Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Friday, 19 Dec 1924

Vol. 9 No. 27


I beg to move that this Bill be now received for final consideration. The substance of the Bill is well known to Deputies, and I ask the Dail to pass this motion.

I object to the motion. I suppose there is not much use in reiterating the argument that the Deputy has not proved to the satisfaction of anybody that this Bill is necessary. I will continue to oppose it, especially in view of his declining to make a promise of any kind that the evils connected with the franchise on which the Port and Docks Board is elected, will be remedied. The Deputy has, no doubt, been privileged to meet his colleagues upon that Board and possibly he has had an opportunity to consult with them as to their attitude in regard to the amendment of the law relating to the constitution of the Board.

He has not given the House any information as to their views on this matter, and I hope that the House will refuse to proceed further with this Bill until the views of the Board on the question of its constitution and the franchise affecting it have been conveyed to the House. Then we shall know better where we are. I submit that we ought not to do anything here which will appear to be an acquiescence in the method of selection, or election, of the Dublin Port and Docks Board in its present form. If we give the Bill a Fourth Reading to-day the House will be assenting to the continuation of the Board for another year without any promise of amendment or change in the law to the present constitution of the Board, to the present franchise, and to all the evils connected with it. I therefore hope that the House will not give a Fourth Reading to this Bill.

I think I made it clear to Deputy Johnson and to other members of the House that this question of the franchise could not be amended on this Bill without a clear examination of our Act of 1898. I tried to stress to the House that this Bill was put forward with the object of putting right what had been made wrong, not intentionally, but without any consideration to the Port and Docks Board Bill at all. I could not go into a discussion with Deputy Johnson as to the rights and wrongs of the Board at this stage. I am sorry I could not. It is far too big a subject. I have said to the Deputy on various occasions during the discussion on the Bill that opportunities will arise at no distant future to discuss the matter fully, if it was desired to do so. I have no wish to resist any strong opinion that the whole question of the Board should be subject to consideration at some future stage. I regret that this Bill does not afford a suitable opportunity for such discussion.

Question:—"That the Dublin Port and Docks Bill, 1924, be received for final consideration"—put.
The Dáil Divided: Tá, 26; Níl, 14.

  • Seoirse de Bhulbh.
  • Séamus de Búrca.
  • Máighréad Ní Choiléain Bean Uí Dhrisceóil.
  • Patrick J. Egan.
  • Desmond Fitzgerald.
  • John Good.
  • John Hennigan.
  • William Hewat.
  • Séamus Mac Cosgair.
  • Patrick McGilligan.
  • Seoirse Mac Niocaill.
  • Liam Mac Síoghaird.
  • Peadar O hAodha.
  • Ailfrid O Broin.
  • Seán O Bruadair.
  • Partholán O Conchubhair. Séamus N. O Doláin.
  • Peadar S. O Dubhghaill.
  • Mícheál O Dubhghaill.
  • Pádraig O Dubhthaigh.
  • Seán o Laidhín.
  • Fionán O Loingsigh.
  • Risteárd O Maolchatha.
  • Andrew O'Shaughnessy.
  • Caoimhghín O hUigín.
  • Liam Thrift.


  • Séamus Eabhróid.
  • David Hall.
  • Tomás Mac Eoin.
  • Risteárd Mac Fheorais.
  • Pádraig Mac Fhlannchadha.
  • Patrick McKenna.
  • Líam Mag Aonghusa.
  • Patrick J. Mulvany.
  • Criostóir O Broin.
  • Risteárd O Conaill.
  • Conchubhair O Conghaile.
  • Eamon O Dubhghaill.
  • Domhnall O Muirgheasa.
  • Tadhg P. O Murchadha.
Motion declared carried.