Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Tuesday, 1 Mar 1927

Vol. 18 No. 11

IN COMMITTEE ON FINANCE. - MONEY RESOLUTION—INTOXICATING LIQUOR BILL.

I move:—

Go bhfuil sé oiriúnach a údarú go n-íocfar amach as airgead a sholáthróidh an tOireachtas aon chostaisí fé n-a raghfar chun aon Acht do chur in éifeacht a rithfar sa tSiosón so chun an dlí a bhaineas le díol deocha meisciúla do leasú agus chun cuid di do chó-dhlúthú agus chun comhacht do thabhairt chun líon na gceadúnaisí diolta deocha meisciúla do laigheadú tré dheire do chur o am go ham le ceadúnaisí áirithe aca san agus chun an dlí a bhaineas le clárú clubanna do leasú.

That it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys to be provided by the Oireachtas of any expenses incurred in carrying into effect any Act of the present Session to amend and in part consolidate the law relating to the sale of intoxicating liquor, to enable the number of licences for the sale of intoxicating liquor to be reduced by the abolition from time to time of certain such licences, and to amend the law relating to the registration of clubs.

There will be expenses under several heads incurred in carrying this Act into operation. In the first place, assessors will have to be appointed in the matter of fixing the amount of compensation to be paid when a licence is extinguished. That will not be a serious drain on the resources of the State, because the process of extinguishing licences will go on over a period of years, and the amount involved will be comparatively small. In seven or eight years' time it might amount to, say, £20,000. When a licence is extinguished, certain liabilities will fall on the remaining licensed holders in particular licensing areas.rical work will be involved in the management of the compensation fund. That will not be a very expensive thing because the number of licences to be extinguished will only gradually rise to any considerable amount. It can only happen over a period of years, not merely for financial reasons but because of the formalities that will have to be gone through and of the proceedings that will be necessary before the courts. It is provided in the Bill that the amount of compensation awarded is to be repaid by the remaining licence holders in the area over a period of 20 years by means of an annuity of £7 10s. per cent.

It has been remarked that an annuity of £7 10s., with the present rate of interest, would not amortise £100 in 20 years. It would only amortise £94 10s. 4d. We are at present paying 5¼ per cent. or slightly over that, but it is not anticipated that during the period in which this Act will be put into operation that the rate of interest which the Government will have to pay will remain as high as that. I feel satisfied, and it is the conclusion that anybody would draw looking at the present price of National Loan, that when the State next borrows it will be able to borrow at a figure under 5¼ per cent. I do not say that it will be able to borrow at 5 per cent., but it would be able to borrow at less than 5¼ per cent. We may take it, I think, that over a period of seven or eight years from now the rate of interest payable on Government borrowings will average, say, 5 per cent. I do not think that we can anticipate an average of less than 5 per cent. An annuity of £7 10s. over twenty years will not amortise £100 even at 5 per cent. It will amortise £93 9s. 4d., so that assuming that the main work of abolition contemplated under this Bill, and contemplated under the Report of the Liquor Commission, takes place within the next seven or ten years, we may take it that for every £100 paid in compensation the annuity of £7 10s. over twenty years will only pay back £93 9s. 4d. That means that there will be, in effect, a State contribution into the Compensation Fund of a sum of £6 10s. 8d. That figure of £6 10s. 8d. is agreed to for a variety of reasons. It is regarded as absolutely fair that the remaining licence holders should pay for the compensation of the licences that are abolished. It is recognised that the person whose property is acquired compulsorily gets a good price, and sometimes he gets a trifle over a good price by reason of the fact that the compensation is compulsory, but certainly if he never gets too much, if you take the number of people whose property has been acquired compulsorily, the average price is perhaps better a little than a good average price. There is also the fact to be borne in mind that the compensation awarded will include not merely actual compensation for the loss of the licence both to the occupier and the lessor, but it will include a certain sum in regard to costs. In paragraph (c) of sub-section (3) of Section 36, it will be seen that the compensation payable shall include:

"In any case such additional sum as the compensation authority shall consider reasonable in view of the fact that the parties receiving the compensation have to bear their own costs of all proceedings in relation to the compensation and, in the case of the holder of the licence, of the reference order and the abolition order."

