rather a lamentable thing if the Intoxicating Liquor Bill were held up for nine months, owing to disagreement over a few amendments which may be settled at a conference. From one point of view alone, the Intoxicating Liquor Bill will be of very considerable benefit to the country. I refer particularly to the clauses dealing with illicit distillation and to the clauses which deal with the penalties imposed on people discovered with materials out of which illicit whiskey can be made or plant which can be used for making such spirits. Consequently, I support Deputy Johnson's suggestion that a conference of the two Houses be held to see whether any agreement can be arrived at.

Mr. SHAW

I would also like to support the motion. I have no doubt at all that the conference would be able to arrive at a decision that would be satisfactory to the people interested and to the country in general.

Mr. J. DALY

I also support the motion of Deputy Johnson. The licensed trade in general do not object to the main provisions of this Bill, or to the fines for illicit distillation. A committee will be appointed here and a committee will be appointed by the Seanad and I would like to know whether they will have full power to debate the question.

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

To debate what?

Mr. DALY

Suppose they wanted to make a compromise regarding St. Patrick's Day, would that be within their province?

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

The conference will be able to discuss the three amendments in question. But these three amendments really only involve two points—whether publichouses should or should not be closed on St. Patrick's Day and whether certain structural alterations should be carried out. The conference will have power to make recommendations on either or on both of these points, but they will not be empowered to go beyond these two points and deal with something else in the Bill.

Mr. DALY

Can there be compromise on any particular one of the clauses?

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

Recommendations can be made by the Conference on either of the points I have mentioned, or on both of them.

Mr. LYONS

I would like to know, before agreeing to support this motion, by what method the five Deputies to be appointed by the Dáil will be selected. Will the five Deputies selected be five Deputies who voted in favour of closing on St. Patrick's Day, and who voted also in favour of the structural alterations clause? I think the Dáil ought not to submit even at the last moment to the Seanad. I think the Dáil should adhere to its decision on the Bill. The Seanad may agree to compromise but I, for one, will not agree to the structural alterations clause being forced into the Bill. I would like to know whether any decision arrived at by this Joint Conference will be binding on us or whether it will be decided by vote of this House.

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

Certainly. The Joint Conference can arrive at no decision except to make certain recommendations to the two Houses. This House must then take action with regard to the amendments. We must pass a resolution, either that we insist on our disagreement, or that we do not insist on our disagreement. The resolution, which will be operative, must be passed here. The Joint Conference can only make recommendations.

With regard to the five Deputies to be selected, I take it that the idea would be to proceed in accordance with Standing Order 115 (b), which is an additional Standing Order. That Standing Order was formulated by a Joint Committee of the two Houses, appointed to consider the particular kind of question which has now arisen. The Cathaoirleach of the Seanad, Lord Glenavy, was a member of that Joint Committee, and I was also a member, and the Committee arrived at this method of procedure, which we are now endeavouring to test. The spirit of the Standing Order would be completely broken if the five Deputies selected were on one side or if the five Senators selected were on one side. That would not be a conference that could arrive at any decision. Has Deputy Lyons any other questions?

Mr. LYONS

I am thankful to you, a Chinn Comhairle, for the information you have given me as to the power of this Joint Conference. I would not agree to the appointment of five members, even selected by the Committee on Standing Orders, to consider these amendments, but I am satisfied as long as their recommendations will have to be ratified by the Dáil. I, therefore, raise no objection to the motion on the Paper.

Mr. GOREY

My object in rising is to impress on the Conference to be appointed that they have only power to express the view of the Dáil. On one particular clause the view of the Dáil was very clearly expressed—the structural alterations clause. I do not think that this Committee would have power to compromise on that particular clause, having regard to the view of the Dáil. The question of the other clause is different, because on that the Dáil was, practically, equally divided. It was merely a question of attendance whether the clause was passed or not. On that, I think the Conference would be entitled to exercise a discretion. But on the other question, I think they are not entitled to exercise any discretion. There was no doubt about the view of the Dáil on that question.

