Seanad Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 18 Feb 1925

Vol. 4 No. 11

PRIVATE BUSINESS. - DUBLIN UNITED TRAMWAYS (OMNIBUS SERVICES BILL), 1924. REPORT STAGE.

Mr. DOUGLAS

I move:—

"That the amendments recommended at Par. 4 (i) and (ii) of the Report of the Joint Committee on the Dublin United Tramways (Omnibus Services) Bill, 1924, recommitted, be adopted."

These two amendments were moved by me, formally, when the Bill came on for the Report Stage in the Seanad, in accordance with the Standing Order relating to Private Bills recommitted for consideration. The Committee have somewhat altered the amendments. I move that the Seanad agree with the recommendation of the Joint Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

Mr. DOUGLAS

I move:—

To add to Section 8 (as amended) the following:—

"Provided that the Company shall perform with respect to the omnibuses run by it under the provisions of this Act, all such services in regard to the conveyance of mails as the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs is entitled to require from it with respect to its tramways under Section 24 of the Dublin United Tramways (Electrical Power) Act, 1897, and the provisions of Section 2 and Section (5) (1) first paragraph of the Conveyance of Mails Act, 1893, shall apply to the said omnibuses in the same manner as if such omnibuses were tramways within the meaning of the said Act."

I would like to explain briefly why this amendment is in a different position from the other amendments which have just been inserted by the Seanad. This amendment was made on behalf of the promoters, after consultation with the Ministry of Posts and Telegraphs, and was brought before the Committee when it met for the purpose of reconsidering the Bill in respect of two amendments that were moved in the Seanad on the Report Stage. The Committee felt a difficulty, in so far as their definite terms of reference were only to consider amendments which had been referred back to them. At the same time, as is set out in portion of the report, they decided to recommend these amendments. Subject to your opinion, it seems to me that the Committee in so doing went outside the terms of reference and outside their powers, and that it would not be desirable for many reasons, if, in future committees were considering Private Bills, that they should adopt this course, which would leave it open for amendments to be moved that had not been considered by the House. That, I think, would not be a desirable procedure. In view of the fact that we are aware that the Committee has approved of this amendment, and as it is one of substance, placing upon the Tramways Company certain duties towards omnibuses, I think the Seanad might consider it wise to insert it without going through the formality of referring the Bill back to the Committee.

AN CATHAOIRLEACH

I am glad Senator Douglas has called attention to this as, while in the present case the irregularity, in view of the facts mentioned, is insignificant, it would not be at all right that an irregularity of this kind should pass without recognition, as it might serve and be relied upon as a precedent for the future. After a Bill has been discussed fully on the Report Stage the Committee Stage is then, presumably, over, but it might happen, if anything is introduced on the Report Stage which was not originally in the Bill, that the Seanad or the Dáil might like to insert it, in which case there is power to recommit the Bill. That was done apparently in this case in regard to the two amendments that have already been passed, but the Bill was not recommitted in respect of this particular amendment which had never been before the Seanad and was never considered by it. The Committee, therefore, in considering and inserting it undoubtedly exceeded their powers. I have no hesitation in saying that. At the same time, I think, under the circumstances that the Seanad would be well advised, as it is a pure formality, to apply to the omnibus portion of the tramway system the same obligation that applies to the tramway system itself, and to agree to the suggestion made by Senator Douglas.

Mr. BARRINGTON

As a member of the Committee might I explain that this amendment, as you rightly say, was not before the Seanad when the Bill was referred back to the Committee. It is an amendment that was suggested by the Ministry of Posts and Telegraphs and the Committee, I think rightly, came to the conclusion that it was not within their power to insert it in the Bill. They did not do so, but they passed a resolution approving of it. They found no objection to its insertion in the Bill.

Mr. DOUGLAS

That is correct. There is a note in the report recommending its insertion.

AN CATHAOIRLEACH

The irregularity was in considering it at all.

Mr. BARRINGTON

They did not consider it; they recommended it.

AN CATHAOIRLEACH

They did more than that; they passed a resolution approving of it.

Dr. GOGARTY

In view of the fact that the Committee only reported one or two days ago I think this procedure of accepting amendments is highly irregular. It might be said by the Tramways Company if this amendment was made compulsory that they have suffered a loss. I move that we ignore the amendment.

AN CATHAOIRLEACH

I think you are making a mistake. The position is this, that this amendment was not before the Committee at all. It was a Government amendment, and the point was overlooked at previous stages of the Bill. It was only when it went back to the Committee that the Government discovered that they had omitted to provide for powers in regard to this extension of the tramway system. They have these powers over the tramways as such. When the Tramways Company, by this Bill, was getting extended powers to run omnibuses it became necessary for the Government to have this amendment inserted in order that these Governmental powers should extend over the whole system as enlarged.

Dr. GOGARTY

In other words, the Government is adopting an irregular procedure to mend its own hand.

Mr. DOUGLAS

I am afraid that the Senator is under a misapprehension.

Dr. GOGARTY

That is why I am speaking, because this is full of misapprehensions, not only to me, but, I think, to all Senators.

Mr. DOUGLAS

I am afraid the Senator is under a misapprehension with reference to the procedure adopted with regard to Private Bills. I am only acting in the case of these Bills in the capacity of Leas-Chathaoirleach of the Seanad, and I am not going to argue as to their merits or otherwise. I would like to point out that the amendments which the Seanad has already inserted, and even this amendment, have already been before the Joint Committee of both Houses which inquired into the matter, and it is in order to prevent the insertion in the dark of any amendment in the case of a Private Bill that our Orders provide that they are to be referred back. The only reason why it is suggested that this particular amendment might be inserted without being formally referred back is because the Joint Committee have actually recommended it.

Mr. BARRINGTON

When before the Joint Committee, the representatives of the Tramways Company saw no objection to the insertion of this amendment.

Amendment put and declared carried.