I move:—

Section 3, page 2, line 39.—To delete the words and figures "the 31st day of December, 1925," and to insert in lieu thereof the words and figures "the 16th day of March, 1925."

I might say that while those amendments look formidable they mean nothing, in so much as they are a substitution merely of dates. This Bill should have gone through all its stages in December last, and the dates have to be changed in every instance.

I move:—

Section 4, sub-section (2).—Page 2, lines 51 and 52, to delete the words and figures "8th day of January, 1925," and to insert in lieu thereof the words and figures "19th day of March, 1925."

I move:—

Section 5.—Page 3, lines 4 and 5, to delete the words and figures "12th day of January, 1925," and to insert in lieu thereof the words and figures "31st day of March, 1925."

Senator Moran will have to show me how this amendment to Clause 6 is covered by the title of the Bill.

In the Bill there is a clause whereby the sitting members will continue in office until an election. The sitting members, being now out of office, having had to retire in January, are all disqualified, and the only way to substitute an amendment for that is by co-opting these members. It is a case of Alec and Alexander. There is no difference between one and the other. There is practically no change in the Bill.

In view of your previous ruling I respectfully submit that you cannot accept this amendment, because this proposes to introduce into the Bill powers that were not previously enjoyed; and therefore, with all respect, as you prevented me from discussing the qualifications necessary to the members, I submit that this is new matter and that you cannot accept it. It is a question of taking power to co-opt members of the Board.

It is not quite a correct description. I would have great difficulty in accepting this amendment at all had it not been that on looking at Clause 6 I find the following:—

"The seven elective members of the Board who would go out of office on the second Thursday in the month of January in the year 1925 under sub-section (5) of Section 7 of the Principal Act shall, notwithstanding the provisions of that sub-section, continue in office until the second Thursday in the month of February in the year 1925 and shall then go out of office."

The amendment is simply an alternative to that.

I suggest that Clause 6 of the Bill is only a putting-back of dates, and that the amendment now proposed is a taking of new powers.

I think Senator Moran had better explain this amendment a little more fully to me and to the House.

The position is simply as set out in the original Bill. In the original Bill, it was provided that the sitting members should remain in office until the election came on, when they would retire and could offer themselves for re-election. If re-elected, they would come back to office. That is now rendered impossible, owing to the fact that the Bill did not get through in December and that these seven members had to retire on the first Thursday of January. They are, consequently, disqualified now, and the only way we could get those members back, so that we could function between now and April, would be by co-option instead of, as was proposed in the original Bill, their remaining in their respective positions.

The clause that you suggest does not propose to coopt these seven gentlemen. It proposes that you should elect any persons you think fit to fill their places.

It was the seven people who retired that it was intended to coopt.

There is no fear of any others getting in.

The amendment states:—

The Board may appoint such persons (being persons qualified under the principal Act to be traders' representatives or shipping representatives, as the case may require) as the Board thinks fit...

That amendment does not state that the Board shall appoint any particular persons or the persons who previously held office. What the amendment provides is that the Board may appoint seven persons, who may be such persons as they think fit, provided they are qualified, either as traders' representatives or as shipping representatives.

The intention was that the outgoing members—the members who were disqualified—would be coopted and remain in office until the elections would take place in April.

Would it not have been quite easy to put that into your new clause?

I am quite agreeable to have that inserted in the clause.

The Senator could draw up a new clause to that effect and it could be inserted on Report.

I am quite prepared to do that.

Perhaps the Seanad, under those circumstances, and in view of the Senator's undertaking, would allow this amendment to be withdrawn for the present. It can then be dealt with on Report. If the amendment is put in the form that the Senator suggests, I would see no objection to it on Report.

I am quite prepared to accept the change now suggested on behalf of the Board. The Board never had any other intention. It was a question of draftsmanship.

Clause 2 of your amendment states:—

The elective members of the Board who went out of office as aforesaid on the second Thursday of the month of January, 1925, shall, if qualified as aforesaid, be eligible for appointment...

It would be necessary to change the words "eligible for appointment" to "elected."