Sir JAMES CRAIG

I hope the Dáil will agree to this proposal of Deputy Johnson unanimously, because it is the common sense method of dealing with the matter. It seems to be a fair solution of a very difficult situation. There are many of us who feel strongly that it would be a great pity if the provisions of the Bill were inoperative for nine months, As you, A Chinn Comhairle, and as Deputy Gorey has pointed out, the composition of the Conference really does not matter, because the Dáil and the Seanad will have to pronounce on its recommendations when they come before them. As Deputy Gorey says, there cannot be much question about mixed trading, because this House has given a very strong vote on the clause. When it comes to the question of St. Patrick's Day closing, this House was so evenly divided that the Conference could very well compromise. I strongly support Deputy Johnson's motion, and I ask the House to agree to it unanimously. For my part, I do not care whether the representatives would be those who voted against St. Patrick's Day closing or in favour of it, because the whole matter must come before us later for decision.

General MULCAHY

I would like to say that it is rather unfortunate from the point of view of principle that we should send a number of Deputies to take part in a conference with members of the Seanad, and give them an order that they must not in any circumstances touch this, but that they may touch that. I think that is entirely against the spirit of the conference, and I think that a little reflection will show everybody that that is so. The proposal, as I understand it, is that a number of Deputies here should meet a number of members of the Seanad in conference, and that on the points under discussion they may bring back any recommendations at all within reason, no matter what they were, but those recommendations would have to run the gauntlet of discussion and approval here when they came back. I think we ought to set out clearly and without offence the fact that we are sending them to discuss every possible aspect of certain things down for discussion, but that any recommendations arrived at during that discussion are to run the gauntlet of discussion here.

Mr. A. BYRNE

May I ask whether the conference will have any power to deal with the question of clubs, or is that finally dealt with?

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

The conference can only deal with matters in dispute between the two Houses.

Mr. GOREY

It cannot go outside particular matters.

Mr. HALL

I disagree with the principle of the motion proposed by Deputy Johnson, because, on consideration of this matter, I find that it is making a precedent for future controversy between the Seanad and the Dáil. I do not agree at all that a matter finally disposed of, in accordance with the procedure of this House, should be reopened by conference and, after a conference, again be discussed in both Houses. If this precedent is established now, we will find the same thing occurring time and time again with other legislative measures. Deputies in this House who disagree with certain clauses in certain measures put through this House will be free to get up and move motions to have them referred to a conference of both Houses in order to have their view point put into operation. I think when this House decided the issues that are now, in accordance with this motion, to be discussed in conference that they were decided in very good faith and I do not consider that this business of conference on matters of this kind is good business.

I consider it a very poor way of carrying out national legislation. If the time of this assembly is to be wasted by discussing one measure for months I think we are going back very far. The importance of the Bill, as emphasised by some Deputies, is in my view exaggerated and I am prepared to style the Bill as unimportant. There is nothing in it that makes it important and, therefore, I disagree with the proposition of Deputy Johnson. I do not see the necessity for this conference, and I do not see why a majority vote of this House should be ignored by the passing of this motion. Surely we have had this Bill before us for twelve months— we have had copies of it for nearly twelve months—and we have studied it, and if we were not able during that length of time to come to a decision upon it, I am perfectly convinced that it would be a good day for this country when Deputies who are prepared to change their minds, after such a length of time considering this measure, should walk out and allow men who are capable of making up their minds in a reasonable time to take their places in this House. This method of carrying out legislation is not good, and we are going to have a repetition of it for all time if this motion is carried. Any Deputy who disagrees with the decision of the Dáil will bring in a motion that a conference be held and, if the Dáil agrees, such conference will be held and everything will be discussed again and the time of the Dáil will be lost in discussing the whole question. I do not agree with the motion because, as I have said, it is establishing a principle which the Dáil should endeavour to avoid establishing and I ask the Dáil not to pass it.

