Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 19 Apr 1923

Vol. 3 No. 5

STATUTORY UNDERTAKINGS (CONTINUANCE OF CHARGES) (No. 2) BILL, 1923—SECOND STAGE.

Mr. J.B. WHELEHAN (Assistant Minister for Industry and Commerce)

The Minister for Industry and Commerce has asked me to move the Second Reading of the Statutory Undertakings (Continuance of Charges) (No. 2) Bill, 1923. An Act was passed on the 16th February, 1923, and was limited in operation to the 31st May, 1923. It is now proposed to extend the operations of that Act to the 31st December of this year.

In introducing the previous Bill it was explained that it applied to:—Tramways, Harbours, Docks and Piers, Canals and Inland Navigations.

The names of the particular undertakings affected by the Act are given in the Schedules.

The charging powers of these undertakings are in each case fixed by the special Act of Parliament by which they were authorised. These charging powers are based on the cost of supervision, materials and labour in a period before the European War, and at the end of that War were found to be insufficient to meet the cost of carrying on the undertakings. Accordingly, various Acts were passed by the British Parliament enabling the Minister of Transport, by Order, to authorise, temporarily, increases in the charging powers, and all these Orders were due to expire on or about 15th February last.

Since the conditions which made it impossible for the undertakings to carry on with the maximum charging powers authorised by their Special Acts of Parliament still existed it was necessary that the right to make temporarily increased charges should be extended.

The Act passed by the Oireachtas on 16th February last authorised an extension to 31st May next, and this Bill authorises a further extension to 31st December next.

The Bill which is now before the Deputies provides:—

(a) in the case of Harbour and Tramways specified in the First and Second Schedules to the Bill that the Orders now in operation which enable temporary increased charges to be made shall continue until the end of the year unless revised in accordance with the procedure laid down in the Acts under which the Orders were originally made.

(b) In the case of the Canal undertakings specified in the Third Schedule to the Bill that the Orders now in operation shall continue until the end of the year with a provision that any such Orders may be revised in the same way as an Order relating to a Harbour or Tramway undertaking.

The General effect of these Orders was as follows:—

Charging Powers of Harbour Authorities raised from 40 p.c. to 100.

Charging Powers of Tramway Authorities raised up to 100 p.c.

Charging Powers of Canal Authorities raised up to 120 p.c.

There is no immediate prospect of undertakings covered by the Bill being able to revert to the scale of charges in operation before 1914.

The procedure for revising the effect of the Orders is much the same whether it is a Tramway, a Harbour or a Canal undertaking that is in question. The Minister may, and if requested by the undertakers or a representative body of users or a Local Authority must, refer to a body known as the Rates Advisory Committee for advice as to whether he should issue a further order revising charges. The Minister considers the report of the Committee and has a discretion as to what Order he will make.

The Rates Advisory Committee, should it be necessary to set one up, consists of five persons, a Chairman experienced in law, two representatives of trading and agricultural interests, one of transportation and one of labour. A sixth member may be appointed if the Minister thinks it necessary.

The object of the Bill is, shortly stated, to enable the undertakings to which it applies to carry on their services with their present charging powers up to the end of the year, with a provision enabling these charging powers to be revised at any time within that period if it proves necessary.

MINISTER FOR LOCAL GOVERNMENT (Mr. E. Blythe)

I beg to second the motion.

Mr. GAVAN DUFFY

I trust that this Bill will not be allowed to go through without further explanation. There are several specific matters which I would like to bring to the attention of the very able Assistant Minister, and upon which I hope he will be able to satisfy this Dáil. I do object to a Bill of this kind being treated in a perfunctory manner, and I do object to its going through as a matter of course. Before I come to the question I had in mind, let me draw attention to one curious point. This Bill is described as a purely temporary affair. But the Irish title of the Bill suggests that it is to be perpetual. The word "Buanú" is used. I have consulted one of the best experts in the Irish language in this Dáil, and he bore out the impression that the word "Buanú" has a very definite meaning, and that it is only by a very considerable straining of language a word which involves perpetuation could be construed to mean merely continuance. But that is by the way——

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

It is very much by the way.

Mr. GAVAN DUFFY

Now the Dáil will observe the same word was used in the case of the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill, which also professed to be temporary. The Dáil will also observe that we are dealing here with 12 or 15 important public bodies, and the schedule refers to various statutory Orders. I want to submit to the Dáil that it is wrong for Deputies to pass a measure of this kind without knowing exactly what they are passing. We have no library in the Dáil. That is not the fault of the Ministry, nor is it the fault of the Deputies, but so long as we have no library it is difficult for members to have access to documents referred to in a schedule of this kind. I am sure it will be agreed that when a document referring to Statutory Orders is brought before this Dáil by way of a Bill, these Statutory Orders should either be circulated to the Deputies, or, where it is more convenient, another course should be adopted, and they should be placed in the reading room for Deputies to refer to them if they wish. Otherwise Deputies will be voting upon a matter about which they have not the remotest idea. I am not aware that these fifteen Orders are in the Reading Room. I apprehend they are not. I think we should have an assurance that in future when a Bill of this kind is introduced, the material documents referred to shall be made available to Deputies in the Reading Room, or they shall be circulated. The Assistant Minister made one very startling statement. He told us that under the procedure which gives rise to this Bill there is prescribed an Advisory Committee, and that that Committee has the duty of inquiring into the charges made by these statutory bodies, when called upon to make inquiry by certain persons. He told us that the Bill authorises these increased charges to go on until the end of next December. And then he said that the Minister would set up a Committee should it be necessary to do so. Now, with all respect to the Assistant Minister I do not think that is the right way of looking at the matter. I am going to take one instance here, and I am going to submit that it should not be a question of waiting for the setting up of a Committee, of which we know nothing, until somebody makes a move; but that Committee should be set up before this Bill happens to pass.