I am quite prepared to accept that now, and I would ask you to put it to the House.

You ask leave to alter your amendment by omitting the words "eligible for appointment" and substituting therefor the word "elected."

Yes.

I shall then put the amendment in its altered form.

I do not know, A Chathaoirligh, how far your ruling would preclude us from discussing this matter at all, but I propose to go on until you stop me. This amendment provides for the re-election of these disqualified members. That is really giving new powers to the Board. It is reelecting members without submitting their names to the electorate. You have ruled, A Chathaoirligh, that that is in order. The position, as far as the Board is concerned at the present time, is that the representatives of the Dublin Corporation, owing to the suppression of the Corporation, have not the right to attend there. Even when the Corporation was represented there, two shipping companies had the power, at any time, by combining, to dominate the Board and to decide the whole destiny of the Port and Docks Board, which deals with the principal port in the Saorstát.

Owing to the absence of the Dublin Corporation representatives, the business is absolutely and entirely in the hands of the shipping representatives. I would suggest to the promoters of this Bill that they might have sought powers to appoint representatives of the citizens generally in place of the members of the Corporation, or, as was suggested in the other House, that they might leave it to the Parliamentary representatives of the City and County of Dublin to nominate representatives of the citizens and of the national interests in place of the Dublin Corporation members, until such time as the Corporation is re-established. The position is extremely unsatisfactory in view of the very honest attempt which I believe is being made to develop the tourist traffic in Ireland. Like the old Royal Dublin Society, if the Port and Docks Board can be justly charged with being a monopoly or a bureaucracy confined to a narrow and archaic franchise——

You are getting very near the stage where I must intervene now.

I would appeal to them to take a lesson from the fate of the Royal Dublin Society, and not to wait for a national upheaval before they are induced to alter their constitution. Of their own free will and in the interests of the nation, they should try to alter the present basis of representation on the Port and Docks Board.

I want the House to understand that my ruling is consistent, and I want to explain what the position is. It appears now, as stated by Senator Moran, that the seven elective members of the Board, owing to the fact that this Bill did not get through in the time anticipated, are not eligible to attend, and in order to meet that difficulty and to enable these gentlemen to take their places, this amended section has been introduced. I pointed out that in its present form the amendment does not do that, but that it reserves the right to the Board to put in the places of these gentlemen any seven gentlemen they think fit, provided they have the necessary qualifications. Senator Moran has seen the substance of that objection, and he has agreed that the amendment should be confined to giving power to the Board to put these seven gentlemen back in the places they would have occupied had this Bill gone through before the adjournment. For that purpose it will be necessary, not merely to change the words which I have indicated should be changed, but to alter the first paragraph of the amendment as well. That paragraph at present says:—

The Board may appoint such persons... as the Board thinks fit to fill the places on the Board of the elective members of the Board...

It will be necessary to leave out "such persons as they think fit," because that would be inconsistent with the concluding paragraph as amended. What I want to make certain is that this amendment gives no power to do anything except to restore the seven gentlemen to office who filled these places before.

I cannot, A Chathaoirligh, understand your ruling on this question.

I cannot allow you to say that. That is not my fault.

I think I am at liberty to express my opinion on this amendment. In view of the fact that this new amendment which you suggest means that you are going to give new powers to this Board—powers that they had not got before—it certainly is introducing new matter.

I do not suggest that. The Bill itself asks for it under clause 6. All I pointed out to the Senator was that the clause in the form in which he wishes to amend it, does not carry out the specific purpose he mentioned, because it asks for power to nominate such persons as they think fit whilst their object is to nominate certain particular gentlemen. I pointed out that if that is the object, it could be accomplished in the way I mentioned.

On a matter of order, might I point out that there is no urgency in regard to this Bill, seeing that it is being amended and that the other House will not meet until 3rd February. I think this amendment should be withdrawn by leave of the House, and I would respectfully suggest that the Port and Docks Board should not leave it to the Cathaoirleach to draft their measure for them.

I do not think that is quite worthy of you, Senator, because I have gone out of my way in the case of any member of the Seanad to assist him on any question of doubt or difficulty as to amendments.