Mr. D'ALTON

I fear that I am not in support of Deputy Johnson's motion. I believe that the whole of this Intoxicating Liquor Bill has not been handled in a satisfactory manner with the result that this question of division, as regards the views of the Dáil and Seanad, has been accentuated. Time has been wasted and, I fear, further time will be wasted without arriving at definite results. These could have been secured if there had been a proper interchange of opinions with those who represent the licensed trade in the country. I do not consider those who represent that trade in the city because they agree that the Bill is a useful one and many of them are in favour of it. I pointed out, more than once, the extent of the injury done to the licensed trade in the country.

Mr. A. BYRNE

Is it right that the Deputy should say that the licensed trade in Dublin is behind the Bill when its representatives fought with every means in their power against the structural alteration clause?

Mr. D'ALTON

I did not refer to the structural alteration clause. We were informed by the Minister that he had consulted with the members of the licensed trade in Dublin and that they were in agreement with the Bill. Some of these traders informed me that they are in favour of it. I think it is very unhappy that what could have been done in consultation with the trade and brought before the Dáil with points agreed upon, with a view to seeing that the greatest good was done in the matter of temperance with the least harm to individuals concerned, was not done. If that conference had been held this debate need not have arisen. I believe that the Dáil as a whole is in absolute agreement with almost nine-tenths of the Bill, as it saw the necessity for it. There were a few points on which it did not agree. I suggested an agreement could have been reached on two of these points. That was not after consultation with the licensed trade, but my common sense told me that there was a way out, without doing injury to anybody and at the same time helping the cause of temperance. I do not approve of Deputy Johnson's motion, but I believe the licensed trade are agreeable to it. I think it a bad form of legislation, if one section of the Dáil finds itself outvoted on any line they have taken, that they should call a conference as a sort of referendum. I agree with Deputy Hall on that. If those of us who objected to certain clauses in that Bill had been outvoted then it would be for us to move a motion, that because the other House had not agreed a conference should be held, I think those on the other side would naturally object to that. With reference to a committee of the Dáil meeting a committee of the Seanad, the result of that conference will be placed before the Dáil, and it will be then for the Dáil to consider the result of that conference. The representatives that we send to the conference should have very clear minds after listening to the numerous debates that have taken place on these matters, and they should represent the views expressed by members of the Dáil according to the votes given on the particular issues. I believe that there is a good opportunity for a conference, and by that means we could make even the question of closing on St. Patrick's Day acceptable. For these reasons, I support Deputy Johnson's motion, while wishing it should not have been necessary.

Mr. DALY

On a point of personal explanation, I was consulted by representatives of the licensed trade of Munster and Dublin, and they are in favour of this conference. They find that they would be losing half an hour every night if the Bill were hung up for nine months. There is nothing like telling the truth. I agree with Deputy Gorey that the majority in favour of the opening of public-houses on St. Patrick's Day was small, and we might have to compromise on that, but the majority on the other question was big, and that should give us courage.

Mr. LYONS

rose.

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

Is this a second speech?

Mr. LYONS

No, only one remark concerning Deputy Daly and his interview with the licensed traders.

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

We cannot go any further with the licensed traders.

Mr. LYONS

I want to say that——

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

The Deputy cannot go further now with his second speech.

Mr. JOHNSON

I am glad to note that Deputies from all sides but one have supported this motion and this plan. As to Deputy D'Alton, I am not quite sure where I am in respect of him. He agreed with Deputy Hall in his opposition to the motion; he argued in favour of the motion, and he decided finally he would vote for the motion, so I take the last as being better than the first. With regard to Deputy Hall, we are in the unfortunate position as far as he is concerned, that we are working under a Constitution which has established the Seanad, and before any Bill can become law the Seanad has to agree to it, or to allow it to remain inactive for at least nine months. I hope, quite contrary to his view, that this method will be found to establish a precedent, and a successful precedent, for many occasions when there may be differences between the two Houses, which differences are perhaps of a minor kind, and may be resolved by a conference.