Now in the ordinary way if a person were selling voluntarily he should bear his costs of sale, but where a person is not selling voluntarily but where his property is taken compulsorily it is reasonable that some allowance should be made for his costs so that the amount of expense he has to incur in connection with the matter shall be taken into account. On the other hand while it is fair that the remaining licence holders should pay for the value of the licences it is perhaps asking a little too much to require them to pay for the legal and other costs of the person whose licence was abolished in the various proceedings leading up to abolition and the award of compensation.

This Licensing Bill represents a social reform, and if some little expense falls on the State it is fair enough that the State should bear that. It is felt therefore that this contribution, as I might call it, of about £6 10s. in every £100 is reasonable, that it is not a gift to the remaining licence holders, that considering all the circumstances, considering the somewhat good price that is pretty sure to be awarded in proceedings for compulsory acquisition, having regard to the legal costs which will be incurred and which will be included in the compensation, it seems to be not too much that this £6 10s. should be paid.

The licences which will be abolished compulsorily will be, broadly speaking, licences of small value. Considerations are laid down in the Bill as to the selection of licences for abolition, but generally speaking they will be of comparatively small value, and it has been estimated tentatively that if we extinguish, during a period of years, say seven or ten years ahead, something like 4,000 licences that the average compensation for those 4,000 licences ought not to be more than £300 a-piece. There will be many licences extinguished which will not be valued for anything like £300. Others will be valued for considerably more. For this we assume a figure of £300, which, I think, is a reasonable figure. It means that the 4,000 licences could be extinguished at a cost of £1,200,000. If the State has to assume liability for the repayment of, roughly, £6 10s. in every £100 it means that something like £78,000 or a little more is the amount that will fall due to be paid by the general taxpayer. With those figures in mind, and the figure I indicated of the costs that will fall on the State in connection with the payment of assessors, I think the liability to the general taxpayer—of course the liability will be spread over a great many years, it will not fully mature until twenty years after the 4,000 licences have actually been abolished—would be something in the nature of £100,000.

The Minister for Finance has made a great deal about his generosity to the licence holder whose business he is about to acquire compulsorily in allowing him costs and not mulcting him for the same. The Money Resolution that we are discussing seems to be drafted in terms sufficiently wide that the Minister, if he so desires, might be a little generous in other respects. I have got a series of amendments down dealing with Section 40, the first amendment suggesting that the licence holder, whose business is to be confiscated by the State for purposes which are supposed to be in the interests of the State, should not derive whatever compensation is awarded to him entirely at the expense of the remaining and more fortunate licence holders. In effect, my proposal is that, this being a matter for the State and for the benefit of the State, some of the compensation should be borne by the State. I should like to have, at this stage, your ruling as to whether I shall be entitled on the Committee Stage to move amendment No. 76, which stands in my name, because although I am aware that it is not within the purview of a private member to seek to impose extra charges on the State, at the same time I would submit that this Money Resolution covers the amendments which appear to Section 40 over my name.

The reason I would desire to have your ruling upon the point now is, that if you decide that I shall not be entitled to move that amendment in Committee, I submit that I am entitled at this stage to suggest that the Money Resolution should be, if it is not already sufficiently wide, so altered as to enable a proposal such as mine to be dealt with on the Committee Stage. I should like to have your ruling on that.

The Money Resolution is undoubtedly drafted in very wide terms, but it appears to me that another question, which has no reference whatever to the Money Resolution, really arises in connection with the amendment which Deputy Redmond speaks of—that is amendment 76, to Section 40. The amendment, in effect, seeks to place half the burden of compensation on the State. The Bill, as read a second time, provides for the extinction of certain licences under certain conditions, and for the payment of compensation. I think it would not be in order to move an amendment in Committee to the effect that one-half of the compensation should be borne by the State, seeing that Section 40, as drafted and embodied in the Bill as read a second time, does not contemplate any such contribution from the State. I think that if such a contribution by the State, such a burden upon public funds were to be imposed, it should appear in some place in the Bill and should not be introduced on the Committee Stage of the Bill, which, as read a second time, contemplated no such proposal. I think, therefore, that the amendment Deputy Redmond speaks of will not be in order on the Committee Stage of the Bill, but not for the reason that it is precluded by the Money Resolution.

