The first business is the election of a Chairman.
Election of Chairman
The CLERK of the COMMITTEE
I propose that Deputy Davin act as Chairman of this Committee.
Not at all; it is a Government Party position.
I could not act in the circumstances.
I propose that Mr. Roddy act as Chairman.
I have great pleasure in seconding.
Question put and agreed to.
Deputy RODDY accordingly took the Chair.
We will now proceed to the consideration of the amendments.
I think the Committee had better understand the position. The amendments were promised for Saturday, and it was hoped then that it would have been possible to consider the Minister's amendments, and, in view of those amendments, to submit other Deputies' amendments in time for this meeting. But the Minister's proposed amendments were not distributed to any of us until 7 o'clock on Tuesday night, and I think most of the Committee did not receive them until Wednesday morning. That did not give time for any consideration of the Minister's amendments prior to sending in other amendments. Other amendments were prepared in view of the possibility of this meeting, and were submitted without consideration in the light of the Minister's amendments. Further than that, yesterday there were conversations as to the undesirability of having this meeting to-day, in view of the short time at the disposal of Deputies for the consideration of the amendments, and up to 10 o'clock last night it was not quite certain whether this meeting would be held at all. Some Deputies had gone away in the belief and with the understanding that there would be no meeting this morning, and in view of the unlikelihood of meeting—one might almost say the decision not to have a meeting this morning—consideration which was to have been given to the amendments by my friends and myself yesterday evening was not given, and therefore we are not in a position to discuss any of the amendments at all this morning.
As far as I am concerned. I was not aware of the actual extent of the amendments until I found the paper on the Table before me today. Some of the amendments only were circulated up to last night, and in the ordinary course of events they should have been received by Deputies by this morning's post, but I did not get them by this morning's post. I think that the Minister himself will see the undesirability of proceeding, in view of the circumstances which Deputy Johnson explained.
What is the actual position? When are we to report?
That is really what the whole matter turns on. This Committee is bound to report to the Dáil by to-morrow week, and last night it was represented to me that a meeting to-day would be undesirable.
For what reason?
On account of the fact that the amendments had not been circulated and that people had not time to collate one set of amendments with the other. I felt that, individually, I had no great reason for going on to-day, and I was not very anxious, provided that we could have the Committee to meet in such time as would enable us to have the report for to-morrow week. Then an examination revealed that to-morrow did not seem at all suitable to anybody. Neither did Monday of next week. Tuesday next was practically ruled out for six members of the Committee, and it would have landed me in the awkward position that such a meeting would clash with the " Patents " Bill Committee which I had previously arranged for Tuesday morning. That left Wednesday and Thursday, and to Wednesday and Thursday I found such strong objections from various members of the Committee that I was thrown back on to-day and the possibility of to-morrow. If we cannot go on to-day— and there are certain reasons against going on to-day—and if it is not thought possible to go on to-morrow I do not see how we can possibly do what we were appointed to do, that is to report back on to-morrow week. It also seems to me that the amendments that have come in are so wide in their scope that it would almost seem better to have a full Dáil discussion on them than to have them confined to a Committee. I doubt very much if this Committee would settle anything. The amendments are so conflicting that I cannot see any section putting forward amendments agreeing to a decision of this Committee, and it would simply mean that we would have the same amendments tabled for the Report Stage and that the proceedings here would, in fact, save no time. If it is possible to proceed by way of this Special Committee, as far as I have been able to discover from talking to Deputies, the only days that would suit at all for meeting are this morning and to-morrow morning. I did not canvass anybody with regard to Saturday. I consider that ruled out. It ordinarily is. But it now seems to me that we are only left with to-morrow morning.
That is the position as it appears to me also. Saturday would be out of bounds altogether as far as we are concerned, and next week, also, would be impossible. I think all view-points must be taken into consideration in considering this matter, and if we are confined to to-morrow week to report I do not see how it can be done except we meet tomorrow. If the Minister is right that we are likely to have very little agreement on these amendments and that the whole matter is likely to come up again on report, the work of the Committee would, practically speaking, be a waste of time.
As I was one of those who approached various sections yesterday regarding the matter of not going on with the amendments to-day, as the time was insufficient, I wish to confirm the statement that has been made by the Minister that late last night we found ourselves up against the position that next Tuesday and Wednesday would be most unsuitable to a number of members of the Committee. The same thing arose in the case of other members in connection with other days, and it was then felt that there was nothing else for it but to meet to-day and have a general discussion as to what ought to be done in the way of fixing a definite date on which the matter would be taken up.
We will be quite agreeable to meet to-morrow night, Saturday and Monday.
We would not.
Saturday and Monday are quite all right for Deputies who are remaining in town, but they would not be suitable for other Deputies. If there was any hope of getting through to-morrow by meeting to-morrow morning at 9.30 or 10 o'clock to 12 o'clock, I would be agreeable.
We are quite agreeable to that.
Mr. DOYLE
That is impossible.
