Vol. 9 No. 27
I submit to the House the following motion standing in my name:—
"That the provisions of Standing Order 88 as to the giving of notice for the taking of the Fifth Stage of a Bill be suspended to permit of the Fifth Stage of the Dublin Port and Docks Bill, 1924, being taken to-day."
My excuse for that is the urgency of the matter.
I have to ask for a ruling on this matter and to refute the protestation that it is urgent. There is no urgency, and it is in your power to decide whether it is urgent and to take the view of the House finally as to whether such suspension of the Standing Order can be permitted. I submit that the case for urgency has not been made. This is a Bill dealing with a private organisation, and the Standing Order referring to the suspension of Standing Orders is obviously intended for matters of public importance. I raised this matter before, and permission to take the Fourth Stage was not granted on that occasion. I take the same attitude to-day and ask the Dáil not to take the Fifth Stage now.
I submit that matter has already been decided by the Ceann Comhairle on the same motion. It was moved to suspend Standing Orders, and there has been no change in the situation since then. It was not successful, because on that occasion notice had not been given, and a certain number of Deputies was required to be present to vote. On the present occasion notice has been given, and the position is the same as that on which a ruling was previously given by the Chair.
The previous motion was to take the Fourth and Fifth Stages. That was not assented to. Before the present motion can be taken four days' notice must be given, or the leave of the majority of the Dáil will have to be given. Neither of these two things has been done. I submit that the first question to be decided is whether this matter is of such urgency as would justify you in agreeing to the suspension of a Standing Order having to do with the passing of legislation.
The required notice has been given of this motion. Notice was given on the 11th December, eight days' ago, and the motion also appeared on the Order Paper of the 12th instant.
To what effect?
That due notice has now been given.
Dealing with the suspension of Standing Orders for to-day? I submit that the object of this Standing Order is to give Deputies an opportunity of being present on the date that the suspension of a particular Standing Order dealing with legislation is to be considered. Otherwise it is always possible to suspend the Standing Order on a day that the Deputies have not been apprised of the proposal. The object of this Standing Order is to apprise Deputies that on a given date certain legislation will be dealt with. That notice, I submit, has not been given in respect of to-day.
I submit this is a very definite question which has to be decided, and it admits of no great argument. It is very easy to decide whether the notice which now appears on the Order Paper was or was not given four days prior to this. If you, sir, have ruled that it was given the matter is ended.
Are we not to have any evidence that it was given?
The notice should have been given four days prior, and I hold it was not.
It has appeared on the Order Paper—"That the provision of Standing Order 88 as to the giving of notice for the taking of the Fifth Stage of a Bill be suspended to permit of the Fifth Stage of the Dublin Port and Docks Bill, 1924, being taken to-day," that was Wednesday, 17th.
This is Friday, the 19th. Deputies might have had notice regarding Wednesday, but they had no notice regarding the 19th.
Notice was sought to be made by way of having sufficient members standing up in their places, and that resulted in failure.
Due notice has been given of the motion, and I must rule it in order.
I beg to move that Standing Order 88 be suspended to allow of the taking of the Final Stage of this Port and Docks Bill.
I move:—"That the Dublin Port and Docks Bill, 1924, do now pass."
This is a Bill which, according to the Deputy in charge of it, is designed to allow an election by an electorate based upon a fancy franchise giving to some of the electors as many as ten votes, and allowing other electors to carry as many as fifteen hundred votes, for candidates who are only eligible if they have certain fancy qualifications, one of which is the possession of personal property to the extent of £3,000. The argument in favour of the Bill lies thus, that unless the Bill becomes law there will be a certain delay in carrying on these elections, and that the Board will be deprived of six representatives of trade and shipping. The retiring shipping representatives who likely will go up for re-election will probably be the nominees of two big combines, the L.M. and S. Railway and the British and Irish Steam Ship Co., part of the coastwise combine. Six representatives of these elements in the electorate will be appointed if this Bill is passed. But there is nothing in the Bill to ensure that any representatives of the City of Dublin will be brought into the Board in subsitution for those who have been disfranchised by the dissolution of the Dublin Corporation. The Deputy moving for this Bill argued the necessity, because he said there are big schemes of financial consolidation to be considered and decided upon. There are big schemes of extension to be considered and decided upon, and it is proposed by this Bill to decide these very momentous matters affecting the citizens of Dublin, without any representation from the civic side of the community life. That is to say, the only people who are to decide upon these very big questions—and just bear in mind that it is only on that account that the Deputy argued for the necessity of this Bill—are the representatives of trade or shipping. The decision is to lie in the hands of the representatives of the trading community and the shipping community, which representatives have been appointed in the past and will be appointed in the future by the influences exercisable, owing to the extraordinary power wielded under this fancy franchise by these two big combines. I say the Dáil is going to make a mistake if it facilitates the continuance of that system.