Of course. I bow to your ruling on that matter, but as a result of your ruling, am I in order in suggesting now that the Minister should so enlarge the Money Resolution as to enable the amendment I have tabled to be moved?

The objection which I have taken to the amendment of Deputy Redmond is not based upon the fact that it is a Deputy, not a member of the Executive Council, who seeks to move the amendment. I think the objection would be as valid if the Minister for Finance were seeking to move such an amendment. A Bill of this kind having been read a second time, it would be very improper financial procedure to endeavour to insert in it in Committee a proposal that half the compensation should be borne out of public funds. The Minister, with the resources at his disposal, might be able, by means of an explicit Money Resolution and a special direction to the Committee on the Bill, to accomplish that purpose. But I would still be constrained to state my opinion, that if it is intended to extinguish licences and to place upon the State half, or any considerable portion of the burden of that compensation, that principle should be embodied in the Bill as read a second time.

That being the case, and since the question of amendment of the Money Resolution does not seem to me to arise, I think that the opportunities for urging that the State should bear the compensation occur in two places—on the Second Reading, when Deputies could object to the nature of the Bill before them, and in Committee, when Section 40 is being moved, or possibly on another section, when objection could be taken to the section on the grounds that by its nature it is undesirable and should not stand part of the Bill. I think these are the opportunities for the raising of those particular points—either on Second Reading or on the operative section of the Bill, when taken in Committee.

I can quite follow your point of view but of course, the Second Reading has been passed. May I say in passing that it was not really a Second Reading of this Bill? It was the Second Reading of a Bill which had been introduced as such, but which was considerably amended by the speech of the Minister for Justice in asking for the passing of the Bill on Second Reading. However, the question will, as you say, be open to discussion on the Committee Stage when considering the section. It really comes to this, that things have reached such a pass that it is now almost impossible for anyone, Minister or otherwise, to propose in this Bill that any portion of the compensation should be borne by the State. I take that to be the meaning of your ruling, and if that is so, it comes to this, that any Deputy who desires that the remaining licence holders should not be the sole contributors to the compensation of those whose licences are extinguished, will have to vote against this section in toto. They will not have any other alternative. It will simply mean, not that he will be able to propose an amendment whereby the remaining licence holders should pay something, but that he will have to vote against the section providing that the remaining licence holders shall pay everything.

I submit to the House, on the ruling of the Ceann Comhairle, that the only course for the Government is to provide a proper compensation in another Bill. It certainly seems rather hard that no Deputy can now either propose or support a proposal in connection with this Bill that the State should bear something. This Bill as introduced is gone and we are now about to discuss what is practically a new Bill. It is possible for the Minister to bring in a separate Bill dealing with the matter of compensation. That seems to be the only course left open, if Deputies are precluded from proposing in Committee on this Bill that the State should pay any contribution whatever towards that compensation. As far as I am concerned I am precluded evidently from doing anything except on the discussion of the section merely expressing my own pious opinion, but having no recourse whatever to any parliamentary procedure whereby I could get this opinion put into effect. It certainly seems rather a strange state of affairs in an assembly such as this that here we are not in a position so to alter or amend the Bill because the Bill, as originally introduced, has been drafted in such a way. I doubt very much if any members who voted for the Second Reading of the Bill were aware, when they voted for the Second Reading, that the Bill, having passed that stage, they would be precluded from doing anything like justice to the remaining licensees by asking the State to pay some contribution towards the compensation of those who are about to be extinguished.

