Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 19 Jan 1926

Vol. 14 No. 1

COMMITTEE ON FINANCE. - PORTS AND HARBOURS TRIBUNAL.

I beg to move:

That it is expedient that a Tribunal be established for inquiring into a definite matter of urgent public importance, that is to say, the present position of the several ports and harbours in Saorstát Eireann specified in the schedule to this resolution, with special reference to:—

(a) the constitution, powers, and methods of administration of the authorities controlling or managing such ports and harbours,

(b) the charging powers, financial position and resources of such authorities,

(c) the facilities provided for trade and commerce in such ports and harbours, and the extent to which such trade and commerce is conducted in shipping owned in Saorstát Eireann,

(d) the present statute law relating to such ports and harbours and any changes therein of a general or a particular nature which appear necessary or desirable in order to promote the trade or commerce of Saorstát Eireann.

SCHEDULE.

List of Harbour Undertakings.

Annagassan Pier, Arklow Harbour, Ballyshannon Harbour, Baltimore and Skibbereen Harbour, Cork Harbour, Dingle Harbour, Drogheda Harbour, Dublin Port and Docks (including Balbriggan and Skerries Harbours), Dundalk Harbour, Foynes Harbour, Galway Harbour, Killybegs Port and Harbour, Kilrush Harbour, Kinsale Harbour, Limerick Harbour, Moy River Commission (Ballina), New Ross Port and Harbour, Sligo Harbour, Tralee and Fenit Port and Harbour, Waterford Harbour, Wexford Harbour, Westport Harbour, Wicklow Harbour, Youghal Harbour.

I am moving this motion under the Tribunal of Inquiry (Evidence) Act of 1921, as I did the resolution dealing with the establishment of the Food Tribunal. I should like at the outset to call attention to a certain phrase in the motion. It reads:

That it is expedient that a tribunal be established for inquiring into a definite matter of urgent public importance, that is to say——

I want to emphasise what follows:

the present position of the several ports and harbours in Saorstát Eireann specified in the schedule to this resolution...

In the schedule there is a complete list of the harbour undertakings built and operated under statutory authority. I am not including any port which does not fall into that category. I am not setting up a tribunal to inquire into whether any new ports and harbours should be built and operated, but simply with regard to those which are, in that particular way, operated— whether the legislation setting them up, and the method of administration is suitable, and to make a report upon the matter set out in the four subheads. I bring it forward as a matter of urgent public importance, even although limited to the harbours identified, as I have identified them. It has long been a matter of concern to my Department to have the existing con stitution, powers and methods of administering those authorities inquired into. It is a matter that we had thought necessary to have inquired into ourselves, and a matter on which we had received an amount of correspondence which almost equals that sent in on any other subject.

There seems to be a general concensus of opinion through the country that the method of administration of the authorities controlling harbours of this type is not all that it might be. There has been pretty well the same type of complaint sent forward with regard to the harbours mentioned. In some cases, on the information at the Department's disposal, it seems that complaints were justified, and in some cases even on the material on which the complaint was based. In other cases, it does not seem that there is any ground for complaint at all, but complaints have been made and it seems desirable and urgent, and a matter of public importance, that those complaints should be sifted; that the whole matter should be subjected to review and, if the tribunal likes to bring in recommendations with regard to improvements that might easily be affected in the way in which the harbours are administered, it will be then for the Dáil later to consider whether they should be followed up.

May I again emphasise what appears to have been misunderstood with regard to this Tribunal of Inquiry (Evidence) Act on the last occasion. This is a resolution which, if passed by the Dáil and Seanad, allows an instrument of appointment of a tribunal, and that instrument appointing a tribunal referring to the Tribunal of Inquiry (Evidence) Act of 1921 gives the tribunal pretty well the fullest possible compulsory powers with regard to the calling of evidence, the taking of evidence on oath, the inspection of books, and the bringing of witnesses before them. I stated that, as I thought quite specifically and clearly, in regard to the last inquiry, and it was stated afterwards in one of the newspapers that the matter had been left vague. I do not want there to be any appearance even of leaving anything vague this time. If this resolution be passed by both Houses—if it seems to both Houses that it is a matter requiring an inquiry of this sort—then that instrument referring to this particular Act empowers the tribunal to take evidence on oath, sets up certain penalties, and gives all the powers of the High Court with regard to the production of evidence under compulsion.

