The Leas-Cheann Comhairle is unavoidably absent, and in his absence Deputy Cooper will move the necessary motions with regard to items Nos. 1 and 2.
PRIVATE BUSINESS. - DUBLIN ELECTRICITY SUPPLY BILL, 1924.
Message from the Seanad (deferred):—
That in the opinion of the Seanad it is expedient that a Joint Committee of both Houses be appointed to consider the Dublin Electricity Supply Bill, 1924.
I beg to move:—
That the Dáil do agree with the Seanad in their resolution communicated to the Dáil on the 7th day of May, 1924, that it is expedient that a Joint Committee of both Houses be appointed to consider the Dublin Electricity Supply Bill, 1924.
I should perhaps make it clear to the Dáil that I move this motion in an official capacity as the only member of the Joint Committee on Private Bill Standing Orders who is present. The resolution does not commit the Dáil to approval of the Bill. It is one that simply says that the Bill shall be sent to a Joint Committee, selected from both Houses and representative of all Parties, for consideration. Any persons who object to this Bill may appear before the Joint Committee, may be represented by Counsel, and may then put forward their objections. The Joint Committee will report to the Dáil and the Seanad, and on the result of the report will depend the future of the Bill. There is no actual commital of the Dáil beyond recall by agreeing to this motion.
There is a question as to the urgency of proceeding with this Bill at present. I understand from the Dublin Corporation representative that the Corporation have a Bill which is in process of being lodged. As that Bill will obviously be somewhat on the same lines as the present Bill, it would seem for the convenience both of the Dáil and the Committee that they should have the three Bills before them at the one time as they relate to the one matter. I submit that the setting up of this Committee should be postponed for two months, as the Corporation Bill will be before the Dáil in the meantime.
Will the findings of the joint Committee be submitted to the Dáil for approval.
Yes. The Joint Committee will probably report in favour of one of the Bills submitted to it, either with or without amendments. That is the procedure. Then a motion will be made in the Dáil, that the Bill be received for final consideration, and the Bill will be considered on the fourth and fifth stages like ordinary Bills.
Would it not be necessary then for the Committee to go over the same ground in connection with the Dublin Corporation Bill as with the two Bills already before the Dáil? Would it not save the time of the Committee if they went into the merits of the three Bills at the one time? I do not wish to takes sides one way or the other in this matter, but as there are three Bills coming before the Dáil on the same matter, the Committee should be able to go into them at the same time and have the whole matter in perspective, so to speak, before them. It is to save the time of the Dáil and of the Committee that Deputy Hewat has made his suggestion.
I think it is better to postpone the consideration of those Electric Supply Bills until they can all be considered together. I understand that a case occurred not very long ago in England in which there were three sets of promoters for the one work. The Committee proceeded to investigate the first Bill that came before them and rejected it. Then they came to the second Bill and found it was considerably worse than the first. They rejected that also. When they came to the third they found it was even worse still and it also was rejected, so that the whole thing fell to the ground. Presuming that the best of these three Bills comes before the Committee and is rejected, what position will we be in? As the Corporation Bill is a democratic experiment it should get the first show.
I am in favour of postponing this Bill until all the Bills are ready, because until we have all of them before us we cannot know which is the best. We would be taking up the time of the Dáil discussing two of the Bills, and when the third Bill is introduced later on we will be taking up further time discussing that. I think it would be advisable, from every point of view, to defer consideration of any of the Bills until we have all of them before us.
I do not propose to make this a Government matter. I think it ought to be left to the free vote of the Dáil. It is the first occasion upon which Bills privately promoted have come before us. I understand that Deputy P. Doyle would have been here to-day to oppose this Bill being referred to the Joint Committee, but that he has to fulfil an engagement upon a very important matter. I believe he would have stated the case for the Corporation, as Deputy Keogh has stated it. The Dublin Corporation is a very important body, and I am sure that it was equally alive to the necessity for the promotion of a Bill some months ago as it is now. It has been a little late. It has not Tabled any Bill. It was open to it to have Tabled a Bill, and it has not availed of that opportunity. There are three Bills now before us, put forward in good faith, and I think that some complaint about the arrangements for the reception of Bills from private promoters lies against us. I do not see that the Corporation's case—supposing that it does introduce a Bill—will be prejudicially affected. The Corporation at least will have an opportunity of seeing what the proposals of the other people are, should this Bill be sent to a Joint Committee. The proposal is made here by a responsible Committee that this Bill be sent to the Joint Committee. It will be open to any party who wishes to oppose the Bill to be present there and make a case against it. Personally I do not think it is at all likely that this Bill will get beyond its early stages in this Session. We intended to adjourn about the 4th July, and I do not see any likelihood of the Bill—granted that it is able to overcome any opposition put up against it—getting through this Session. In the circumstances, it ought to be allowed to go before the Joint Committee. I am speaking now only in an individual capacity, and I am not putting that to the Dáil as a Government policy. If it were put to a vote I would be disposed to vote for the motion of Deputy Cooper.
