Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 22 May 1924

Vol. 7 No. 12

PRIVATE BUSINESS. - DUBLIN ELECTRICITY SUPPLY BILL, 1924.

Message from Seanad (resumed).

Gurb é tuairim an tSeanaid go bhfuil sé oiriúnach Có-Choiste den dá Thigh do cheapa chun Bille Soláthar Leictreachais Bhaile Atha Cliath, 1924, do bhreithniú.

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.

PADRAIC O MAILLE

Cuirim an tairisgint os bhur gcomhair. Silim gur coir faill a thabhairt do na daoinibh atá i mbun na h-oibre seo an cheist a phléidhe os comhair an Choiste agus beidh an Coiste in-ánn moladh a chur os comhair na Dála.

I think it is only fair that the Dáil should give the promoters an opportunity of explaining the merits of the measure before a Joint Committee. This will not prejudice the position of any other Bill, because when those Bills dealing with the same object come before the Dáil and Seanad again, after going through the Committee Stage, it would be open to the Dáil or Seanad to reject whatever measure they think should be rejected. I think if the Dáil turns down those Bills for no other reason than that an opposition proposal has not been brought forward at the same time, it will only mean the discouraging of private enterprise. As you are aware, those Bills are being promoted at considerable expense to the promoters. It would be obviously unfair to those people to hold up their measures because other people did not show the same promptitude in coming forward. I beg to propose this resolution in reference to the Dublin Electricity Supply Bill.

Major COOPER

On a point of order, I would like to know what the position will be if this resolution is rejected by the Dáil, in view of the fact that the last day for the lodging of Private Bills was last Tuesday. If this Resolution is rejected, will the Bill simply be discharged, will the promoters have their deposit returned, and will it be possible for them to have the Bill considered simultaneously with the Bill that is being promoted by the Dublin Corporation, and which, I believe, was lodged on Monday? Shall we require to amend Standing Orders to enable them to do so, or can it be made an instruction to the Committee, if, and when, it is appointed, to postpone consideration of this Bill and of the other Bills on the Paper until the Dublin Corporation Bill also comes before them?

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

There seems to be several questions. With regard to what would happen if this Motion were rejected—if the Motion were rejected it would mean that the Dáil refused to co-operate in the formation of a Joint Committee to consider this Bill. The promoters of the Bill would then have the option of sending it through the Seanad. The Seanad has agreed to consider it in Committee, and could appoint a Special Seanad Committee to consider the Bill. Then they could take the Fourth and Fifth Stages of the Bill in the Seanad, and send it down to us, in which case it would occupy the same position in regard to us as a Public Bill; that is to say it would go through the usual Stages. The Committee which framed the Standing Orders had in mind that contingency, and the promoters of a Private Bill would have to ask themselves whether, when a Bill had been rejected by the Dáil, it was worth while spending more money on it when the chances of getting it through the Dáil, after it had passed the Seanad, would be slender. That is the principal point.

Mr. JOHNSON

On a further point of order, is it to be assumed that a refusal to appoint a Joint Committee is tantamount to rejection of the Bill?

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

I think so. The question I was asked was: What would the effect of rejecting the Motion be? The effect would be a refusal to appoint a Joint Committee; that would be rejecting the Bill. It would have the same effect, from our point of view, as rejecting a Public Bill on the Second Reading.

Mr. JOHNSON

We do not know what the Bill is yet.

Mr. HEWAT

Would not it be in order for us to move the deferring of the Bill for two months?

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

That would require a motion, and deferring the Bill for two months might bring it into a new session. If the President's programme of adjourning early in July is carried out, the promoters then would either have to go through all the expense again, or we would have to amend the Private Bill Standing Orders, so as to allow the Bill to be taken up in a new session. Or perhaps we could pass a motion in both Houses which would enable the Bill to be considered in the new session. That question has not been considered, but I take it that if we want to do it we can do it.

Major COOPER

Any amendment of the Standing Orders would require the consent of the Seanad, I take it.

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

Yes.