The motion is sufficiently detailed not to require any great explanation from me. I should like merely to emphasise the negative side of it—what it is not intended to do. This is not an inquiry into the opening up of new ports or harbours; it is an inquiry into that group of harbours, as I have limited this, operating under statutory authority. That seems to be a special compartment which can be inquired into by itself, has no repercussion on the other question, and is not bound up with the question of development of new harbours or with the question of transport in its entirety.

I am not going to dispute with the Minister that there may be some necessity for the setting up of this tribunal, but I would like to make one or two remarks on the motion. As the Minister states, the Tribunal, under the Act of 1921, is to have full compulsory powers. Of course, I take it that is only in regard to evidence, and I presume the evidence will be on oath. It also follows, I understand, that any findings of this tribunal will have to come before the Oireachtas before becoming law. The list of harbours in the schedule is a very formidable one, and the Minister has stated that these harbours are chosen because they have statutory powers attached to them. This will be a very serious and, judging from the list of harbours, I should say, a very lengthy operation. As we all know, every one of these harbours is governed by different statutes. Is it the intention or the idea that the tribunal shall consider the possibility of codifying or, in any way subjecting to uniform methods, the control and administration of all these harbours? Of course, that in itself is a matter which is debatable. Each of these harbours is individual in its conditions, in its locality and, certainly, in the present statutes that govern it. I think to set out with the idea that it is right that all harbours on the coast-line of Saorstát Eireann should be governed by a uniform method, both in regard to constitution and in regard to powers of administration, would be wrong.

I would like to know when the Minister will be able to inform the Dáil of the composition of this tribunal; how he proposes to constitute the tribunal; whether it is to be representative of various interests, or whether it is to be a completely independent tribunal: that is, independent of harbour interests. A great deal will depend upon whether the tribunal is composed of those who are acquainted with and interested in the development and the progress of the ports, or whether it is to be viewed entirely from an outside point of view.

I do not say it would be a completely wrong thing to have an independent tribunal, because this is, of course, naturally, a national question, but, at the same time, I think it would be unwise, to say the least of it, to have the tribunal composed entirely of members who have never had any previous experience of the working of harbour boards or who might not be in the least interested in their progress.

The present state of the laws which, according to paragraph (d), is to be inquired into, relating to the ports and harbours, is certainly very varied and intricate and if the tribunal is going to go into the various statutes governing each and every one of these harbours mentioned in the schedule, and if they are going to pronounce definitely upon each of them in turn, it will certainly take a considerable time. It would be well if the Minister explained if that is the intention or if the intention is that there should be some method of uniformity arrived at for the control of all the harbours along the coastline. I do not say that that would be either a wise or an expedient course to adopt.

I notice that what were known as "Royal harbours" have been omitted from the list. I do not know why that is so, but perhaps the Minister will be able to explain. I understand the harbour at Dun Laoghaire is a Royal harbour and I think there are one or two others. Whether their position is fixed so that no inquiry could, by any of its findings, alter the conditions which obtain is a matter upon which, I think, the Minister might be able to enlighten the Dáil. Otherwise I think it is a good thing to have this inquiry. I do not say that I see the necessity for its immediate urgency. I have not heard very great complaints about the management and conduct of harbours but probably the Minister knows better. If inquiry is to be made and if a tribunal is to be set up I think it would be wise to inform the Dáil at the earliest possible moment as to its composition and, if possible, the actual names of those who will be upon it.

From my knowledge of these harbours I should say that, outside the Fishery Laws, I know of nothing that is more chaotic than the regulations under which they are controlled. Each of these bodies is a law unto itself and each is absolutely incompetent.

I may say at once, therefore, that I am not in favour of the resolution. I was rather surprised to find that this Tribunal is only to deal with statutory harbours. At the moment I have not had access to all the information on the subject, but I certainly think that at least 30 per cent. of the harbours which are really more important than the statutory harbours are not dealt with by this Tribunal at all. Most of these have been built by public money—some of them from Free State money since it came into existence. They are dealt with by the county councils or by some other body that really does not function at all, and the only objection that I have to the Minister's resolution is that all these harbours do not come under this tribunal. If all of them did come under the Tribunal, then perhaps we could set up a proper Harbour Board which would be directly responsible to the State. If the Minister desires to have it, I could give him a list of those harbours which are much more important than the statutory harbours that he has named in his resolution. I would appeal to him to see that this matter is dealt with in a more comprehensive way than is proposed under this resolution. I think that all harbours which have been built by public money should come under this Tribunal.

