This clause does call for the payment out of State funds for specific purposes, namely, for the making of provision for the rebuilding of the lines and the restoration of wagons or engines that may have been destroyed as a result of the destructive policy engaged upon and that has been going on since last June or July. I want, in any agreement made, where Irish funds are being paid over to any railway magnates, that the purpose for which the money is paid out will be made quite clear before any of that money is paid; that it will be spent in this country and not in English workshops. We also want to have it made quite clear that any bridges that may be rebuilt will be rebuilt so as to cope with enlarged and increased traffic, particularly over the main roads, that may arise in this country in the future. I thought it necessary to personally bring under the notice of the Minister for Industry and Commerce the failure of the Great Southern and Western Railway to rebuild any of the bridges that had been destroyed in their area since the destruction commenced last June or July. They have persistently taken up the attitude of point blank refusing to meet any request made to them by the present Government. The result of one particular instance that I have in my mind is that of a certain county boundary bridge—the company refused to reconstruct or rebuild that bridge in an area where for some time past there has been no Irregular activity; and the failure of the company to rebuild this particular bridge means that the communication between two very important towns in two different counties are cut off since June or July last. I do not know whether any of these things have been mentioned to the railway companies or their officers by the President, or any member of the Government, in discussing the terms of agreement under which these huge sums of money are to be paid to the companies. I would like, on the question of rebuilding, to know whether the question of increased traffic has been taken into consideration. I am personally aware that in many instances where destruction has been done to railway property it has been welcomed for many reasons by the railway companies themselves. We have had it in the case of railway stations where originally there existed two signal cabins. The Great Southern and Western Railway Company in restoring the damage only built one signal cabin where two originally existed. And in the case of the saving of labour, that means doing away with the position of three signalmen alone. I wonder if any saving effected in such a case as that is taken into consideration by the Government when discussing the terms of settlement.
I also particularly wish to draw the attention of the Government to the position of the future of the Irish railways arising out of a statement made in this Dáil in a Debate which occurred here on the 3rd January last. The Minister for Industry and Commerce, speaking, as he said, for the Government on that occasion, stated:—
"The future of the Irish railways has been uncertain ever since August, 1921. In the view that the country cannot afford to allow the question to drift any longer, the companies have been informed that if they do not produce an agreed scheme of grouping such as the Government can approve within three months from the 1st January, 1923, legislation will be introduced with the object of bringing about unification within a period of six months from that date. Such legislation would require to include provision for dealing with rates, fares and charges, with machinery for avoiding disputes and for consultation with the employees on matters concerning them, and with many other matters on which existing legislation is not adequate or satisfactory." [Official Report—January 3rd, 1923—Col. 433].
Now that undertaking expires at the end of the present month, and probably before the passing of this Bill or any other Bill as makes provision for the payment of monies out of State funds, will become operative. I want to make sure that any money voted to Irish railway companies will not be utilised on or after the 1st of April for legalising an agreement which would make the port of Dublin a third rate port, in place of what it should be—the principal port in the country. I warn the Government that agreements have been made, and some have been signed, which if approved of would make Dublin a third rate port.
We have, from previous knowledge and experience, seen what occurred in the case of the British Government when a sum of three million pounds was voted away under the Claims and Settlement Bill for the specific purpose of deferred maintenance. If you read the reports of the recent annual meetings of the Irish railway companies, you will see that this money was set aside for the purpose of maintaining pre-war dividends, instead of using it for the purpose for which it was voted—namely, to make provision for deferred maintainance. I warn you to see that any money you are going to vote away for a certain specific purpose under this Bill will not be used for a different purpose altogether, as happened in the case I have just referred to. I also wish to bring under the notice of the Government the question of having an understanding with the railway companies, when agreement is arrived at, as regards making reasonable and suitable provision for the dependants of those who have been killed or injured in carrying on essential railway services since June or July last. It has been stated to me that railway companies are responsible to the dependants of those who have been killed or injured under the provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Act, but, I put it to the Dáil that men who have been doing this particular class of work under extraordinary difficulties should be provided for under the terms that are more satisfactory than the provision made for them under the Workmen's Compensation Act. I also wish to draw the attention of the President and the Government to the fact that the railway companies have very reluctantly agreed, and in most cases have refused altogether, to open up any works that have been closed down since this war started in June or July last. They are going around the country with an economy stunt which, under very abnormal conditions, means, as you know, the cutting down of labour, and the cutting down of all classes of expenses, and you have this at a time when conditions are not normal, and when such things should not be going on. I have been told, but I cannot say it is exactly true, that they have received such instructions from the Government. I hope the statement is not correct. I move the deletion of the clause, because, as I have stated, there has been no reasonable explanation given to the Dáil, or to the people, as to the terms of the agreement under which we are asked to vote away huge sums of money. I hope, before this clause is passed by the Dáil, that a reasonable explanation will be given to the Dáil and the people who will be called upon to pay the huge sums of money voted out of the public funds.