It has been made clear by the speech of the Minister for Finance that there is to be a small State contribution towards certain types of expenses, what might be called machinery expenses, involved in the process of the extinction of licences, but the Bill as read a second time does not, on its face, contain any provision for the payment by the State of any part of the compensation to the owner in respect of his interest in the abolished licence. The introduction, therefore of a charge of the latter nature cannot be permitted in Committee whether by the Minister or by an ordinary Deputy. When it is proposed to place a certain new type of charge on public funds that should be done in the clearest possible manner and not by way of an amendment introduced in Committee on the Bill.

The principle of payment by the State in whole or in part of compensation to owners in respect of their interest in abolished licences should bearly affirmed in a Bill on Second Reading.

When a Bill is being read a second time Deputies have great latitude in making their arguments and must make their minds clear as to what the Bill actually contains. Afterwards in Committee we have to deal with proposals for placing charges upon public funds with the greatest strictness, and we have, in fact, agreed to do so.

I was amused to hear the case put forward by Deputy Redmond. One would think, listening to him, that the country was calling out to the State to pay compensation to the publicans, whereas, as a matter of fact, every man I met, when speaking of the closing of publichouses, while he might not agree with that policy, said that for those closed the others must pay the piper. Deputy Redmond, therefore, though speaking as if he were representing his own constituency, is really representing a special liquor interest.

The Deputy must not say that. He must withdraw the statement. The Deputy represents his constituency and not the liquor interest.

I withdraw the statement; and what I would say is that his argument pointed in the direction I indicated.

The Deputy must unreservedly withdraw what he said according to my ruling.

I withdraw. The point I want to direct the attention of the House on, in particular, is the question of the effect which the closing of publichouses will have on other services in the State. At the present time the upkeep of lunatic asylums is borne as to four shillings per capita by the liquor licences. Consequently, if you extinguish a considerable number of liquor licences the revenue we receive towards the upkeep of lunatic asylums will thereby de depleted.

We will have fewer lunatics.

Yes, I agree; but in the meantime we have a number of lunatics to keep up. What I want the Minister to answer is—Has he made provision to recoup the mental hospitals committees and the county councils for the loss which they will sustain by reason of the closing of certain licensed houses?

That is a point that will arise for consideration later. It does not arise at present, but undoubtedly if the reduction of licences reaching any considerable extent should reduce the amount that at present goes to these institutions, the matter would have to be met.

I would like to point out to Deputy Wilson that in America, which has been dry for a long time, you have lunacy trebled. If you had this country dry, or nearly dry, they would have means of getting stuff that would drive the people all mad.

I was rather amused by the attempt Deputy Redmond is now making to introduce into the discussion a claim that the taxpayers should be called upon to bear portion of the cost for the licences to the number of four thousand, which it is proposed to abolish. I was much more amused when I heard Deputy P. J. Egan on the Second Reading of this Bill declaring his intention of voting for it in the hope, subsequently, of being able to secure an amendment of the same kind. I thought when I heard the Deputy making a claim for such compensation that he was going to vote against the principle of the Bill, which laid it down very strictly that the licences to be abolished must be paid for by the people who remained in the trade.

I think we must thank the Minister for Finance for giving more information in the short speech he made on the financial resolution than the Minister for Justice gave on the Second Reading of the measure, which is not the one before us now. The real reason why I voted against the Second Reading of the Bill as printed was because I think the basis of the compensation for the abolished licences in rural areas is absolutely unfair. While the Minister may contend and argue on Committee Stage that that is in effect compelling the remaining licence holders to pay for the people who go out, we all know that on the basis of the Bill, assuming it is administered on the lines of the Liquor Commission's recommendation, many hundreds of licence holders whose licences are the most valuable will escape all financial responsibility for the licence holders whose licences will be abolished.

The Minister for Finance said that the estimated compensation to be paid for about 4,000 licences to be abolished in the course of six or seven years will amount to about £1,200,000, out of which the State, for reasons given by him, will pay £100,000. He stated— in this I am not sure that he is correct —that the licences to be abolished will be the licences of lower valuation. Sub-section (3) of Section 33 of the Bill, as introduced, specifies far more serious reasons which would serve as justification to the District Justice for abolishing licences. The question of the volume of business transacted in the premises to which the licence is attached undoubtedly comes into consideration, but there is also the question as to whether the business carried on in the premises is properly conducted. That might apply to a licensed house of high valuation in the city of Dublin. I take it that if a licensed house in the city were not properly conducted, the Superintendent of the Gárda Síochána would be justified in coming before the District Justice, making a claim for abolition and justifying the abolition.

