Deputy Hewat desires to move, without the requisite notice, that the Fourth and Fifth Stages be taken now.
DAIL IN COMMITTEE. - DAIL RESUMES.
Bill reported with one amendment.
On a point of order, the Standing Order says that by unanimous leave of the House or, in case of urgent necessity, of which the Ceann Comhairle shall be the judge, the Standing Order may be suspended, provided that, when it is proposed without notice to move the suspension of the Standing Order relating to the taking of any stage of a Bill, such motion shall not be received by the Ceann Comhairle unless it has the support of not less than half the Teachtaí who have taken their seats according to law. I raise the point of order, in view of the ruling you have just made that this is a public Bill amending a private Act, and the Port and Docks Board, being a private corporation, it cannot be said to be a case of urgent necessity affecting the Dáil, as it is to convenience a private organisation—the Port and Docks Board.
On the question of urgency, I submit that a motion for the suspension of the Standing Orders is justified in the circumstances of the case. I would like to have the help and assistance of Deputy Johnson in this matter, and I still make the plea to him that the various matters that he has raised are matters that this Bill does not affect, and that the opportunity for raising them cannot be very far distant. I understand Deputy Johnson's attitude, but this Bill is only seeking to put a large and important body—the Port and Docks Board—in a position to carry on its work and do its duty towards the citizens during a short period, and the holding up of the Bill will serve no useful purpose even from the point of view of Deputy Johnson.
The Deputy should confine himself to the question of urgency.
I have already tried to impress on the Dáil that the urgency of the matter arises from an Act of the Dáil unintentionally affecting the administration of the Port and Docks Board, and making it difficult, if not impossible, to have an election, and that the Board, with its reduced numbers, is not able to function properly. That is not due to any act of the Board but to an act of this Dáil. I think the Dáil is called upon to put right what is found to be inequitable. I submit that this is an urgent matter and a very proper matter for the Dáil to decide. The Dáil is the only body that could put right the position that has been disclosed in connection with this Bill.
I submit that the proposition that is put to you, sir, to judge, is whether this is a case not merely of urgency but of urgent necessity within the meaning of this Standing Order. Urgent necessity has relation in respect to this House to public interest. Here is a matter which may be urgent to the Port and Docks Board, but that is a semi-private institution and the necessity and the urgency do not, I submit, depend upon the passing of this measure at this time. The only delay that would arise, supposing the programme as outlined regarding the adjournment takes place, would be of six weeks or two months, when the Bill can be reconsidered with more leisure and without breach or straining of the Standing Orders. The case for necessity has not been proved. The case for urgency has not been proved. I submit that this is not a case of urgent necessity within the meaning of the Standing Order, which must only be interpreted as having regard to the public need, rather than the convenience of a private organisation.
I submit with regard to this question of urgency, that it is of urgent public importance, not merely of private importance, that there should be some body or authority competent to control the port of Dublin, and that unless this Bill passes early in January seven of the members of the Board will be disqualified. The result will be that it will be impossible to get a quorum to attend meetings of the Board, and the Board will not be able to pay salaries or function in any way.
What is the quorum?
Fourteen, and I believe there will be only thirteen left.
Will Deputy Hewat say that is the position?
I believe that to be the position.
I am afraid I cannot say that is the position as far as the ordinary business is concerned. It is the position in connection with any variation of dues or in connection with the promoting of any Bill. For instance, if this Bill came up after the date on which these members should retire, it could not be promoted. We could not promote any Bill because of the fact that fifteen members are required to be present to sanction the proceedings of the Port and Docks Board either to levy dues, promote a Bill, or do any of the other things laid down in the Act.
How many members would there be without this Bill?
Fourteen members are left. One-third of the elected members retire early in January, and they would automatically go off the Board, leaving only fourteen members, on account of the absence of the Corporation members.
Would the Deputy say what is the quorum for the ordinary business of the Board?
I think it is five or seven for the ordinary business of the Board.
I desire to correct any erroneous impression that I may have created with regard to the quorum for ordinary business. I knew that for certain purposes a quorum of one more than the number that would exist early in January if the Bill does not pass was needed. I think that has some bearing on the question of urgency.