We might be agreeable to meet, but I see no likelihood of getting through in that time.
Would it be possible to ask the Dáil to extend the time within which we have to report? Personally, I think it is quite impossible, in any circumstances, to report before next Friday, and I think we have only either to ask the Dáil to dissolve the Committee and to proceed with the Committee Stage of the Bill in the Dáil or to extend the time within which we have to report very considerably. Next week is a very bad week for the Farmers' Party, because the Spring Show will be on all the week.
I think if the Minister and the Committee look at the matter from the point of view of endeavouring to save time or saving discussion in the Dáil, if that discussion were to take place, my personal opinion is—I am putting up this suggestion without any authority or any inspiration—that the only way time can be saved is by having some sort of conference, especially in regard to the conflicting nature of the amendments to Section 4 and Section 2.
A conference between whom?
A conference between the different people, who can speak for the parties connected with the passage of the Bill. I have no authority for putting forward that suggestion, but I think it is the only way that the business can be done, especially if we are to have any regard to the question of time. For instance, in the discussion on the Bill in the Dáil the Minister accepted certain suggestions. He said, for instance, that he was prepared to put up an amendment or to agree to an amendment giving the arbitrator power to award costs to a person who would defend his case before the arbitrator. We thought the Minister would come forward with that amendment, but it does not appear to be on the list. I only got these amendments when I came into the room.
That suggested amendment was based on a hypothesis; if there was also a proviso that the applicant would either give security for costs incurred by him or where a case was brought up by a trade union, the trade union funds would be there as security. I am not in a position to bind trade union funds. I thought the amendment would come from another quarter.
We had not seen your amendments, and we did not know what to do.
We are getting away from the discussion.
As to Deputy Heffernan's two suggestions—that we should either ask the Dáil to extend the time to report back or to dissolve the Committee—I prefer the latter. The only purpose of this Special Committee was to save time. I do not know if Deputy Johnson, who put up the suggestion originally, still believes that a discussion here in Committee is going to save time.
It was not so much for saving time as it was for the purpose of getting our minds more closely together and seeing if there could not be a better Bill turned out by a closer conference than by debating it across the floor of the Dáil. I am inclined to agree, under the circumstances, with the Minister's views that the Committee is not going to be of service and that a discussion may have to take place in the Dáil in view of the amendments that have been put in. I must say, whether I was wisely advised by myself or not, that I had anticipated very much more generous amendments from the Minister than have eventuated.
The proper thing is to have a recommendation to the Dáil asking them to dissolve this Committee. I beg to move that.
I am presuming that whatever be Deputy Davin's suggestion—if it is still thought to be a suitable one to be achieved between to-day and the ordinary Committee's meeting—I do not think the Deputy meant that the Dáil should defer its legislation to a Committee consisting of myself——
No. It was with the idea of saving time that I made the suggestion. It is immaterial to me whether it is accepted or not. I have no authority for making this suggestion.
My experience is that it would not mean a saving of time. In fact, it would be the other way about.
If we could get over the question of the convenience of members and the question of the limit of time that we are allowed to report, you would get more satisfactory decisions from a small body than by having the amendments debated in the Dáil.
These decisions would not be binding.
They would be a basis for procedure if we agreed.
We will always have a minority and a majority here.
As far as I can read the amendments they are so conflicting that you are never going to have a decision here except by a majority. That would mean the same thing over again in the Dáil. It is only a waste of time, and accordingly I propose:—
" That the Special Committee is of opinion that the Railways (Existing Officers and Servants) Bill, 1926, is one which can be more suitably considered by a Committee of the whole Dáil than by a Special Committee."
That looks as if the Dáil having told us one thing, we say the other. The Dáil says that this is a Bill which can be more effectively discussed in a Special Committee and we immediately report and say " No, it can be more effectively discussed in the Dáil."
Would you say " in view of the amendments tabled?"
The motion can be so amended.
Does that mean in view of the number of amendments tabled?
No, in view of the nature of the amendments tabled.
The motion, in its amended form, would read: " That the Special Committee is of opinion, in view of the nature of the amendments tabled, that the Railways (Existing Officers and Servants) Bill, 1926, is one which can be more suitably considered by a Committee of the whole Dáil than by Special Committee."
I move that motion.
I support the motion.
Question put and agreed to.
The Committee must now decide on the form of Report which is to be made to the Dáil. I suggest the following draft Special Report:—
" 1. The Special Committee met on the 6th May, 1926, and, having taken the order of the Dáil, dated 29th April, 1926, into consideration, agreed, in view of the nature of the amendments tabled, that the above-mentioned Bill is one which can be more suitably considered by a Committee of the whole Dáil than by Special Committee.
2. The Special Committee accordingly decided to recommend that the said order referring the Bill to a Special Committee, be discharged."
I move that the draft special report be adopted as the Special Report of the Committee to the Dáil.
Motion put and agreed to.
The Committee rose at 11.40 a.m.