Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Friday, 8 May 1925

Vol. 11 No. 11

DÁIL IN COMMITTEE. - MOTION FOR JOINT COMMITTEE.

Major COOPER

I beg to move:—"That it is expedient that the Shannon Electricity Bill, 1925, be referred to a Joint Committee of the Dáil and Seanad consisting of four members of each House."

I would like to say, in the first place, that this is, I believe, the constitutional method, and the method contemplated by the Standing Orders for the consideration of a Bill, which requires consideration in great detail. It is, I think, the method Deputy Johnson referred to when he spoke on Deputy Heffernan's amendment, and I hope possibly I may have Deputy Johnson's support in this. I want to make it quite clear that this motion is not intended either as a delaying or a destructive motion. I hope the Minister will take my word for that. If I may say one word on the Minister's plea for the urgency of this scheme which he made to-day, because I cannot help feeling that the plea in the form in which he made it may unintentionally raise false hopes, there is nothing more unwise or cruel than to raise false hopes in the minds of the unemployed, and I think that people reading what the Minister said to-day about the President turning the first sod and about labour being given assistance might be misleading.

If Deputies will look at page 65 of the Siemens-Schuckert scheme they will see that the employment of the full amount of labour under that scheme is dependent upon the erection of houses for the workers employed, and unless these houses are built the 1,400 workmen to be employed on the powerhouse, the dams and so on cannot receive employment. Now, unless Siemens-Schuckert people have amongst their stock of electric lamps a lamp of Aladdin these buildings cannot be raised by a wave of the hand. There will be employment given in the building of houses, but that industry is not the one in which most unemployment prevails. No doubt there will be employment in the unloading of machinery, carting, and so on, but the employment of the 1,400 employees contemplated by the scheme cannot be given in three or four months. I put that because I want the Minister, if possible, to dispel any false hopes that may have been raised.

I do not consider this motion of mine would delay this matter at all. Considering the claims that there are and the demands that are made upon the Dáil, I believe that a committee sitting from day to day to consider the Bill will get through it more quickly than if it was depending on competition with various other measures in the Dáil. I believe that the discussion would be more detailed and more satisfactory because as Ministers and Deputies know in debates in Committee of the Dáil two or three points are singled out upon which there may be long and heated discussions, and a great many sections to which no amendments are drafted go through without any discussion at all.

I believe that for a Bill of this kind, which is a business Bill, the method of a small number of people, sitting round a table asking questions and getting answers, is a more satisfactory method than a method of rhetorical debating. I think that advantage is enhanced when we come to associate members of the Seanad with ourselves in considering the Committee Stage, and that that Committee Stage would cover both the Seanad and the Dáil. There ought to be a substantial saving of time there. If the committee is properly representative of the Dáil and the Seanad both Houses will accept its finding and there will be a saving of the time that would be lost in discussion if the Bill is dealt with here, and if the Seanad makes amendments unacceptable to the Minister, and the buffeting of these amendments between the two Houses, with the possible risk of the Bill being held up. But I recognise if such a joint committee is to be any good it must be set up with the general good will and acquiescence of the Dáil and the Seanad. If such a committee is set up as a result of a narrow majority it will be worse than useless. Its conclusions will be all hashed up again, reiterated, and argued over again when the Report Stage is reached. That is not what I ask, and it is not what anybody desires, and if I find there is not substantial agreement on this motion I do not wish to press it.

I urge the Minister to consider if he will not have his Bill discussed, and possibly amended, under the more satisfactory condition in the calm atmosphere of the Committee Room rather than in the heat of debate in the Dáil.

Professor THRIFT

I second the motion. In doing so, I only say that I entirely agree with the Deputy that it will be likely to save time and get a better discussion of the Bill.

The PRESIDENT

I asked for permission, just before the Second Reading was concluded, to make a short statement, in reference to a publication which came into my hands, for the first time, to-day at the sitting of the Dáil. The title is, "Further Notes on the Siemens-Schuckert Shannon Power Scheme," and the author is given here as Senator Sir John Purser Griffith. There are just two pages to which I wish to direct the attention of the Dáil. One is page 4, and the other page 6. I will take page 6 first, and I will read just two extracts.