Mr. JOHNSON

On another point of order, are we to take it as a fixed decision that if the Dáil adjourns in July the 1924 Session is then concluded? Has it been defined that the session is successive meetings up to a certain date in the year?

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

It has not been defined.

Mr. JOHNSON

So that the session may continue until December, with an adjournment for a few months?

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

I think so. The other arrangement may be made as well. Does that dispose of all the points that Deputy Cooper raised? I was trying to dispose of them seriatim. The first point is that if this motion were rejected it would be equivalent to the rejection of a Public Bill on the Second Reading. The motion itself is made under, I think, Standing Order 58. The motion involves the acceptance by the Dail of the principle of the Bill, and in the case of a Private Bill it is difficult to say what exactly the principle would be. It may be defined to be this: That the Dáil considers that the Bill is worth consideration in Committee; I think not much more than that. The Seanad has decided that these two Bills are worth consideration by a Special Joint Committee. If the Dáil concurs in that, it agrees with the principle of the Bill to that extent.

Major COOPER

Another point of order—would it be in order, if this Motion were carried, for any Deputy who wishes to postpone consideration of this Bill to move that it be an instruction to the Committee to postpone consideration of this Bill and of the other Bill on the Orders of the Day until they are prepared to consider the Dublin Corporation Bill as well? I think there are precedents for that course, but I am not quite sure whether they exist in Private Bill legislation.

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

I would like to have time to consider that question. It seems to me, on the face of it, a paradoxical proceeding.

Major COOPER

Personally, I am anxious that the Bill should be proceeded with now and a Committee set up at once, but I gathered that the general opinion of the Dáil—of all parties—when we discussed this matter last week, was that this Bill and the other Bill, as to which the Leas-Cheann Comhairle also has a motion, should be deferred until the Dublin Corporation Bill can also come under consideration. If that is the opinion of the Dáil, surely it would be better to confirm the principle, of these two Bills, say that they are worth consideration by a Committee but that the Committee should not actually consider them until the Dublin Corporation Bill comes before them as well. That would be giving the three Bills an equal chance. As I have said, I would prefer, myself, that we went on to consider these two Bills, which have legitimate advantages of priority. If that is not the wish of the Dáil, I cannot help thinking it would be a singularly bad precedent to reject Bills which had complied with Standing Orders and against which nothing can be said except that the Dublin Corporation is also in the field and seeks to have the matter deferred until they are ready— I should rather say, the late Dublin Corporation. I wish to speak with respect of the dead.

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

A point that did not strike me before is this, that we could not of ourselves give instructions to a Joint Committee. We should have to send a Message to the Seanad asking their concurrence in an instruction to the Joint Committee. The procedure normally is this: If we concur in the appointment of a Joint Committee, the Joint Committee is appointed by the Joint Committee on Standing Orders for Private Business. Normally the same Deputies and Senators would be appointed to consider a group of Bills dealing with the same thing. That is to say, all these schemes for getting power from rivers would be referred to the same Joint Committee. There is therefore this certainty that in the case of these two Bills they would be referred to the same Joint Committee with the same Chairman. If the Dublin Corporation Bill complies with the Standing Orders and comes to this stage the probability is that, given that it comes before the same Dáil, of course, it would be sent for consideration, if sent for consideration at all, to the same Joint Committee. Whether there is any advantage in sending three Bills at the same time to the same Committee I am not aware. After the Committee has reported and the Bill comes to us from the Seanad, its consideration can be deferred. I understand that it is not usual in other places to give instructions to Joint Committees on Private Bills.

Major COOPER

In other places they do not have Joint Committees on Private Bills.

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

I apologise, if so.

Mr. HEWAT

I think if I may be permitted to go into this question of the delay that has been caused by the lodging of the Corporation Bill——

Major COOPER

On a point of order, are those Deputies who spoke when this was last before the Dáil entitled to speak again?

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

Yes.