No; redundancy has to be established in the first instance.

The question of redundancy is very elastic. "Redundancy" is not clearly defined in the Bill. It may be clearly defined in the report of the Liquor Commission, but the question of redundancy is not dealt with in any detailed way in the Bill. I suggest that under sub-section (3) of Section 33 a licence can be abolished in the city of Dublin. I understand that it is the intention of the Ministry to do away with certain licences in the city of Dublin. I have been given to understand in conversation that houses not properly conducted, which are situate in the slum areas of the city, will be wiped out under this Bill—that that is the intention of the Minister and his officials.

Who gave the Deputy to understand that?

I will give the Minister an opportunity of contradicting it. I think it is quite true to say that Deputy Egan or any Deputy would place different interpretations on the various clauses of this Bill. When the Bill passes the Committee Stage, many of us will be more clear as to the real intention of the sections than we are now.

I hope the Deputy will.

The serious part of the Bill, I think, is the provision of a period of seven to ten years for the wiping out of the 4,000 licences. That is going to affect to a considerable extent the credit facilities now obtaining in rural areas. There are many Deputies, including the President and the Minister for Justice, who look upon licensed traders as people who sell over the counter a certain number of barrels of stout for consumption on the premises. That may be the case in the city of Dublin, but in the country it is quite different. The beer or porter sold over the counter for consumption on the premises is only a negligible part of the business of the country trader. The principal portion of the trade carried on in rural Ireland is the sale of groceries and such commodities, which are not consumed on the premises. It is only possible to carry on that trade, as business people know, because of the credit given by bankers or wholesalers. The position in the country, unfortunately, is that the trader is really the poor man's banker. Anybody who knows anything about business in rural Ireland must know that rural traders—they are mixed traders for the most part—are owed thousands of pounds by small farmers and poor people who were given credit in recent years to a measure which could not be justified. By the passage of this Bill and the consequent restriction of credit to poor people, you are going to do untold injury. I should prefer that the 4,000 licences it is proposed to abolish should be abolished right away, so that those who are to remain would know their position, and that bankers and wholesalers who would be applied to for credit would know what to do. Wholesalers and bankers will restrict credit facilities to a considerable extent immediately this Bill is passed into law if it remains in its present form.

Take the case of Ballaghaderreen, which is often cited as proof of the superfluity of licensed houses. In Ballaghaderreen there are 75 licensed houses, the population being 1,317. There is a licensed house in Ballaghaderreen to every 18 inhabitants. Immediately this Bill is passed into law, as Deputy Wilson explained, it would be only a fool or a lunatic who would buy a publichouse put up for auction in Ballaghaderreen. A publichouse will be unsaleable in Ballaghaderreen or in any area in which there is an excess of publichouses as found by the Liquor Commission if this Bill be passed.

The Deputy is discussing the Bill. He is even using the words "the Bill." The Deputy is only in order in discussing the Money Resolution at present. The point he is dealing with will arise on the section in Committee and there is no longer any time limit in Committee, under Standing Orders. The Deputy can make his points on the section of the Bill or on his amendments. It is not desirable that he should initiate a second reading debate on the Money Resolution. If I allowed Deputy Davin to initiate a second reading debate on the Money Resolution, I could not stop any other Deputy from pursuing the same course. I suggest to the Deputy that he should keep to the financial aspect of the measure which, as he is aware, is very wide.

I thought there was a fairly wide range for debate on the terms of the Money Resolution. I do not think I am guilty of any great crime if I am out of order, seeing that Deputy Redmond, who is a member of the legal profession, and who is so accustomed to Parliamentary procedure, was himself declared out of order.

Deputy Redmond seems to be very much under discussion this evening. He was not declared out of order. He merely put a point of order for decision.