I greatly regret the course taken by the Government in this matter, for I believe such dealings with contractors, no matter of what exalted repute, are radically wrong, and open the gates to corruption of the worst possible kind. Those of us who were engaged in an attempt to develop the water-power resources of the River Liffey were face to face with this danger, and were approached by first-class contracting and financial firms. And the other paragraph reads:—

The Government appear to be committed to and to stake their existence on the Siemens-Schuckert Shannon Power Scheme, and have by the aid of their pledged supporters obtained large support from the Dáil. "The Irish Statesman," in its issue of the 11th April, 1925, referred to this legislation as "esoteric legislation— in other words, "secret legislation" or "secret diplomacy." It is reasonable to ask why should there be anything secret in this transaction. It is important, if possible, for the credit of all concerned, that the origin of the German firm's connection with the Shannon scheme should be cleared up.

Now, here is the punch.

"Were there political obligations to be fulfilled?"

And it goes on to say:—

As far as is known, the first step in this deal was taken by the German firm.

There is an explanation subsequently of a statement I made here in answer to a question by Deputy Figgis, as to whether the promoters of one of the Liffey schemes or two of the Liffey schemes had been told to go on. I think his question was: "Had we at that time been in communication with any representatives of Siemens-Schuckert?" In order to prove that there had been no such communication with any of their representatives, I gave some extracts from the diary in my office, not having kept a diary myself about this, or in fact about any other matters. There is a question asked here: "Were there political obligations to be fulfilled?" There were not; there are not and there will not be. That is my answer to that. It is an objectionable method of criticism or of a comment. It is a method that has not been practised since the inauguration of the Saorstát. I hope that we will hear and see no more allegations such as this. If there be an allegation in that it is a baseless allegation. The other portion of it, read in conjunction with that, is discreditable to any member of the Oireachtas to be published under his name, and I regret exceedingly that a man who stands so high in public estimation should allow his name to be put to a document having such useless and baseless allegations as are contained there. Further, I say that having read the document from beginning to end, which unfortunately occupied most of my time from the hour the Dáil met to-day, one reads nothing but condemnation of the Shannon scheme. I want to be perfectly candid about the matter. The condemnation of the Shannon scheme is by a person who failed to get a smaller scheme through this Oireachtas. That is all I have to say about it; he is not a good judge, I should say.

Mr. McGILLIGAN

With regard to the motion that the Committee Stage be taken before a Joint Select Committee of both Houses, I must object to it. I do not think it would lead to a speedy passing of the Bill. I do not think that the Bill is of such a nature to call at all for reference to Joint Select Committee. The Bill is a very plain, open Bill that can be discussed here. It is quite short. Deputy Gorey on behalf of the Farmers' Party has welcomed and expressed himself as satisfied on the details in the general fixing of compensation and acquisition of land. I think that a Bill such as the Industrial and Commercial Property Protection Bill which deals with very technical matters that I do not think any single Deputy or Minister could be expected to talk on freely without notes, is one that should go before a Joint Committee or a Select Committee. But this Bill is straightforward in its provisions and it need not occupy much time going through this House and no time will be gained by setting up a Joint Committee.

There is a further objection to it. If we pass this resolution and the Seanad refuses to accept it the whole thing lapses for six months and the Bill with it, and I am not going to run that risk of an adverse vote in the Seanad by which the whole progress of the measure might be held up for six months.

Major COOPER

The Minister will believe me when I say that that was not my intention. I was not trying to obtain that. As a matter of fact I am in favour of this scheme. I have no sympathy with many of the criticisms directed against it. I myself believe that cheap power is in this century what cheap coal was in the last century, a century of industrial development. Least of all have I sympathy with any of the criticisms the President read out to us here. It may be misunderstood that, because the President spoke to my motion, he was associating me with those criticisms.

The PRESIDENT

Let me assure Deputy Cooper that I had no such intention. I did not think it was fair to the Minister to have intervened after the very fine statement that he did make on the Second Reading. It may not have been fair either to Deputy Cooper, but as he is a soldier I know that he will take hard knocks better than the Minister.

Major COOPER

Having extracted that compliment, I can hardly be less than satisfied. With regard to the line of criticism adopted in that pamphlet, which I am not responsible for, and which I am not sure I have ever seen— I think I got it, but I did not read it— I have never taken and I refuse to take the line of criticising this scheme because it is a German scheme. I want to be able to use the best brains of Europe and of the world in this country. I want no country excluded and I want every country to be welcome on its merits. As I said in moving this motion, it was a motion which could only succeed with the general good-will of the House. I gather from the Minister's statement that his party are not prepared to give that good-will, and therefore. I will withdraw, with Deputy Thrift's permission.

Professor THRIFT

I quite agree.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Committee Stage ordered for Friday, 15th May.