Hear, hear.
The Dail is going to make a mistake, and if we are to have no consideration for the citizens of Dublin, apart from the trading interests and the big combine interests, we ought to prevent the power to have a quorum of fifteen to do the big things that Deputy Hewat spoke about, until some way is found to ensure that the civic life outside trading and shipping interests is represented on this Board. The case for this Bill lies in the fact that there are big schemes to be considered and decided upon.
The people who are to consider those schemes and who are to decide upon them are representatives of trade and shipping dominated by two big combines. The counter-balancing influences which would represent the citizens of Dublin, apart from trade and shipping interests, do not and cannot appear on the Board. They will not appear under those circumstances. We are to have this very big and important factor in the public life of the city and county decided by purely shipping and trading interests. There is the further consideration that I dealt with the other day in regard to influences bearing against competitive lines, influences that have militated against the chance of fair opportunities of berthage and the like being considered.
We have had no promise from representatives on this Board of any change in their franchise or any change in the qualifications of members of that Board. We are now asked to agree to the passing of a Bill which would give extraordinary powers to a small Board representative of very narrow interests. I am sorry, but I am going to ask the Dail to divide again on this matter. I want it made quite clear to Deputies what they are doing, and whatever they do, they will be doing it with their eyes open.
Hear, hear.
Those who vote for the Bill are going against the interests of the city and county of Dublin, and in the interests of the British and Irish and the London, Midland and Scottish Companies.
Hear, hear.
I, too, like Deputy Johnson, must voice my opposition to this Bill. The citizens of Dublin and of the country in general owe a debt of gratitude to Deputy Johnson for exposing the condition of affairs that exists in regard to the constitution of the Port and Docks Board. For a number of years there has been a practically unanimous cry from large sections of the people for a different system of election on this Port and Docks Board, as distinct from the manner in which it is at present constituted. We all expected that when a National Parliament was set up, this and institutions of a similar kind would have their antiquated type of election altered so that a more democratic type of institution would replace them.
I have had a long experience of Dublin port—twenty-five years, in fact. I have visited the port more often than any other Deputy, perhaps. I have observed things down there that could not possibly happen if we had a Port and Docks Board catering properly for the interests of the country and the citizens of Dublin. Certain things that I have seen happening down there should not be allowed at any port. I have seen the gates locked against live-stock, and I have seen traffic diverted from Dublin to other ports. Deputy Byrne, who is now supporting the Bill, was for a long time on the Board, and he was a member who, many times, had to complain of traffic being diverted from Dublin. That traffic was diverted because, if a complaint was made by a member to the Port and Docks Board about certain shipping, another member, who would be manager of that particular shipping company, would intervene and there would be no redress. In calling attention to the action of the Government in supporting the Bill and of the Port and Docks Board in trying to rush it through, Deputies are doing a national duty. The Government, some time ago, appointed a Greater Dublin Reconstruction Commission, which has not yet made its report. It will be time enough to introduce legislation on these lines when that report is brought in. When that report does come in, we shall probably be told that it is not necessary to interfere with the Port and Docks Board as everything is all right.