Then Deputy Redmond sat down believing he would be out of order if he had continued.

I cannot allow the Deputy to interpret my mind.

If I declare Deputy Redmond out of order now post factum, perhaps Deputy Davin will confine himself to the Money Resolution?

I assume I am entitled to argue against compensation being based on the licensed area instead of on the entire State.

Has not the Deputy an amendment down to deal with that?

Does not that satisfy the Deputy? Why does the Deputy want to argue the point now when he can deal with it in Committee? This Money Resolution does not debar the Deputy from moving his amendment in Committee. If it did, it would be a different matter.

A number of traders will have to forfeit their licences in accordance with legislation introduced in the Irish Free State. To my mind, if you are going to place the whole responsibility on existing publicans you are going to put them in a very awkward position financially—a position which they cannot possibly meet. I would appreciate the idea of introducing a Money Resolution provided the State was going to advance £200,000 or £300,000 for the purpose of giving compensation to traders who are requested to give up their licences. The Minister for Justice declared in the Dáil that publicans who succeed in maintaining their licences will have to pay at the rate of £7 10s. per £100 for 20 years as compensation for those who went out of the business. I do not think that is right. If you want to get a temperate Ireland, if it is the idea of the Government, or if the Government is led by that great organisation known as Maynooth College, as I believe they are, then it is up to that organisation to give the Government some advice whereby they will be able to compensate the publicans. I do not wear a black shirt. I stand here as a representative of my people in Westmeath and Longford. I voice their opinion here. Some people may think I am wrong, but I say this present Government is led on and driven to the last extent by the College of Maynooth.

I wonder would the Deputy take a piece of advice from me—to stop his speech at this moment.

I just want to say one or two words more on this Money Resolution. If the Irish Free State is going to wipe out a certain number of licensed traders they should be compensated by the State for the loss they sustain. There are amendments to the Bill whereby employees are also to be compensated for loss of employment. When these amendments come forward we will be able to discuss them. I appreciate the object of the Minister for Finance in bringing forward a Money Resolution asking for permission to compensate publicans who, through the administration of the Bill introduced by the Minister for Justice, will lose their licences. In the country districts there are traders who only sell 2½ barrels of stout in the week. Still they have an asset in their licences. I admit publicly, and I admitted it in 1923, that there were too many publichouses in the Saorstát. I admit that now, but I want the Minister for Finance to find funds to compensate the publicans who are going to lose their licences, so that the charge will not be placed on the existing publicans in country districts.

On the Second Reading of the Bill the Minister explained that compensation was to be paid by an entire parish or district. I say that is wrong. If a publican lives six or seven miles away from a publican who is to be put out of business why should the former be asked or be expected to pay towards compensating the other man? I do not think that is right. If necessary, the Government should raise a fund or float a loan for the purpose of compensating licensees who have to forfeit their licences during the next five years. In many cases it will be found that the idea in the minds of the District Justices is that they are to endorse licences. The Minister has given an idea of what he considers a technical offence. One justice may say that an offence is a technical one, and another may say that it is not. The owner of the licence loses it if it is endorsed three times. I do not think that is fair. I appreciate the fact that the Minister has given way on the point that endorsements shall not apply to the house when there is a genuine sale. Even from the Labour point of view I think the Minister is to be congratulated for doing that. I now want the Minister for Finance to supply sufficient money to compensate the 4,000 traders that he expects will be affected by the Bill within the next five years. The Bill requires 4,000 people to give up their licences, and the Irish people should pay the compensation rather than the existing publicans. Do not Deputies agree that it is right that the whole community should bear portion of the compensation, even if an extra halfpenny was put on tea, sugar or flour? Of course Deputy Johnson would not agree with that. If publicans are to be compensated is it not right that it should be done directly by the State, and the cost got back from the community, instead of from a particular class? In a village where there are twenty publichouses, with a population of 700, ten of the publichouses are to go, and they are to be compensated by the remaining ten, who will pay at the rate of £7 10s. per £100 for twenty years. I cannot understand how that can be done, as one trader in that village may get the entire business of the outgoing ten.

