Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 9 Mar 1927

Vol. 18 No. 16

ELECTRICITY (SUPPLY) BILL, 1927—FIRST STAGE.

I move for leave to introduce a

Bill entitled an Act to make provision for the reorganisation and regulation of the generation, transmission, distribution and supply of electricity throughout Saorstát Eireann and in particular to make provision for the generation of electricity in the works constructed by the State under the Shannon Electricity Act, 1925, and for the transmission, distribution, and supply of such electricity, and for that purpose to make provision for the management, administration, and control of the said works with a view to the efficient and economic operation thereof and for other matters incidental to or arising in the course of the matters aforesaid or in connection therewith, and to amend the said Shannon Electricity Act, 1925.

Did the Minister make a promise to a deputation that when introducing this Bill he would make a statement and would fix a date for the Second Reading, so as to give sufficient time to the deputationists to call a meeting to discuss it and make proposals?

No. The Deputy is quite inaccurate. I made a statement to a deputation that visited me that in all likelihood, as I then saw the Bill, I would make a statement on First Reading. I made no promise. I said there would be a sufficient period between the First and Committee Stages to allow them to get their meeting together.

It is a fact, and the President agrees, I am sure, that in connection with the Barrow Drainage Bill he gave an undertaking that he would consult certain of the county councils in the area concerned. So far as I am aware, he has not done it. I wonder will he take that step before the Committee Stage of the Bill?

We are not dealing with the Barrow Drainage Bill now.

Therefore I am precluded from answering the Deputy.

Leave granted to introduce the Electricity (Supply) Bill, 1927.

I suggest that we take the Second Reading of this Bill on Monday, 14th March.

Is it in order to fix the Second Reading of a Bill for a day on which the Dáil does not nor mally sit and on which it has not yet decided to sit? In that connection I refer to Standing Order 19.

Then I propose that the Second Reading be taken on the first day of the sitting of the Dáil next week.

What is Deputy Cooper's point in regard to Standing Order 19?

Standing Order 19 (1) says:

While the Dáil is in session, and unless it shall otherwise resolve, the Dáil shall meet every Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday at 3 p.m., and every Friday at 12 o'clock noon...

We have not yet otherwise resolved and, therefore, the Minister cannot move to have the Second Reading on a day on which the Dáil does not sit according to Standing Orders.

The Minister does not move that now. I have suggested taking the Second Reading on the first day on which the Dáil sits next week.

Has the leave of the Dáil been given to the Minister to amend his motion?

We presume that a Bill of this kind will be very technical. It has not yet been circulated; nevertheless, we are expected to come into the Dáil on the occasion of the first sitting next week to pass judgment, on Second Reading, on the measure without having had a proper opportunity of considering it. We are having enough of these rushed measures that usually have to be reconsidered and redrafted time after time. In connection with practically every Bill that was brought in here there have been two Second Readings, because enough consideration has not been given the first time to the Bill following its introduction.

It is unfair to Deputies to expect them to pass judgment on the principle of a technical Bill, such as we presume the Electricity (Supply) Bill to be, perhaps twenty-four hours after the Bill comes into their hands. Deputies are not being given sufficient time to consider the whole problem in its proper aspect; neither Deputies nor the people in the country are being given sufficient time. The Minister is not at all reasonable in expecting us to do the almost impossible.

I would like to join in the protest made by Deputy Baxter, and to appeal to the Minister not to fix the Second Reading as early as next Monday, as is obviously his intention. This Bill not be circulated before Friday, and there will be really no opportunity of studying it in the interval in a way a Bill of its importance ought to be studied, so that Deputies would be able to make a proper contribution to the Second Reading debate. I would ask the Minister not to insist on fixing the Second Reading for next Monday.

In view of the Minister's statement that he made a statement, which was not a promise, to the representatives of the Electricity Supply Association that he would give them time to consider the Bill and make suggestions——

Before the Committee Stage.

