I did not know that Amendment No. 1 was not being moved. I want to make a suggestion in respect of recommittal. It was understood that certain sections would be recommitted. First of all, there was amendment No. 1 which I understand is out now. The next amendments are No. 7 and No. 13 and there is the Financial Resolution relating to six-day licences. In that connection, I notice Deputy Dillon and Deputy Lindsay have an amendment on the same subject which I assume can be debated only on recommittal also. I am prepared, unless the Deputies concerned have any objection, to move to have the Bill recommitted in respect of that amendment also. Finally, there is amendment No. 16 which proposes to strengthen the law against illegal serving of drink in late night restaurants. I understand this, too, requires recommittal. I suggest the most satisfactory order to deal with these matters is to take the Financial Resolution and then recommit in respect of amendments Nos. 7, 13 and 16. After that, we would go back to the Report Stage.
Intoxicating Liquor Bill, 1959—Recommittal.
Amendment No. 1 not moved.
You mean to recommit Nos. 7, 13 and 16?
Yes.
Before we reach that, shall we deal with No. 2 on Report first or is it proposed to take the recommitted sections first?
No; we shall clear off the recommittals.
The Financial Resolution must be moved first.
Does that mean that Deputy Russell may afterwards move amendment No. 1?
No, that has not been moved.