Mr. HEWAT

That very important point having been settled, may I say for the information of the Dáil that I rise to explain, in my personal capacity, my knowledge of what the Corporation were doing, not through being a member of the Corporation, but through knowledge acquired in other directions. This Private Bill procedure we recognise, first of all, is quite new, and there has been rather delay in putting it into operation. Prior to this Liffey Water Scheme coming before the Dáil in the shape of Bills, the Corporation were working on lines to co-operate all in the public interest; that is, different public bodies and large users of electricity in a joint proposal to put forward a hydro-electrical scheme for developing the Liffey; I attended a good many meetings where the effort of the Corporation was not to act on their own, but to act in the capacity of forming a joint electrical body to govern and control the development of electricity in the district. These meetings to my knowledge took a great deal of time, and were ultimately abortive because the various public bodies, for instance, like the urban councils, did not see their way to enter into a joint proposal of the sort. During that time the syndicates which represent the Bills that are before you, were, of course, free to work out their plans, which ultimately culminated in the lodging of the Bills in the Dáil. But when the Corporation found that they could not get co-operation, they had a long and weary process to go through to get the authority of their own bodies. I do not wish to say that I agree in any way with what they did; but I want to show you the difficulties they had to go through by way of a sort of justification for the delay in the lodging of this scheme. They, as a public body, had to go through certain forms of procedure which naturally took longer than would be necessary in the case of private enterprise. The operation of calling meetings of the Council together, getting the authority of the Council, and all that sort of thing took a good deal of time, and I understand they claim that is the reason why their Bill is not as far forward as the other Bills in the other Liffey water schemes. But whether it is right or not, and whether we agree that the Corporation is the right body to do this, or whether we do not, it would seem to me, that it would not be reasonable under the circumstances to turn down this proposal; bearing in mind that the Corporation have for many years been working on this project and have employed an expert to go over the whole scheme, the result of which is at the disposal of all and sundry for their information, it would not be reasonable for the Dáil to ignore the fact that the Corporation, as representing the citizens proposed to go on with this project of harnessing the Liffey.

Now, nobody in the Dáil would suggest, and so far as I am concerned I would be the last to claim, that the other syndicates should be, in any way, embarrassed by reason of the delay in the lodging of the Corporation Bill. On the other hand the Corporation Bill, as I see it, deals with exactly the same proposals or practically with the same proposals as these two Bills that are before us for consideration. Now, if the Dáil wishes that these Bills be taken separately, irrespective of the proposal of the Corporation, it would seem to me that it would be imposing a very heavy tax on the Corporation and, through them, on the citizens, in first providing for the opposition to those Bills, and ultimately for the separate hearing of their own proposal. Now without being in favour of one or the other of them, I do think that the claim of the Corporation is a fair one. This is a project of public utility, and at all events it should be heard concurrently with any of the other proposals that are put forward. That is all that I would claim as far as the Corporation is concerned. I claim that they have a right to participate on equal terms in connection with any proposals put forward about the harnessing of the Liffey, and I would ask the Dáil to take into consideration at the same time that our own Private Bill procedure was a good deal delayed, and very few people in Dublin, or in the country, were very conversant with what was going to be Private Bill procedure, and very little time has since elapsed for people to be conversant with the steps that should be taken in matters of the kind. If the argument is, that because the Corporation Bill has not been lodged up to time, I would claim for it that that might not be right in the future, but in the particular circumstance of the case a certain amount of latitude ought to be allowed in this connection when starting the whole machinery of Private Bill legislation. I would, therefore, ask the Dáil to deal with the matter in that light, if possible, without doing any injustice to the syndicates who have put down their money and put their energy into their own Bills to try and arrive at some conclusion whether the Corporation Bill will not be prejudiced.

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

What does the Deputy suggest as a conclusion?

Mr. HEWAT

The suggestion I made on the last occasion, and I will put it in the form of a motion if necessary, is that consideration of these Bills should be delayed for two months. If the delay of two months puts the other Bills into such a position, as Deputy Johnson suggested, that they may be thrown out altogether, some alternative proposal might be made to get over that difficulty. I think it would be a great hardship if the syndicates promoting the other Bills are mulcted with heavy costs because of this delay. It is not their fault. On the other hand, it is not altogether the fault of the Corporation that their Bill is not in, and perhaps the Dáil might devise some means without being unjust to any party.