As one entirely unprejudiced in this matter, if we are to take it, as I think we are, that the Dublin Corporation's proposal is a serious one, and not merely a blocking proposal, it would seem obvious that the business-like proceeding was to take the three proposals before the Committee at the same time. At least, the Committee which would be inquiring into Bill No. 1 should know what the serious proposals in Bill No. 3 would be. If what the President speaks of as the possibilities of this Session are anyway accurate, no one will be very much prejudiced by delay. Assuming all the time that the Dublin Corporation Bill is a serious attempt to promote legislation on the same subject as the other Private Bills, then I would support the proposal, which, I understand, Deputy Hewat has made, that the consideration of the motion be postponed for two months. I do that purely as a matter of business-like arrangement, to save time and trouble for the Committee that will be discussing the second or third Bill and duplicating its work. I think it is not correct to suggest, as the President did, that the Dublin Corporation does not know already what the proposals of the Private Bill promoters are. They are already before the Dublin Corporation, and I presume it is because of the schemes put forward by the Private Bill promoters that the Dublin Corporation decided to promote a Bill of its own. It is because it is the obviously business-like procedure to have the three Bills in hand while the Committee is considering either of them that I would support the proposal to postpone the appointment of this Committee.
There is no motion, but merely a suggestion that consideration be postponed. Perhaps Deputy Cooper will explain the procedure.
That is my intention.
Might I intervene to say that if consideration is postponed for two months it means that the Bill will not be dealt with this Session. Our present programme is to adjourn about the 4th July so that the Bill would not come on this Session.
Perhaps Deputy Cooper's explanation of the procedure would simplify the matter.
I should say that I do not speak as an advocate for this Bill or for any Bill, and members on the Joint Committee on Private Bills are sometimes almost in the position of judges. I have striven to maintain the impartiality of a judge in this issue. The suggestion made, to reject this motion and postpone consideration of the Bill, raises a question on the Standing Orders. I am relieved to learn that there is something Deputy Johnson does not know. He does not know the Standing Orders on Private Bill procedure.
I have not read a single line.
If he had he would realise that it was not a business-like proceeding. It is not a question of postponing the Bill for two months. The Standing Orders we adopted at the end of last year laid down a definite date at which Bills are to be lodged. That was the month of October or November. The Dublin Corporation Bill cannot be lodged until October or November. Various notices have to be sent out on or before the 15th December and so on. That would put back this Bill for nearly a year. This Bill was not lodged in October or November owing to the Election, and owing to the fact that the last Dáil had not adopted Standing Orders for dealing with Private Bill business. A Resolution was adopted by the Dáil on the 4th December last, saying that during the current Session the promoters of any Private Bill may publish the notices required by Standing Order 8 during the months of December and January instead of October and November, and that the date for the deposit of plans, copies of the Bill, and petitions against shall be correspondingly altered. The promoters of this Bill, and the promoters of the Bill as to which I am going to propose a Resolution later on, have complied with our Standing Orders in every particular. They have deposited the necessary money, they have gone through all the necessary formalities, and done all that they have been asked to do by the Oireachtas. Is it a fair thing to say that, after you lodged your Bills, if the Dublin Corporation comes to the conclusion that it wants to promote a Bill, your Bills must be put back until the Corporation saw fit to bring in their Bill? There has already been undue delay in this matter. The Corporation knew of these Standing Orders and are in a better position than any Private Bill promoter can be. They have a legal department, they have an engineering department, and they must, in the interests of the citizens, have studied these Standing Orders to see how they would affect the city. Still they did not comply with them, but waited until other people brought forward Bills to object. I hope that the Dáil will agree with me in this motion. If not, two things will happen. In the first place, no private individual or private firm will bring forward private legislation at all if they are to be at the mercy of Corporations or other such bodies who wished to legislate on the same subject. The second point that will be achieved is, when the Standing Orders of the Dáil conflict with the wishes of the Corporation, it is the wishes of the Corporation are to prevail. I think that would be a position of intolerable indignity, and I do not think you will get people to serve on the Standing Orders Committee if that position is adopted.