I think this is a case of urgent necessity. The ruling in the matter of urgent necessity still leaves Deputy Hewat in the position that he must get a very substantial majority to support him, so that the matter is left substantially to the Dáil. The Port and Docks Board is, technically, a private corporation, I suppose, but it is really impossible to say that a body that controls the Port of Dublin, which is the most important port in the country, is not of a semipublic nature, and the Bill does not appear to affect any private interests. For the purposes of the Standing Order I rule, therefore, that the matter is one of urgent necessity. Before Deputy Hewat can move a motion to suspend the Standing Order he must, under the Standing Orders, prove that he has the support of half the Teachtaí who have taken their seats according to law. That number, at the moment, would be forty-nine.
Is Deputy Hewat prepared to assure the Dáil that he will support some such amendment as was proposed recently by Deputy Johnson in regard to the voting power of elements of the Board? If he would give that undertaking he might get support for the further prosecution of this Bill to-night.
As one of the original supporters of Deputy Johnson's amendment, I wish to get from Deputy Hewat an answer to the question put by Deputy Magennis. If I get that answer I am prepared to withdraw any further opposition to the Bill. In the interests of the country, in the interests of the port, and in the interests of Dublin, such legislation is necessary as there is no doubt that for a considerable time past there has been great criticism of the composition of the Port and Docks Board. The sooner the Government bring in the necessary legislation, or the Port and Dock Board, or whoever is responsible, the better.
Will the statement of Deputy Hewat personally satisfy Deputies who have spoken?
The only way I could answer the questions is in a personal way, and, as Deputy Johnson rightly said, that is not of any great value.
Is not Deputy Hewat promoting this Bill in the name of and in the interests of the Port and Docks Board?
That is, of course, obvious, but this Bill does not purport to deal with the franchise of the Port Board in any way, and no authority has been given me by the Board in the matter. Neither had I any reason to expect that it would be raised on a Bill which has nothing to do with the franchise.
It is a few days since the Deputy had an opportunity of consulting them.
It is a Bill to continue in existence, and in its functions a body which is elected to conduct its business in the way indicated by Deputy Johnson in his speech. Consequently we are entitled to ask: Are we to give support to the continuance of that body, as thus conducted, without any promise of reform from within, or are we to support it now in the expectation that, some time in the indefinite future, steps will be taken to bring it into line with other institutions?
The Port and Docks Board is a public board, amenable to public opinion, the same as any other Board that exists.
How will public opinion express itself on the Board?
If it is the desire of the citizens that the Port Board should be in any way reformed, the citizens have it in their own hands to do it. If any expression came from outside sources that would seem to the Board to need a consideration of the position, I have not the slightest hesitation in saying that the Board would, in view of any circumstances of the kind, give the matter due and careful consideration. For the information of the Deputy, I may say that not very many years ago the Chamber of Commerce promoted a Bill for the reform of the Port and Docks Board.
As a matter of fact that same sort of proceeding could be carried out by any body of citizens at the present time as in the past. The Act of 1898 is the principal Act in connection with this. If citizens come to the conclusion that the Port and Docks Board is not constituted as it should be constituted the power of public opinion can very easily be brought to bear in and outside this House. All I can assure Deputy Magennis is that the members of the Board are alive to the importance of the trust in their care and recognise fully their obligations to the citizens of Dublin. If that is brought into question I say without hesitation that the Board will carefully consider the position, and I think will do what is right and just in the interests of Dublin citizens as a whole.
What I say is that the best form public opinion could take is to refuse to give the permission asked for at present and bring it home to the Port and Docks Board.
Will those Deputies who support Deputy Hewat stand up in their places?
Deputies rose and were counted.
Sufficient support not being given, the question therefore will not be taken.
May I have the numbers?
Forty.
When will the Government give me time to take the Report Stage?
We might give time to-morrow if it would be regular.
It would not be in order to-morrow. The same process could not be repeated. The Report Stage can be taken next Wednesday or on any subsequent day on which the Dáil meets. That is the best that can be done.
I am in the hands of the House. I asked for an earlier date, and the action of the House has placed me in a difficulty with regard to dates. All I ask is that the Government should give me a date.
I suggest to Deputy Hewat that if in the meantime he consults his Board it might be possible to get the Bill passed through the Dáil and Seanad before the end of the year.
Report Stage ordered for Wednesday, 17th December, 1924.
At this StageAN LEAS-CHEANN COMHAIRLE took the Chair.