Mr. WOLFE

I seek a ruling on one point. I understand that if a Deputy has any interest in any of the schemes, he cannot speak. Is that so? I have no financial interest in this matter, but compulsorily I am obliged to be associated with it, inasmuch as whatever company gets the carrying out of the scheme it must go through my land. I am compelled to be associated with the scheme whether I like it or not.

Mr. JOHNSON

Sell out.

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

I think Deputy Wolfe may proceed.

Mr. WOLFE

This matter of harnessing the Liffey was brought forward by me first in the Dáil in October last. I suggested it in the few remarks I made on the Governor - General's Address, and I suggested that the Government should take the matter up as a means of giving employment. There was nothing done, and some months afterwards four companies took up the matter. Since then they have been bringing Bills forward. The Dublin Corporation, which has a very eloquent advocate in Deputy Hewat, had every opportunity of bringing forward a Bill along with the other Bills. They did not do so. The people of this district have been looking forward to the work being carried out, and it was chiefly for that reason that I brought the matter forward in the first instance.

I have no personal interest in it, and I do not care whether it is done or not except that I think it would be a great advantage to the district and it would give employment. It is only for that reason that I am interested. The people are grievously disappointed that some selection has not been made. There has been a frightful delay over this matter, and it is most unfair for the companies concerned that there should be any further delay. I have the interests of my constituents at heart; the scheme should be worked for their benefit and they should get employment as soon as possible. I do not see that there would be any gain to the country or any persons concerned by having any further delay in order to allow the Dublin Corporation to come in.

The Dublin Corporation have had their chance. They were the premier Corporation of Ireland, and you would think that they would have their wits about them and that they would be able to guard their own interests. I do not see why any favour should be shown them. They had, perhaps, better opportunities than others to deal with this matter. It would be most unfair that the two companies that have complied with the Standing Orders should not have a chance of going before the Committee.

Dr. KEOGH

I would like a ruling on the question of whether the Corporation Bill has been lodged in time. According to the Standing Orders, we would not be in time unless the Bill were lodged last Monday. When we were discussing that matter last week we overlooked that fact. We claim that we are perfectly in time by having the Bill lodged last Tuesday.

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

The Corporation Bill has been lodged, and in so far as it had been lodged up to time it is in order. It will be examined for compliance with Standing Orders on the 21st or 22nd June. If the Examiner decides that it has complied with the Standing Orders, and if no appeal is lodged against his decision, the First Reading of the Bill in the Seanad could take place on the 26th or 27th June. Assuming it gets a First Reading in the Seanad—a practically automatic Stage —the Second Reading in the Seanad must take place within fourteen days from the 26th and 27th June, that is to say, before the 9th July. If we adjourn on the 4th July until October, we could not consider a Message similar to the one we are considering now, about the Corporation Bill, until October.

Dr. KEOGH

One of the principal considerations in the putting forward of this Bill was economy and public benefit. Now, the Corporation did not lose one minute in connection with the lodgment of this Bill. From the moment they got leave from the Local Government Minister to go on with the Bill, and from the moment they got the power to spend the citizens' money in connection with it, they did not lose a single moment. In fact the short period which it took to put forward the Bill, since they were empowered to do so, constitutes a record. Private people have the advantage of being able to put their hands down deep into their pockets and pay Parliamentary Agents. If the Corporation had not gone on with the work, worked out a scheme, spent thousands of pounds, had everything pigeon-holed, and got a foreign expert to come over here, no Private Bill could have got as far as this. I know nothing at all about other Bills. The Corporation claim that they were in time, and I think it is only fair to the citizens that the Bills should be all considered at one and the same time.