I suppose I have some knowledge of ports, but even after the explanation of the Minister I am afraid I do not follow what this Tribunal is going to do. The resolution before us states "That it is expedient that a Tribunal be established for inquiring into a definite matter of urgent public importance" and so on. One would have expected a little more light from the Minister as to the urgent public importance that is outlined there. If we go on to paragraphs A. B and C of the resolution to find out what is the urgent public importance for the setting up of this Tribunal, we are told what the Tribunal is to do. Paragraph A states that the Tribunal is to make inquiries as to "the constitution, powers and methods of administration of the authorities controlling or managing such ports and harbours." Bear in mind that the harbours referred to are also statutory bodies. Therefore, to set up a Tribunal to find out the powers of these statutory authorities seems to me to be rather an absurdity. All these particulars are available for anybody at any time, and why therefore should we at this hour of the day set up a Tribunal to find out what the Minister or indeed anyone interested in the matter could find out at very short notice? Paragraph B refers to "the charging powers, financial position and resources of such authorities." That too, I think, is information that could be found out by anyone at very short notice. These are statutory authorities, and I daresay they publish balance sheets and accounts. Paragraph C refers to "the facilities provided for trade and commerce in such ports and harbours" and so on.

The Minister, in explaining the powers of the tribunal, said that it was going to have mandatory powers for the production of books and all the rest of it. Whom is all this information to be got from? The statutory authority. Does the Minister require all this to get the books of a statutory authority? I think not. Many of them have a public audit, and their accounts are published. As regards facilities at the ports, is the tribunal going to go into the very large question of adequate facilities or otherwise at all the ports mentioned in the schedule to this resolution? If the Minister finds out that the facilities are inadequate, is he going to couple up the various ports into one administration? What does he anticipate can be the result of an inquiry into this matter in a wholesale fashion? The requirements of a port like Kilrush or some one such as Foynes harbour are really governed by the local conditions. The same conditions could not possibly apply to any two harbours for the purposes of comparison. Railway facilities enter into the question as well as berthing facilities, the cost of dredging, the cost of maintenance, the volume of business done, and a hundred and one other things.

Is it proposed that legislation should be introduced to deal with the different harbours on the same lines? Take the case of the port of Dublin. Several Acts of Parliament have been passed to meet the needs of this port. Whether they are right or wrong, at any rate they were arrived at after very full consideration, and the needs of the port are, as I have said, embodied in several Acts of Parliament. Is it the proposal here that all the ports and harbours, administrative or statutory bodies, could be dealt with in an Omnibus Bill, their borrowing powers and all the rest, and that you could deal with all these different harbours on the same lines? Frankly, I am not opposed to the tribunal, except on this ground: We have a very active Government which has been inquiring into a great many things. They have set up a great many tribunals, practically every one of which has led to a state of affairs which was referred to to-day by the Minister for Finance as a general unsettlement, a general doubt, a general want of confidence. The Minister for Finance said to-day that the reason why the Government were advancing £50,000 to an Industrial Trust Company —he said this in answer to Deputy Wilson—was that the people of the country would not take up the shares. He went further than that and said that the people of the country were not very keen on taking up any shares in any industrial undertaking in the country at the present time. I can endorse that. It is unfortunate, but it is so. The Minister for Industry and Commerce passed a Bill through this House which met with great enthusiasm, but the immediate effect of that Bill was to bring a certain industry into a state of stagnation. The Minister for Industry and Commerce now comes forward with this tribunal. I have no objection to the tribunal, but its effect on the country will be to accentuate the distrust, and what is going to happen? Are you going to question the administration of every organisation that you have got to-day? Are you going to upset the order of things that is there without knowing what you are going to put in its place?

Why not?

Very well. If you are satisfied, I am. Now, I think all those tribunals at the present time should have a very definite aim in view, and my objection to this tribunal, if you call it an objection, is that I do not see any need for it. None whatsoever. If tribunals are set up calling in question everything that everybody is doing in the country, then it is hardly surprising that those who have money are chary, and very chary, of investing in the various enterprises. I only throw out that note of warning. I think, in the present position of things, we ought to look to people having confidence in the future so that they may be prepared to take shares in industrial undertakings. I deprecate, as much as I can, the interference, or the necessity for interference if you like, of the Government in the industrial undertakings of the country. I recognise, also, that the very thing that the Minister for Finance stated to-day makes it necessary for somebody to do acts of this sort, but I none the less deplore it, and in so far as this tribunal will have an unsettling effect I think we would be better without it. If it has a definite object in view, which is not very clear from the references given here, I would like the Minister to state what it is.