The other nine achieve nothing whatsoever, financial or otherwise, through the licence being refused in the case of the tenth. Then why should nine pay for one? I think that is wrong. I think the State should come to the rescue and bear, at least, some portion of the compensation to be given to the outgoing publicans. I appreciate the action of the Minister for Finance in bringing forward this Resolution. I sincerely hope that he will see his way in the remote parts of the country to give some compensation directly out of the Exchequer and not place responsibility upon the existing publicans to pay for the men who go out.

I am sorry that this Liquor Bill has been made more a political issue here than a conscientious issue. When the division was taken here the other night, I fear that it was more a vote against the Government than in favour of the licensing trade.

I will challenge the Deputy upon that.

Deputy Lyons succeeded in making a long speech, which was nearly all out of order. Will he please not interrupt any more?

I stated, on the Second Reading, that I believed when the licensed trade of Ireland were aware of the conditions of the Bill, that very few of them would take any objection to it. From the short period that has elapsed since, of the many persons in the licensed trade that I have met, I know none who would prefer the 1924 Act to the Bill that is before the House now.

The Bill is not before the House now.

It is a Money Resolution.

I presume I am in order. I will be very short in what I have to say with regard to Deputy Lyons' reference to Maynooth.

I am well able to bear it all.

I offered Deputy Lyons advice which he did not take. I am now offering Deputy Shaw advice that the less he says about what Deputy Lyons has said the more pleasure he will have in reading the Official Debates of the House this evening when he gets them. I hope the Deputy will take that piece of advice from me.

I will take it.

That is the end of a perfect day.

Question put and agreed to.
The Dáil went out of Committee.
Money Resolution reported and agreed to.

Is there any chance of reporting progress until to-morrow? Would I be in order in moving that?

There is only one other move Deputy Lyons can take to-night, and that is to move out of the House altogether. I want Deputy Lyons to say no more.

Deputy Lyons is a member of the Dáil, and he can talk as he likes. He is a member of this House, and, as a member of this House, he is in his place.

DEPUTIES

Order, order!

I have been returned by the people, and I am here to represent the people. I voice the opinions of the people and, consequently, I hold my rights as a representative, and here I am going to remain.

It may be within the knowledge of Deputies that a method exists of removing a Deputy, even though he is properly a member of the House. Deputy Lyons will have to remember that method does exist and will be put into operation. If Deputy Lyons takes my advice, he will remain as quiet as possible for the remainder of the evening; if he does not, he will find himself in a wholly different position to the one he now occupies.

Deputy Lyons is going to remain here if you carry on the business of the Dáil. My amendments are on the paper and I am going to put them forward as a member of this House. It is my right to do so. Excuse me for sitting down; I am off-side. I do not want to insult you in the least. It is my duty to remain here if you go on with the Bill now. I asked you to allow me to report progress until to-morrow. You can do that. Then you ridicule me simply for standing up and asking you to report progress. My amendment is the second amendment to the Liquor Bill. I do not feel myself——

Will Deputy Lyons allow me to say a word?

Will Deputy Lyons give way to the President?

The Ceann Comhairle has given Deputy Lyons very sound and very fatherly advice. It would be out of place for me to recommend that advice to Deputy Lyons; but I have got to inform Deputy Lyons that this House will not tolerate any disorder in it——

DEPUTIES

Hear, hear!

—and every member of the House is willing and anxious to show respect to the Ceann Comhairle. We are prepared to see that Deputy Lyons will show it, too.

Yes, I certainly do. If I have said anything to the Ceann Comhairle, I apologise now. I do not wish to show any disrespect to the Ceann Comhairle; I never did. He is a man above men.

Will the Deputy sit down, on the instruction of the Ceann Comhairle?

I will. I ask you——

Will the Deputy sit down?

I ask you to report progress until to-morrow. I do not want this Liquor Bill taken to-night.

The House will consider the Intoxicating Liquor Bill in Committee.

I am prepared to go on. It does not matter.

Barr
Roinn