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

We seem to be at cross-purposes a little on this question. I do not think I could receive an amendment to this Motion to postpone the consideration for two months, because this is a Message from the other House. We are asked to appoint a Joint Committee; I think we simply have to refuse or accept. I have no interest in this matter, but it may satisfy Deputies to know that even when the Joint Committee has reported, the Bills do not thereby become law. The Joint Committee will report; the Seanad will consider that report on Fourth Stage and then on Fifth Stage. When the Bill has gone to the Seanad it will come to us. It is very unlikely, if we appoint a Joint Committee, that we will be considering the Bill, as reported from the Joint Committee and amended in the Seanad, if it be amended in the Seanad, before the autumn. At that time the Corporation Bill, if it goes smoothly, as I have said, will have reached a certain stage, and we would then be concerned, not with the Joint Committee, but with our own procedure, and it will be quite open to us to delay if we please. But moving to delay this proposal is, I think, impossible in view of the fact of this Message from the other House.

Mr. HEWAT

In view of your very clear ruling on the matter I would suggest that what has been said on the subject will probably answer its purpose. If these Bills are allowed to go to the Committee they must take cognisance of the fact that the Dáil is in favour of putting the whole three together, and even if we have not power to express that to the Committee, I think what has been said must have an effect on them.

Mr. P.S. DOYLE

I had intended to support the suggestion to postpone, but in view of your ruling it seems that that course is not possible. The points argued in the debate this day week go to show that there is a feeling that it is advisable that a postponement ought to take place in order that these three Bills should be considered together, and there are very strong arguments in support of that.

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

I wonder what do Deputies mean by "considering three Bills together"? Does it mean that the same Committee would consider the three Bills? What is the meaning, I wonder, that Deputies attach to the phrase "considering the three Bills together"?

Mr. P.S. DOYLE

It is not, from what I can learn, the usual procedure to have a number of Bills of the one principle, or on the one matter, debated one after another by any Committee. It certainly does not tend either to the convenience of the Committee or of the Dáil. Here is a quotation from May's Parliamentary Practice, 1917, the last edition of this work, which concerns the practice of dealing with the question of competing Bills. The learned author writes: "It is usually arranged that competing Bills shall be introduced in one and the same House so as to be considered together, and that generally, all the Bills should, as far as possible, be allocated with a view to convenience of handling." It certainly does not seem —and I am not the only Deputy that holds that opinion—that it is fair to consider the three Bills one after the other, particularly when there are other arguments, that in this case, if the motion is carried, these Bills will have the advantage over that of the Corporation. Now, the Corporation claim that, being the authority for the supply of electricity to the City of Dublin and part of the suburbs, it is right that they should have the same opportunity of being considered with the other Private Bills. That has been the effect of legislation, that the public authority and not private companies, ought to operate where a public utility service is considered.

As to the delay which has been referred to regarding the Corporation not being in the same position to-day as in the case of the other two Bills, I might point out that the Corporation were first in the field with this scheme; there is no doubt whatever about that. At considerable expense they engaged the services of an eminent Swiss waterpower engineer, who reported favourably on the scheme, and it was when he reported favourably that the matter was taken up by two private companies. Owing to the Corporation having to comply with procedure that private companies had not, delay took place, and hence the two private Bills referring to the scheme are ready and the Corporation one is not, because of having to comply with one of the Standing Orders that seems to be to their disadvantage, and that is Standing Order 45: "The Examiner shall give at least seven clear days' notice in the Private Bills Office of the day appointed for the examination of each proposed Bill, which shall have been duly deposited and there shall have been at least 30 days between the deposit of any proposed Private Bill and the examination thereof." That means, in my opinion anyway, that unless the two months is granted to have these Bills considered jointly on their merits, the citizens, who are entitled to some consideration in this matter, would be deprived of it.

Mr. JOHNSON

It appears to me that there will not be much delay in any case. Whatever happens to this motion the Joint Committee that is to consider this Bill and, presumably, the East Leinster Electricity Supply Bill, referred to in the next motion, will have to consider and report, and the Bill then will have to go through the Seanad, come to the Dáil and find its way amongst a multitude of other Bills that are threatened. There is no chance of its passing before the adjournment in July, and consequently, unless there is something in the Standing Orders contrary to what I am now saying, the procedure will have to be gone through again, or the discussion of the Bill can take place after the resumption in the autumn. I would say that the Dublin Bill will then know where it stands in respect of its parentage. Since this question was mooted last week, when the President suggested that the matter be deferred until to-day rather than two months hence, a change has taken place in respect of the Dublin Corporation. The Dublin Corporation, as elected by the citizens, has a policy in regard to electricity supply, and they promoted a Bill. By the action of the Minister for Local Government the people who were responsible for that policy have been deprived of their authority, and somebody else, responsible only to him, has been put into their place.