Deputy Redmond elevated one point to the region of fear. He hoped that the recommendations made by the Committee would not become law or operative unless the Oireachtas approved. Obviously that is the position. This is simply an inquiry. The tribunal may make recommendations, but if they involve any change in the existing legislation they will have to be considered in the form of new legislation by this Dáil and Seanad. The Deputy further asked, inasmuch as these authorities are all governed by different statutes, was there any idea of codification. I cannot say. I think that, generally speaking, people seeing certain harbours which are not very distinctive in regard to any special type of work, or in their local situation, might say these should be governed by some code which would be more uniform than the present system which Deputy O'Doherty described as chaotic. The Deputy went on, later, to ask me to indicate what was my intention with regard to the recommendations which the tribunal might make. I have no intentions with regard to the recommendations that the tribunal might make. It can make whatever recommendations seem good. Possibly they would have their own minds aiming, in the abstract, at some sort of uniformity, at least to some better approach to uniformity than exists at the moment, but what that will be I cannot say. It is not going to be my intention to give them any directions that they should set out with any idea of codification. The whole matter will be left to themselves.

I intend as early as possible to indicate, to the Dáil and the Seanad, the personnel of the Tribunal, but I am not so far advanced as I was with the other tribunal for which the House authorised a resolution of this sort. I cannot even indicate those interested which it may seem desirable to have represented on the Committee. I have not even come to a decision on the matter as to whether interests should be represented or whether it would not be better to leave people who could be described as interested, in the more technical meaning of the word, to come before the Tribunal and to give evidence and to have people who, in the Deputy's later phrase, are acquainted with the ports and interested in their development. Obviously that is the sort of man to look for.

Deputy Redmond is in some conflict with Deputy Hewat when he stated it would take time if it is incumbent upon the Tribunal to consider all the statutes. Deputy Hewat's attitude is that the statutes were there and everybody knows all about them, and that there is nothing to inquire into. I rather agree with Deputy Redmond that there is a considerable amount hidden in these statutes that might very well be brought to the light of day for the purposes of information, not that I believe there is anything irregular going on under cover of these statutes, but that simply people should know what is the law with regard to particular places. The time of the Tribunal could be saved, in this matter, by having the statutory law relating to the harbours brought before it in the form of a digest. That, presumably, would be the business of a secretary, or those who were attending to the Tribunal. The question of State harbours, or what are known as Crown harbours, was not included because of the very small extent to which they are trading ports, and, so far, we have no complaints from agricultural or trade interests with regard to them. There was an inquiry in connection with a State Harbours Bill last year, and when that Bill was before the Private Bill Committee an appearance was made by one interested objector. The objections made were considered by the Committee, and we have considered with regard to them (1) that there was no necessity to have them dealt with here, (2) that no serious complaints had been received about them, and (3) that the matter had been the subject, incidentally, of an inquiry when the State Harbours Bill was under consideration.

Some sympathy may be felt with Deputy O'Doherty's plea that this should not be confined to harbours as I have defined them, but that other harbours should be included. That, then, comes to the varied point of view as to whether the work that is going to be put before this committee is going to be heavy or a very slight matter, as Deputy Hewat seemed to imagine. I would imagine that it is going to be very heavy and difficult, and I did not think it right to add on, in these special terms of reference, all harbours, whether under statutory control or privately developed and owned at the moment. The deliberations of the committee and the report of the tribunal on these particular harbours will throw a certain light on the necessity for the development of other harbours in a particular area, and they can be dealt with later on.

Deputy Hewat has queried the whole purpose of the tribunal. He began with sub-heads A, B, C, and D, but there is the general phrase governing the whole matter "the present position of the several ports and harbours in the Saorstát," with special reference to certain things. It is possibly quite right to say that it is easy for members of the Dáil or Seanad to arrive by examination of the various statutes at what is the present position of the ports specified here, with regard to the "constitution, powers and methods of administration of the authorities controlling them" but not with regard to their methods. It is very difficult, even for individual members of the Dáil or Seanad, to discover what are the financial resources of the authorities from time to time governing these harbours. It would involve an amount of examination that I think the ordinary Deputy or Senator has not time for, and even if there was nothing more to be done than simply to have that in a comparative form and put in a handy way for members to have here for their information, then, the tribunal would do some good.