I did not mean to be disrespectful or discourteous, but I do suggest that the members of the Port and Docks Board should relieve you of the difficulty of re-drafting a Bill for them, by withdrawing it and bringing it up at the proper stage.

Time after time I have ventured to suggest to Ministers certain amendments in their amendments and in their Bills, and I have never heard any suggestion in the Seanad that I was unduly favouring Ministers or doing anything to lend colour of any sort or kind to the idea that I was prejudiced in any shape, make or form. My sole purpose is to help members of the House in any difficulty.

This is a very contentious measure. That is the reason that I think the position is not quite the same as if it were a non-contentious measure and there was a desire for the assistance of the Chair. Now, sir, you helped the promoters of the amendment while we are not allowed to discuss it. You will observe, sir, there is some difference in that.

It would be open to Senator Moran to withdraw this amendment and bring it up on the Report Stage.

I have already stated this is a matter of urgency, and I do not think the gentlemen on the Labour benches are doing their fellows very much service——

We are the best judges of that.

Let us not introduce any contentious matter into the discussion of this non-contentious Bill. You are going to satisfy me that it is a contentious Bill.

No, I will not. We ask for nothing——

Only a monopoly.

No monopoly.

I cannot allow this cross-fire between members of the Seanad. They must address their observations to me.

As far as this Bill is concerned, as everybody who looks into the matter knows, we want nothing except to keep the machine working. And to keep it working we want those seven men.

Is it not a fact that by reason of your introducing an amendment into your own Bill it must necessarily go back to the other House? The other House, I am told, is not meeting until the 3rd February. If that is so you cannot hope to get the Bill through before that date. Would it not, therefore, be better for you, in deference to the expressed wishes— moderately expressed, if I may say so —of the Labour Party in the Seanad to withdraw this amendment and bring in a new amendment so that they may have time to consider it on the Report Stage?

With the leave of the House, if that is your request, sir, I beg to withdraw the amendment.

I do not want it to be said that you did it on my advice.

My anxiety and the anxiety of the Board is to be in a position when the Dáil meets to have everything ready for them.

You can do all that on the Report Stage.

I beg to move:—

Section 6, sub-section (2), page 3, to delete all to the word "shall" in line 20, and insert in lieu thereof the following words:—

"(3) The places of the members of the Board who went out of office on the second Thursday in the month of January, 1925, shall on and after the fourth Thursday in the month of April, 1925."

I beg to move:—

Section 6, sub-section (2), page 3, to delete in line 26 the word "February," and to insert in lieu thereof the word "April," and to delete in that line the word "second," and to insert in lieu thereof the word "fourth."

I beg to move:—

"Section 7, page 3. To delete the section."

That section has become unworkable by reason of the delay, I suppose?

Yes, by reason of the delay.

I beg to move:—

"Section 8, page 3. In line 37 to delete the figures ‘1924' and to insert in lieu thereof the figures ‘1925.'"

I beg to move:—

"Title, page 2, line 9. To delete the word ‘in' and to insert in lieu thereof the word ‘for.'"

I beg to move:—

"Title, page 2, line 10, before the word ‘for' to insert the words ‘to make special provisions.'"

I beg to move:—

"Title, page 2, line 13, after the word ‘revision' to insert the words ‘and for the appointment by the said Board of qualified persons to supply for a limited period the places of certain retired members of the said Board.'"

That will need to be altered in view of the previous alterations.

That requires to be altered to: "and for the appointment by the said Board of certain qualified persons."

I beg to move amendment 12: "Title, page 2, in lines 13, 14 and 15, to delete the words ‘for a limited period the retirement of certain members of the said Board and,' and to insert in lieu thereof the words ‘to a date in the year 1925,' and to delete in line 16 the words ‘to supply their places.'"

The result of Amendment No. 11, just passed today, has been to some extent to alter the scope and purpose of this Bill. Therefore, on the Report Stage it may be open to Senators to make observations which would be relevant to the particular new matter introduced. As regards that, we can wait until the Report Stage is reached.