Well, I am told that what was suggested first was that a Second Reading speech would be made on the introduction of the Bill or that a statement would be made by the Minister that would give these experts an opportunity of knowing what it contained. They complain that if this measure is rushed in the way now suggested they will have no time to consider what is in the Bill, nor to call a meeting of their members to consider it and to make suggestions that might be very useful and helpful to the Dáil as well as to the Minister. In view of that I think that the Minister ought to extend the time for at least another three or four days. He admits he made a statement leading them to believe they would get time.

Not leading them to any beliefs that the Deputy has expressed.

The argument should be rather in the direction that more than the usual time will be required between Second Reading and the Committee Stage. Most people will admit that a Supply Bill is necessary, and the Second Reading of the Bill will go through, but the vital thing will be to decide the details. It seems to me that the longer period will be necessary between the Second Reading and the Committee Stages.

I cannot understand Deputy Byrne's point, if he has been properly advised by the Electricity Supply Association. My whole discussion with them on this business was on the lines that I could tolerate no interference from them on the principle of the Bill, but that they might be of help, and I thought would be of help on the details. That being the whole line of our discussion, I fail to see how anybody with the minimum of common sense could take from my words the meaning that I would give sufficient time between First Stage and Second Stage to enable the Electricity Supply Association to forward anything to me. I feel somewhat impressed by what Deputy O'Connell has said and the way he has said it, but I turn to Deputy Baxter and I find all this hypothetical nonsense he has talked about the Bill—that he has not got it, that he does not know what is in it, and that he does not know if he will ever be able to master what is in it, on account of the date that is proposed for Second Reading. Then he talked of Bills being re-committed and of Second Readings having to be taken more than once. I know of one great case of that where the Minister for Lands and Agriculture was, unfortunately, weak enough to give in to demands made by the Farmers' Party, and we see as the result the discussion that is to take place immediately. As far as this Second Reading is concerned, provided we meet on Monday, I would like, at any rate in order to clear the ground, to have an opportunity of making my own statement on the Bill on Monday evening. I doubt very much if there will be any time for it on Monday evening, and of course if what the President has spoken of to-day happens, if the Vote on Account and certain Central Fund Bill proposals were finished this week, there would be, presumably, no great necessity to meet on Monday, and the Second Reading would be taken on Tuesday. But I would like to put the Bill down for Monday, with the understanding that if that is done the only thing that will be taken will be my own speech. As to the principle of the Bill, I do not care how technical it is found to be in its details, the general principle of the Bill will be very easily grasped.

There are obvious advantages in hearing the Minister's statement on the Bill as soon as possible, and if there is a definite understanding that the adjournment shall be taken after the Minister's speech, so that we may have an opportunity of reading the Press reports and of being able to study it in even greater detail before we take a division on the Second Stage, I think that that course might be taken. But there is one point of great importance that arises on the Second Reading, that is the question as to whether this is to be a State undertaking or whether it is to be leased or otherwise handed over to private capital. That is a question of principle, and I do not think we ought to be asked to take a decision on that point until we have had ample time not only to study the Bill but to study precedents elsewhere, precedents in Canada and in other countries in Europe which have hydro-electric power. So that while I would agree to having the Minister's statement on Monday, I would suggest that the division should not be rushed.

Even if the Minister makes a statement on Monday we will not have the Official Report until three days afterwards, and we will have to depend on the newspaper reports.

And your own hearing of what I say.

I understand that a number of country Deputies will be absent, some of whom take a certain amount of interest in this Electricity Bill, and in my opinion it is a Bill that may be of very considerable importance to the rural community. I think they ought to have an opportunity of being here and of hearing the Minister's statement, and if necessary asking him questions in regard to it. I do not understand these references to the Land Bill. The Farmers' Party are not in any way responsible for the reference back of the Land Bill.

On a point of explanation. Let us clear up this point. I introduced the Land Bill and got it a Second Reading, and then, at the request of the Farmers' Party, in view of the fact that there were certain amendments which they could not move to the Bill, I agreed to refer it to a Select Committee.

With the consent of the Dáil.

Mr. HOGAN

It will never happen again.

