We are opposing this motion. The attitude taken up by the Joint Committee on Standing Orders is one that we cannot stand for. We see no reason why this particular Joint Committee on Standing Orders relating to Private Bills should not be composed in the same way and selected in the same way as other Committees of this House are selected. After all, when a Private Bill comes finally to be considered by a Committee what is it? It is supposed to be a Committee of this House. To do what? To do for a Private Bill largely what we do in Committee of the Whole House in the case of a Public Bill. It is only right that any Party in this House, particularly a Party that is over one-third of its strength, should have on the Committee examining a Private Bill a representative acting on behalf of the Party. We have no other means in the case of a Private Bill of following the details.
It has been suggested in this particular case that because some of us spoke against this particular Bill that we were, by that fact, to be excluded from being on the Committee appointed to consider it. It might as well be said that because we speak on the Second Reading of a Public Bill here, and speak strongly against it, that we should be excluded from the examination of that Public Bill on the Committee Stage. We may have made up our minds to oppose on the Second Reading the general principle of a Public Bill, but we take part in the Committee Stage of that Public Bill and oppose it finally when we think that all possible amendments that could be made to it are made. What is our object in taking part in the Committee Stage? Clearly our object is this, that if we object to a Bill, we have reasons for doing so; because we think it will be harmful in the general interest, and because we want to make it as little harmful, so to speak, and as little injurious to the public interest as possible. Therefore, we put down amendments to it and try to get them carried. The same thing holds in the case of a Private Bill. In regard to this particular Private Bill we have indicated, some of us, that on account of the general nature of the Bill we are likely to object to it even when the amendments that we think possible within the general scope of the Bill have been made. We think that, in the public interest, it is our duty to see that in the Committee Stage any amendments that can be introduced will be introduced to make the Bill as little harmful as possible. That is our position.
With regard to Private Bills in general, we therefore hold that a Committee set up to examine a Private Bill ought to be fairly representative of the House, and to get a representative committee the same procedure ought to be adopted as is adopted for other committees. The procedure in regard to other committees is that on the Selection Committee you have representatives of the different parties, and when a selection of members has to be made, representatives of the different parties nominate, and as a rule, the nominations are accepted. I do not know that it has ever been held that the Committee of Selection could not refuse to take nominations from the representatives of any party, but it has not in practice ever been done. Common sense dictates that the simplest way to get a representative committee is to have the Selection Committee representative of all parties, and to have it understood as a working rule that the nominees of the representatives on that committee of the different parties will be accepted. That is our position with regard to this particular Joint Committee. We had a representative on it, and we expected that representative when a selection was being made of members, would have the right to nominate on behalf of our Party such members as he thought would serve on that committee.
If that rule is not adopted several things are going to follow. In the first place, you are going to have members chosen who may be unable or unwilling to serve for one reason or another, so that you will have finally no guarantee that the members chosen are prepared to serve. Again, the representatives of the different parties in general will have a better knowledge of the members of its own Party who have the particular qualifications or knowledge that may make them useful members of that committee. I, for one, cannot accept the principle that this is to be a judicial committee in the ordinary sense. It can be a judicial committee only in the sense in which we are all acting in a judicial capacity judging of the public interests in this House when we vote, and in the case of a Bill of this kind that relates in general to the public interest, we believe that all parties that are interested should be represented on the Joint Committee.
There are in these Standing Orders certain safeguards with regard to Private Bills affecting certain public services. There are special regulations with regard to railways, and so on. In other words, here we have an admission in the Standing Orders that Private Bills that may impinge in any way on the general interests have to be subject to certain rules. I find no rules dealing with matters of such tremendous economic importance as banks. There are no such rules to safeguard the community as against private interests. In the case of railways we have rules to that effect. In this Bill it is essential that the public interests should be safeguarded by having members of this House who are here in a public capacity fairly represented on that Committee. Our members, for instance, would try to get certain amendments if we had representatives of our Party. If we thought them useful, in the public interests we would try to have these amendments carried, and that would do away with a considerable portion of the objection there is at present to this Bill. It will probably be argued that you have one of the Standing Orders here on these Private Bills to the effect that anybody who is personally interested in a particular Bill should not be a member of the Committee. It goes further than that by laying it down that a member from a constituency that is affected should not be represented. I for one would not stand for that principle if we were considering it from the beginning.
I think there is a very good reason why the representative of an area which is particularly affected by a Private Bill should be on the Committee. He would be only one member. Certainly that particular interest should not be predominantly represented, but I see no reason at all why, for instance, if there is a Bill dealing with some special area, say, ports and docks, or some Bill dealing with the constituency of Dundalk, the representative of that particular area should not be on the Committee.
He would have a better knowledge of the particular circumstances than other members will have, just as in this House the members who take part in the Committee Stages most actively are generally the members who evince most interest from the beginning in the Bill in question. They have made a particular study of it and have special knowledge of it. I think there is to be a good deal to be said for applying that principle to a Private Bill. I think I have indicated our attitude. I think it is in the power of the Ceann Comhairle to accept a motion for the suspension of Standing Orders in respect of any Bill if he thinks it a matter of sufficient urgency. The general principle, if the House wishes, can be discussed on another occasion, but the immediate matter can be discussed by suspending Standing Orders. If the Ceann Comhairle were prepared to accept it, I would move the suspension of the Standing Orders in relation to this particular Bill.