Take the live-stock trade. Look at the great flow of traffic that comes through the great port of Dublin, which is the premier port. How many members are on this Board representing that trade? There is only one nominated by the Chamber of Commerce, who does not ship very many cattle. You have not a single representative from rural Ireland on that Board. As Deputy Johnson has put it, the Board is controlled by a ring of shippers, and the sooner the Government make up their minds to have a more extended form of franchise the better it will be in the interests of the Board and of the citizens.
It is necessary for me to reply to some comments made by Deputy Johnson and Deputy McKenna. I had hoped that these objections to the Bill had been adequately dealt with on the previous stages. The urgency for getting this Bill through is that with only fourteen members, various operations, including the variation of rates, could not be carried out, as fifteen members are required.
When do you want to raise them?
It does not matter whether we raise or lower them. At present possibly the indications are more in the direction of lowering than raising. At all events, if we wished to lower them we could not do it. The various operations, including the larger one of the reconstruction of our finances, would require the attendance of a larger number of members. The Port and Docks Board is not supported in any way from the rates. There should be representatives under the Act of 1898 of the civic authority on the Board. I made it clear at an earlier stage that as far as I was concerned I was prepared to discuss—not to condemn—the question of the franchise as embodied in the Act of 1898. That is a franchise that has been established through the operation of Acts of Parliament after opposition was forthcoming to the system on which it is based. Deputy Johnson and Deputy McKenna spoke about the shipping companies. References were made to the London, Midland and Scottish and the British and Irish having representatives on the Board. These companies have not by right any representation on the Board. The members have to go up for election by one of the widest electorates for any Board I know of.
Does one man cast 1,300 votes?
That is a mis-interpretation, because no man has 1,300 votes.
He deposits them.
It might be an office boy that would do that in connection with a limited company. As I explained before, a limited company can only nominate under the seal of the company some person to vote for it. Deputy McKenna says that there is no representative of the cattle trade on the Board.
On a point of explanation, I said that there was only one representative, and that he was appointed by the Chamber of Commerce. There is no direct representative of the cattle trade on the Board.
Deputy McKenna wants correction. There is no man on that Board as a nominee, and if Deputy McKenna wants a nominee of the cattle trade to be there he will have to get a special Act of Parliament. There is on the Board one of the most respected men connected with the cattle trade, Mr William Field. Does the Deputy say that Mr. William Field does not represent that trade?
We want more William Fields.
Mr Field is there, and he is Chairman of the Cattle Trade Association for many years. Mr. Leonard who is also prominently connected with the cattle trade is also on the Board, and I can assure Deputies that Mr. William Field and Mr. Leonard are constantly pressing and putting forward claims dealing with the handling of cattle. Any person who knows anything about the Port Board knows that it has nothing to do with the shipment of cattle; in other words, that that is not part of its duty. The Port and Docks Board is there to provide facilities for trade at the port. It does so, and the shipping companies and the railway companies carry on their business. The Board has no control over their operations. It is assumed that they carry on their business to the best of their ability. Every facility is given to every shipping company. The representatives of the L.M. and S. and the B. and I. Company are only two men out of twenty-seven.
How many votes can they control?
Deputy Magennis is really in the dark there. Every man on the Port Board has only one vote. Everyone who reads the papers knows, from the constant conflicts that come up at the Board, that one man, two men, or even six men do not dominate its policy. I fail to see how they could do so.
Tit-bits do not get into the papers. Does the Deputy acknowledge that it is not an infrequent thing for the business of one or other of these companies to be transacted during the Board meeting?
If the business came up in the ordinary way and concerned these companies. Deputy Johnson has to remember that on the other side are the men who ship goods, and the traders' representatives, who, by themselves could outvote the whole shipping section of the Board, as they have a larger representation. To say that the shipping members are usually in harmony with the trading members or vice versa is to say something that does not happen. Any conflict that arises gets free, open and independent discussion in the presence of the Press. I have tried to deal with the objections raised to the Bill, and also to impress on Deputy Johnson that the point he mentioned regarding Corporation representation on the Board is one that we would get over if we could. Under this Bill it is impossible for me to go through the ramifications of the 1898 Act.