I suffer from the same limitation as the last speaker in the beginning of his speech. As a member of the Committee on Private Bill legislation I am obliged to adopt a judicial attitude. I think I am obliged to adhere to it right through and not merely at the commencement of the speech. It is true that if the present Bills that have complied with the Standing Orders are postponed until the Dublin Corporation rival scheme is ready it will be not a postponement for two months but for a considerably longer time. Except for that fact, or at least the departure from the fact which was not known to Deputy Johnson, I accept everything that Deputy Johnson has said as a good and sufficient reason why the consideration ought to be postponed. There is a considerable difficulty, as Deputy Cooper is well aware, in constituting Committees for the purpose of inquiring into Private Bills. If a committee proceeds to investigate one of these schemes it will take a considerable expenditure of time and energy. Then much the same line will have to be traversed by another, or perhaps the same committee under another title, and again in dealing with the Corporation scheme. It would facilitate the work of the Oireachtas and would undoubtedly conduce to the public advantage to have all these schemes considered together. The saving in point of expenditure would be enormous. The situation will not be, with all respect to Deputy Cooper, what you have been told that it will be, that the Dublin Corporation is dictating to the Dáil and that our Standing Orders give way as to a superior power and superior interest when they come in conflict with the desires of the Dublin Corporation. The Dublin Corporation in this matter is considering the interests and advantages of the citizens. They put forward a very reasonable request. According to Deputy Cooper's argument, private enterprise will not proceed by way of Private Bill legislation if they are to be at the mercy of a Corporation. Nobody knows better than Deputy Cooper that when these enterprises of private initiation do happen to conflict with what one might call for convenience the interests watched over and served by the Corporation, it is the duty of the Corporation to intervene on behalf of the citizens, and everyone who promotes a scheme of this sort does so with the full consciousness that those are the conditions. I am not aware that a delay, if it can be rightly called a delay, has occurred in the preparation of the Dublin Corporation scheme, but there is the fact. There are several rival schemes for exploiting the water-power of the Liffey for the production of electrical energy. The Dublin Corporation-let us say now, as it is customary to attack them and speak in a derogatory fashion about them—have been asleep and have wakened up at the eleventh hour, or at a quarter to 12. However, they have awakened and it is to the interests of the citizens that they should be heard. I would suggest without, I hope, departing from judicial impartiality, that the departure from judicial impartiality on the part of Deputy Cooper requires to be counterbalanced. The result is that we could have then a dispassionate attitude. But it is really necessary for the saving of the time of members of the Oireachtas and their intellectual energy, that these schemes, all dealing with the same project, for the promotion of the same thing, should be considered at the same time.
On a point of explanation, Deputy Magennis knows perfectly well that the Dublin Corporation have the power to lodge an objection against any scheme. If they actually lodge that objection they are entitled to be heard by counsel against a Bill. That is the manner in which they are entitled to be protected.
That is negatively. Positively is to promote a rival scheme.
On a point of explanation, I overlooked the fact that the Corporation Bill will be lodged, under the Standing Orders, by the 20th instant. I am instructed, so to speak, to say that it will be lodged.
I think the public interests should be considered; it ought not to be a question of whether one is in first or not. We want to arrive at proper conclusions in this matter. I think there is no immediate rush on the question of time, and I do not think time ought to be taken advantage of, and, after all, whether these people, the Dublin Corporation, have done right or done wrong in this matter, they are certainly, for the time being at least. representatives of the citizens of Dublin. I do not think there is any immediate hurry: nothing will be lost by waiting. The only thing that might be gained would be that all the schemes would be considered on their merits and not that one scheme would get an advantage—to my mind an undue advantage—over another.
I would like to ask what position would the Dáil find itself in if the Committee decides that one of the three schemes was the best; is it that we should go forward with legislation to make that scheme effective? If afterwards we should find the Dublin Corporation coming in with a scheme to be heard by the same Committee as the one we were giving consideration to here, and probably as good a scheme, I would like to know where would the Dáil find itself in that event.
On that I understand that a Bill can be lodged up to the 20th of this month, under the Standing Orders. An application has been received, but so far no Bill has been lodged. That is merely on the question of fact. With regard to the other question raised by Deputy Baxter, if these two Bills were sent to a Committee, I hope Deputies are quite clear that they would still be able to stop them after they have been considered by the Committee. That is to say, the Committee will report that one of the Bills, with or without amendments, was a good Bill. At that point the Dáil could reject or delay the Bill if it transpired that another Bill was lodged and, as a matter of fact, the Joint Committee on Standing Orders could send the new Bill, whatever it was, after a certain period, to the same Committee. Merely as a matter of fact, the Bill could be stopped after it had gone to the Committee, and the report had been received from the Committee. The passing of this motion does not mean that the Dáil loses control of the Bill by any means. I take it that we are really discussing two things; if the first motion were decided in one way the second would be decided in the same. It would mean that the Bill would be before the Joint Committee, and the Joint Committee would report. When it reported, the position would arise again in regard to objections raised.
To put the matter in order, might I suggest that this might be put down for Tuesday, the 22nd?
Would we be in order in doing so? I understood that if an objection had been raised, the question had to be settled as to the time the Bill came on.
The intention of the Private Bills Standing Orders certainly is that a decision must be taken, but if it is thought that we would be in any better position to take a decision next Thursday, a motion should be made that the consideration of this motion should be postponed until next Thursday. I take it that would be in order.
Then I agree that the consideration of the motion be postponed until Thursday, and with regard to No. 2 on the Order Paper I make the same motion, that it be not proceeded with now.
Question put and agreed to.