The Dáil does not know what the view of that new authority is to be respecting the electricity supply for the City of Dublin, and if it so happens that the Minister for Local Government disapproves of the Dublin Corporation seeking powers in respect of electricity supply in such a scheme as is in question, then the new authority which he has placed in power would say: "Well, we are not interested in this scheme, because we are not pushing it forward." As one who believes that works of public utility ought to be conducted and carried through by public authorities, people responsible to the public, I think that the right policy for the Dáil to adopt in this matter is to delay the promotion of any private schemes until we know what the authority representing the citizens of Dublin is going to do regarding electricity supply. I would oppose the promotion of any private scheme simply to assist, as it may be, a new authority, responsible only to the Minister, to prevent the development of electricity supply schemes. It may very well be, very likely is, judging by the general attitude of the Minister, that he wants to thwart the Corporation scheme and therefore has appointed Commissioners, responsible only to himself and having no responsibility to the citizens, to prevent the Corporation scheme from going ahead, allowing private schemes to get their way, and by the delay to see that there will be no future for the Dublin Corporation scheme. That I believe to be a probability, if not a certainty, and judging by the revelations of the Minister's general attitude in public policy, one of his purposes in dethroning the Dublin Corporation and enthroning Commissioners responsible only to himself was to defeat the Dublin Corporation electricity supply scheme. Having that in mind I propose to vote against this motion.

Major COOPER

Deputy Johnson may, I think, reassure himself. If we are to judge from outward and visible signs the Minister for Local Government is not interested in this matter at all. I do not think there is any such Machiavellian proposal in his supersession of the Dublin Corporation as to torpedo their interests. I think it was merely the process of which Deputy Johnson has heard, the filling up of the cup. The cup was full, and it overflowed. I am sorry that Deputy Hewat is not here, for I recognise that Deputy Hewat, like Oxford University, is the home of lost causes, but I never expected to find him taking the Dublin Corporation under his sheltering wing. Some of his arguments were rather fallacious. He said it was not reasonable for the Dáil to ignore the Corporation. It is not doing so. The Corporation has all the rights under the Standing Orders to oppose any of these schemes, and to be heard by counsel in opposition to the schemes, and that right it is exercising. One might as reasonably complain that the Rathmines Urban Council has been ignored. They also have lodged an objection against these schemes, and they also have interests, but, because they have not thought fit to bring in a Bill of their own, they do not ask that these other schemes should be shelved until they prepare a Bill. The Corporation is also participating on equal terms, says Deputy Hewat, but what he and those who are voting for the rejection of this motion are asking, is not the right of the Corporation to participate on equal terms, but the right of the Corporation to a priority, because if the promoters of this Bill, and the East Leinster Bill, did not elect to go to the Seanad at considerable cost and with almost a certainty that the Bill will be rejected when it comes here, then their only option is to withdraw the Bill. The last day for lodging another Bill was last Tuesday, and, therefore, they cannot be heard simultaneously with the Corporation Bill, and they will have to wait until the autumn or this time next year. If you reject this motion, you are not giving the Corporation equality; you are giving the Corporation, or the Commissioners acting for the Corporation, an advantage.