Even I noticed that Deputy Hewat weakened in what I thought was his opposition to the Tribunal when he came to C and D—the facilities provided for trade and commerce. I wonder does Deputy Hewat really believe in his heart that everybody, in Dublin say, is quite satisfied with regard to the facilities provided for trade and commerce by the Dublin Port and Docks Board? I am not saying that the dissatisfaction is proper. I am not saying that anything has been proved, but just simply is he or is he not aware that there is some expression of dissatisfaction with regard to the facilities provided? If the facilities are as good as can be provided that fact should be established, and it is a thing that will redound to the credit of the Port Authority if the fact is established. If it is not, then I am sure that that authority would be glad to see what a body set up for this purpose, chosen in a deliberate and reasoned way, would put up to them for better facilities, and they could then come for examination before the authority itself. Deputy Hewat also seems to have fixed in his mind that an Omnibus Bill will be introduced codifying all the laws relating to these scattered harbours and making one rigid law for the whole country. I would refer him to the terms of paragraph D: "The present statute laws relating to such ports and harbours and any changes therein of a general or a particular nature which appear necessary or desirable in order to promote the trade or commerce of Saorstát Eireann." The terms of reference have to be somewhat wide, and I think that it is sufficient to leave the members of the Tribunal free to bring in amendments with regard to the particular laws applicable to individual harbours and not to confine them to making recommendations merely of an omnibus type. Again I cannot say in answer to Deputy Hewat what I might indicate as the result of the inquiry. I am simply throwing this open for inquiry and leaving it to the Tribunal to make their recommendations.

I cannot see the full force of the point that inquiries of this sort inevitably lead to unsettlement, doubt and want of confidence. I can imagine a person interested in the development of a particular harbour saying to himself —let me make it absolutely particular —that the Dublin Port and Docks Board is in its particular Heaven and all's well with the world. There may be people who have not that view, or there may be people who ought to be convinced that that is the right view. But simply to say that there should be an inquiry into certain law which has come down to us over a period of time and which the mere process of time might lead one to believe required some change—I cannot see that people should reasonably get unsettled or get grave doubts as to the setting up of an inquiry because of that.

Does the Minister think that the setting up of the tribunal will increase the value of the Dublin Port and Docks Board stock?

I should certainly say it should if the result of the inquiry shows that the authority controlling the Port and Docks Board has nothing upon which it may be criticised after an inquiry has been held. It is the intention and the aim to get people appointed on this tribunal who will confine themselves to the terms of reference and who will bring in no critical comments on any authority unless there is evidence put before them which shows that such criticism is justified. I can definitely see the type of mind which would prefer to leave everything in the way in which we have been going along for a certain number of years, but even those people should wait until the result of the inquiry reveals something deplorable before they get into that state of unsettlement and doubt. If that is to be the plea, and if it is to be insisted upon, then, of course, the sooner this House shuts up shop and dissolves itself the better. We would find ourselves confined simply and entirely to the existing legislation and carrying it on as it was.

Will there be any further opportunity of discussing this matter? I am not at all satisfied that the Minister has established his case for what he calls the urgent importance of this motion.

If the motion is passed now there will be no further opportunity of discussing it in this House, but inasmuch as a similar resolution has to be passed by the Seanad and that it is not to meet until the end of the month, I do not see any necessity to press the motion to a conclusion to-night if the Deputy would like to have it postponed.

I certainly think it would be more advisable, in view of the matters that have to be dealt with, that it should get further discussion. I do not want to enter into further discussion now, but it appears to me—I am not particularly interested in the harbour question beyond the general trade of the country—that there is an indefiniteness about the tribunal and the objects of the tribunal that should be cleared up. I am not at all satisfied that there are not things of very much greater and more urgent public importance that should be considered by the Dáil instead of matters of this kind. It does not appear to me that this inquiry is going to lead anywhere. There are inquiries in connection with harbours in the Free State that would serve a useful purpose, but I am not at all satisfied that this inquiry will serve such a purpose. I do not want to make a speech at this stage, but I think enough has been said to show that the matter of setting up the Tribunal should have further consideration before it is agreed to.