After all, the Dail will have the final say. The conference may get over little difficulties, and may perhaps find a compromise which would save the Bill. As Deputy D'Alton said, the country as a whole appears to be in favour of three-fourths, or nine-tenths, of the Bill. Deputy Hall would say it is better that the nine-tenths should be held up for nine months rather than compromise on the tenth. Die-hardism is of course justifiable sometimes. I do not believe it is on this particular question. I have supported proposals of the Bill which have given rise to much controversy, proposals originally brought forward by the Minister, and I would still like them to be passed in their original form, but I would like to compromise for the sake of saving nine-tenths of the Bill. While the Seanad exists, it has power to hold up legislation, the existence of a means of conference is a valuable one, and I hope it will frequently be availed of.

Motion put and declared carried.

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

Now with regard to the nomination of Deputies.

Mr. JOHNSON

I have not spoken to any of the persons whose names I have to suggest, but if they agree, I think it will be found that they represent the majority of views of the Dáil. The names I have to suggest are:— Deputy O'Higgins, Minister for Justice; Deputy Baxter, Deputy P. J. Egan, Deputy Daly, and, if I might say so, myself.

Mr. HALL

I object to the constitution of that Committee. Deputy Johnson finds it convenient to put on three Deputies who are certain to press for the acceptance of the amendment sent forward from the Seanad in relation to St. Patrick's Day. I certainly object to that. Also two out of the five Deputies voted for the structural alterations.

Mr. O'HIGGINS

It might be better to put someone other than myself on that representation, but I would be available when they are holding the conference.

Mr. JOHNSON

May I suggest Deputy Mulcahy in substitution?

General MULCAHY

I would like to suggest that Deputy Hall's point might not be met by my taking the place of the Minister for Justice, for I voted in the same way as the Deputies to whom Deputy Hall objects.

Mr. BAXTER

Would it not be the better procedure for each party to nominate its own representative.

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

The voting on the matter was not a party vote.

Mr. BAXTER

I agree.

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

This is a precedent. The Standing Order contemplates a conference. It does not say anything about membership of the conference, or that the Committee from the Dáil should have a majority reflecting the Dáil's original attitude.

Mr. HALL

That is the reason I object to the names given. The Dáil has given a definite decision against the amendment in relation to St. Patrick's Day, and also a definite decision against the structural alteration clause. For that reason, I say the Committee of the Dáil should be constituted out of that majority.

Mr. O'HIGGINS

I would propose a Deputy who did not vote at all on that particular issue, that is Deputy Professor O'Sullivan.

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

Is he available for three o'clock?

Mr. O'HIGGINS

I think so.

Mr. HALL

I would suggest that the representatives appointed from the Dáil should be Deputies representing the majority view of the Dáil, to meet the majority view of the Seanad.

Mr. LYONS

Perhaps Deputy Hall would mention five Deputies who would represent the Dáil.

Mr. GOREY

Put Deputies Hall, Daly, and Lyons amongst them.

Mr. P.J. EGAN

I would like to point out that the constitution of this Joint Conference is not so very important as Deputy Hall appears to think. The whole matter has to come back to the Dáil again, and Deputies can criticise then in any way they wish.

Mr. JOHNSON

I would suggest that Deputy Lyons be added to the Committee in place of the Minister for Justice. Perhaps that would meet with the approval of the Dáil?

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

It is proposed that the Deputies to represent the Dail on the Joint Conference should consist of Deputies Lyons, Baxter, P.J. Egan, Daly, and Johnson. Is that agreed upon?

The Dáil agreed.

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

A message will be sent to the Seanad acquainting them of our resolution and asking for concurrence. Under the Standing Orders, should the Seanad agree to the conference, and nominate Senators to act, the time and place of the conference is to be fixed by me. The Seanad have precisely similar Standing Orders to those. Should we have a Message by three o'clock we could resume at that hour.