Another argument of Deputy Hewat was that the Corporation had very little time to get acquainted with Private Bill Procedure. These Standing Orders were adopted last December, and the Corporation, as compared with a private individual, has innumerable advantages in dealing with this question, because they have a set and standing legal department, and engineering department. The ordinary individual has to go out and find a solicitor who understands these things, and an engineer, if necessary, if he wishes to promote a Bill. What the members of the Corporation who have spoken have told us is that the Corporation has been in the field for months, and years, I think, was suggested. I can only say it is very unfortunate that at the crucial moment the Corporation fell asleep, at any rate so far as the outside world can judge. I am not a member of the Corporation. I have many sins on my conscience, but not that. The first mention so far as the general public were able to discover on the Corporation side of any measure of this kind was in the public Press, after these two Bills had been lodged about February this year. The Corporation suddenly became interested. Deputy Keogh says the Corporation lost no time. I believe they lost no time once they started, but they did not start soon enough. They allowed two valuable months to go by before beginning to think about lodging their Bill They have really no grievance at all. They have the right of every public body under Standing Orders. If you confer on them a privilege, because by rejecting this motion you will confer on them a valuable privilege of priority, I can only say that I am very apprehensive that there will be no private enterprise for promoting Private Bills, and private industry will feel itself so much at the mercy of any organised body of the kind, that they will be slow to incur the risk and expense of the promotion of a Private Bill. That is Deputy Johnson's object. He does not wish private enterprise in any essential service, but I do not think that is the object of the majority of the Dáil, and if they wish for a fair field and fair play for all bodies, whether a corporation or private syndicates, I believe they will be wise in assenting to this motion.

Motion put. The Dáil divided. Tá, 35; Níl, 21.

Tá

Earnán de Blaghd.Seoirse de Bhulbh.John J. Cole.John Conlan.Bryan R. Cooper.Sir James Craig.Louis J. D'Alton.John Daly.Máighread Ní Choileáin BeanUí Dhrisceoil.Patrick J. Egan.Osmond Grattan Esmonde.Desmond Fitzgerald.John Good.John Hennigan.William Hewat.Liam T. Mac Cosgair.Pádraig Mac Fadáin.

Pádraig Mac Giollagáin.Risteárd Mac Liam.Seoirse Mac Niocaill.Pádraig S. Mag Ualghairg.Conchubhair O Conghaile.Séamus O Dóláin.Pádraig O Dubhthaigh.Eamon S. O Dúgáin.Seán O Dúinnín.Donchadh S. O Guaire.Aindriú O Láimhín.Domhnall O Mocháin.Pádraig O hOgáin (Gaillimh).Seán M. O Súilleabháin.Caoimhghín O hUigín.Patrick W. Shaw.Liam Thrift.Nicholas Wall.

Níl

Seán Buitléir.David Hall.Seosamh Mac 'a Bhrighde.Maolmhuire Mac Eochadha.Tomás Mac Eoin.Risteárd Mac Fheorais.Pádraig Mac Fhlannchadha.Tomás de Nógla.Peadar O hAodha.Criostóir O Broin.Próinsias O Cathail.

Aodh Ua Cinnéidigh.Tomás O Conaill.Partholán O Conchubhair.Aodh O Cúlacháin.Liam O Daimhín.Eamon O Dubhghaill.Peadar S. O Dubhghaill.Fionán O Loingsigh.Tadhg O Murchadha.Pádraig O hOgáin (An Clár).

Motion declared carried.

PADRAIC O MAILLE

Is mian liom an taraisgint seo do chur ós bhur gcomhair: I beg to move "That the Dáil concur with the Seanad in their resolution communicated on the 7th of May—That in the opinion of the Seanad it is expedient that a Joint Committee of both Houses be appointed to consider the East Leinster Electricity Supply Bill, 1924."

Mr. JOHNSON

It is carried by the same majority.

Motion put and agreed to.

Ordered that a message be sent to the Seanad accordingly.

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

Before entering on the public business there is a question which arose yesterday as to whether a Bill introduced by a private member and ordered for next Friday would have precedence over a motion taken yesterday, on which the debate was adjourned. I think that the Bill will have precedence, but I understand that an arrangement has been made to take the adjourned motion in Government time to-day.

Mr. McGILLIGAN

I believe an agreement has been reached that the Finance Bill and the Railways Bill will be taken until seven o'clock, and that then we will have a short adjournment until 7.30, when Deputy Baxter's motion will be taken, until 8.30.