What form is it proposed that this consideration should take? This is in the form of a motion which has been moved; a debate takes place on the motion, and the mover of the motion, the Minister for Industry and Commerce, makes a second speech to conclude the debate. Ordinarily the debate on the motion would then be concluded and nothing would remain but for the question to be put and decided. Of course, if in a special set of circumstances the House decides to do something else, it is always within the power of the House to do so. But what is it suggested should be done? Supposing the question is not brought to a decision now, are we simply asked to postpone the decision?

May I say a word?

Not on the motion.

Is it not proposed to set up a tribunal and to give the names of the tribunal to the Dáil? Should the matter not be left over until the Minister is in a position to give that information to the House, and then we could further discuss, on the personnel of the tribunal, the whole question?

That I could hardly agree to. I cannot take any steps to invite people to act upon the tribunal until this motion is passed, both by this House and by the Seanad. I might make informal approaches to certain people, but I could do no more than that. I doubt very much the desirability of having the names of the tribunal put before the House and having a debate, not upon the necessity for the tribunal at all, but as to whether certain people are fit and proper persons to be appointed on it, which is a different matter entirely. I did think, when the Deputy raised the point, that what might happen was this: If the Deputy had any arguments to bring forward to show that it was not expedient that the tribunal should be set up he should be allowed to make these, with anyone else who liked to join with him on the point, and that I could have the right to reply. If that meets Deputy Good's wishes I am prepared, with the leave of the House, to agree.

That is, the Minister will simply move the adjournment of the debate.

I seem to be the only person in opposition to this to any extent, and that not to a great extent. If the Minister wishes that the motion should be put I will not oppose it.

If the Minister is determined, as he seems to be, to set up this tribunal, we might alter the terms of reference, if an opportunity were given, so as to make the tribunal more useful than I am satisfied it will be if it is merely to consider the matters set out in the terms of reference. Would it be possible for the Minister to agree to adjourn the matter so that that aspect might be considered, because there is useful work that might be done by such a tribunal, in connection with harbours, which I will not go into now, and that possibly might be embodied in the terms of reference?

The way to do that would be simply to agree to a motion adjourning the debate. When the debate is resumed the House might, if it considered such a course necessary, then take the motion in Committee, and amendments might be moved to the terms of reference under Committee rules.

Or to extend them.

Or to extend them, yes.

If it is put to me that I should let this matter stand over for consideration and if I agree it does not necessarily mean that I will consider any extension of the terms of reference—in other words, to amend this motion in any form. Amendments might be moved and argued, but it is not my intention to bring in amendments to meet a point of view that I have not yet got.

If the Minister has made up his mind that he will not consider it——

A DEPUTY

He has not said that.

Well, if he will not alter the terms of reference, it amounts to the same thing, in substance.

The terms of reference may be altered, but it will not be incumbent on me to frame amendments to alter them.

Looking at it from the point of view of procedure, I should feel much more satisfied if we adjourned the debate on this motion for the purpose of seeing amendments proposed to the terms of reference, either by way of alteration or of addition, if that is agreed to by special leave of the House, than by having the debate adjourned in a general way. We could adjourn the debate until what date?

To-morrow week.

Does that mean that we can discuss this whole matter again from beginning to end? The Minister has made an opening and a concluding statement. Am I to take it that the whole matter will be open again for discussion as well as for amendment? My idea in asking is this, that there is a definite procedure, according to the Standing Orders, and if you break away from that definite procedure in one particular thing we will have the right to demand a similar breaking away in regard to anything of the same nature that arises. For that reason I take exception to the method of procedure that is being applied to this.

If the Deputy takes exception, and persists in his exception, to the procedure, it cannot be gone on with. It all depends upon the view of procedure in general. My view of procedure is that it is an assistance to the House in the doing of business, and if the House wants to do a particular business in a particular way that seems to it good in the special circumstances, the House must be allowed to do that providing that unanimous leave is given. But supposing special leave were granted in this particular case to adopt that special procedure, that would give Deputy Heffernan the right in a future case to argue that the same right should be given to him, but it would not give him any right to demand the same right. We will require to have unanimity for following this unusual procedure. If Deputy Heffernan objects I must put the question now.

I do object.

Motion put, and declared carried.
Top
Share