And the Select Committee made certain recommendations which the Minister approved of, and as a result the new Bill had to be drafted and had to go through the ordinary procedure of a new Bill. This business of placing blame on the Farmers' Party is not in accordance with the facts.

Has the time not arrived when we might stop talking and get on with the work?

I will strongly object to the Second Reading of the Bill being taken on Monday, and I resent the attitude of the Minister, which is the attitude that the House is accustomed to from the same Minister. I say to the Minister that it is not helpful to him or to the work of the House, and if he wants to get the House into a spirit to co-operate and help the work forward he will need to attack the proposition in another spirit.

Are we to understand that at the end of the Minister's speech the date will be automatically adjourned until we can get copies of the Official Report and have time to study his speech?

We are not going to introduce the principle that a Minister must make a speech on Second Reading and that thereafter the Second Reading debate is adjourned until the report is available. The debate ought to flow on, and if Deputies are given overnight to consider the matter they will have been indulged with regard to this Bill in a way that they have not been in regard to others.

Will the Second Reading speech of the Minister deal with the Bill as introduced? Will the Minister follow a recent Second Reading precedent, or will he give an assurance that he will not propose something in his Second Reading speech different from what is in the Bill in his Second Reading Speech?

That is overworked.

I would like the Minister to add to what he has already said an assurance that there will be plenty of time between the Second Reading and the Committee Stage.

Would the Deputy indicate what he means by plenty of time?

I mean more than the four days that are allowed.

Oh, yes; we will double the four days at least.

Question put.
The Dáil divided: Tá, 40; Níl, 22.

  • Earnán Altún.
  • Earnán de Blaghd.
  • Thomas Bolger.
  • Seoirse de Bhulbh.
  • Sir James Craig.
  • Louis J. D'Alton.
  • Máighréad Ní Choileain Bean
  • Uí Dhrisceóil.
  • James Dwyer.
  • Michael Egan.
  • Patrick J. Egan.
  • Osmond Grattan Esmonde.
  • Desmond Fitzgerald.
  • John Good.
  • Thomas Hennessy.
  • John Hennigan.
  • Patrick Leonard.
  • Liam Mac Cosgair.
  • Pádraig Mac Fadáin.
  • Patrick McGilligan.
  • Seoirse Mac Niocaill.
  • Liam Mac Sioghaird.
  • Pádraig Mag Ualghairg.
  • Martin M. Nally.
  • Michael K. Noonan.
  • Seán O Bruadair.
  • Conchubhar O Conghaile.
  • Séamus O Cruadhlaoich.
  • Eoghan O Dochartaigh.
  • Séamus O Dóláin.
  • Peadar O Dubhghaill.
  • Pádraig O Dubhthaigh.
  • Eamon O Dúgáin.
  • Fionán O Loingsigh.
  • Séamus O Murchadha.
  • Pádraig O hOgáin (Gaillimh).
  • Máirtín O Rodaigh.
  • Andrew O Shaughnessy.
  • Caoimhghín O hUigín.
  • Patrick W. Shaw.
  • Liam Thrift.

Níl

  • Pádraig Baxter.
  • Daniel Breen.
  • David Hall.
  • Connor Hogan.
  • Séamus Mac Cosgair.
  • Patrick J. Mulvany.
  • Ailfrid O Broin.
  • Criostóir O Broin.
  • Domhnall O Mocháin.
  • Tadhg O Murchadha.
  • Pádraig O hOgáin (An Clár).
  • Tomás O Conaill.
  • Aodh O Cúlacháin.
  • Liam O Daimhín.
  • Tadhg O Donnabháin.
  • Eamon O Dubhghaill.
  • Mícheál O Dubhghaill.
  • Mícheál O hIfearnáin.
  • Seán O Laidhin.
  • Pádraig O hOgáin (Luimneach).
  • William A. Redmond.
  • Nicholas Wall.
Tellers.—Tá: Deputies Dolan and Sears; Níl: Deputies Baxter and Heffernan.
Motion declared carried.
Second Stage of the Bill ordered for the first day of sitting next week.
Top
Share