I may say personally that I take exception to the English scheme of legislation under which these charges are reviewed bureaucratically. I think those who review the charges made by public bodies as described in the Schedule should be persons appointed by this Dáil. I think this Dáil should have some say in the matter; the thing should not be done by a Department, because very considerable public interests are concerned. But assuming for a moment that the English procedure would prevail, here is the point. I represent the County Dublin, and in that constituency most of my constituents, if not all of them, are very considerably interested in one of the undertakings to which this Bill refers, and that is the Tramway Company. I am not one of the people who entertain hostility towards that Company. On the contrary, I think it has often been wrongfully abused, and I think that we owe it a good deal. But on public grounds, and particularly in the interests of the citizens of Dublin City and Dublin County, I do not like to see a proposal that that Company should be allowed, until the end of the year 1923, without inquiry of any sort or kind, to continue charging the same fares which were found by the British House of Commons to be proper in the year 1920, and which were then found to be proper only after the Company had exhibited to the persons concerned in Westminster, long and detailed schedules showing the prices during 1919, and I suppose in previous years. The British House of Commons took itself seriously in the matter, and, if my information is correct, it had very detailed information before it made the Order authorising the Company to increase the charges. It may, or it may not, be that the charges were properly increased in 1920. It may, or may not, be right that these charges should remain the same throughout 1923. I do not know. My contention is that the Company should not be given authority to continue those charges by a Dáil acting in the dark. I take that particular case because it affects by own constituency. But the same thing applies presumably to other undertakings concerned. If the Minister had been able to come to us and say, "When you passed the first of those Acts I appointed a Committee and that Committee went out of its way to inquire whether the charges increased three years ago were still proper charges and satisfied itself they were," I should not have a word to say against the Bill But that is not the position. One gathers that no inquiry has been made. One gathers that the Department concerned sees no need to appoint an Advisory Committee at all.

What I would like the Minister to tell us is that he appreciates the fact that after 2½ or 3 years it is time to enquire whether or not the charges authorised in 1920 or 1921 in some cases are still proper charges. I would also like him to tell us that through an Advisory Committee, or otherwise, such enquiry will be made, and that the Ministry is not taking for granted that items which once were proper are still proper. I hope the Minister will be able to deal with that point and with the other point that I think is of some importance. That is, that the Dáil should not pass a Bill of of this kind without having accessible the documents upon which the Bill is based. In conclusion, I wish to say that I am not singling out the Tramway Company as being something particularly bad. For all I know, a great deal more might be said in respect of some of these other Companies; but I am singling out the Tramway Company because it is an obvious case where the Ministry can easily make an inquiry. I think we ought to be assured on those points before proceeding to pass the Bill.

Mr. O'BRIEN

I quite agree with what the Deputy who has last spoken has said. I think we are entitled to have a good deal more information before passing this Bill as a matter of course. When the former Bill was before us, the time over which it was to run was definitely limited, because we thought that when the time would arrive there would be a case made for considering whether or not the Bill should be further continued. This Bill is now brought in, and we have had no information as to why those charges should be automatically considered without proper investigation and inquiry. The increase in charges mentioned by the representative of the Minister for Industry and Commerce, who introduced the Bill, do not at all represent the actual increases in certain cases. The increase of 120 per cent. or 150 per cent. over pre-war, mentioned in connection with the Dublin Tramways, do not represent the actual increase, because there has been a very radical alteration of stopping places, the effect of which has been to increase the charges very much more than the figure mentioned. Also there is the point that the Directors of this Company, and capitalists generally, are continually talking about the need for reduced prices, and are saying that the cost of labour should go down. I would like to point out that in the case of the Tramway Company all the employees have had their wages reduced. We know there has been a substantial reduction in the case of materials. Recently I saw where steel rails, an item costing a very large sum of money, and used largely by this Company, have dropped in price from £30 to £10 a ton. That is a very substantial reduction, and the Minister ought to insist on going into these matters before automatically agreeing to the continuation of those increased charges. I also join with Deputy Gavan Duffy in saying that we ought to have all the documents concerning those matters submitted to us before passing this Bill finally. The Canal Company's affairs also require a good deal of investigation, and I do not think the Dáil would be well advised in continuing this temporary measure for such a long period as the 31st December. I hope the representative of the Ministry will consent to making the period a shorter one.

Mr. PETER HUGHES

I rise to support the measure. I have perhaps equally as good an interest in this matter as the representative for Dublin County has in the Tramway Company. There are two important harbours in my constituency, and if this Bill were not passed I know for an actual fact that these harbours will not be able to carry on the necessary work they are engaged in. It may be all very well for Deputies to say here that the Tramway Company of Dublin is in a position to reduce fares. I do not know whether they are or not; it does not affect me. At the same time I am convinced that if this Bill were not passed, and if people had to revert to the old charges, as far as harbours are concerned it will mean the closing up of several around the coast. I do not know if Deputies will be satisfied with such a project as that. I think it would be greatly to the detriment of the country generally. I believe that this Bill, no matter what Deputy Duffy or anybody else may say, is necessary. It is a temporary measure and as such, if it is going to be continued, it must come before the Dáil again, when it can be reviewed in a proper manner. The Bill will only extend for 8 months, and I do not think it will do anybody harm to grant that extension. In the interests of the harbours of Ireland generally I trust the Bill will pass the Second Reading and ultimately become law.

Mr. WHELEHAN

With regard to the strictures made on this Bill by Deputy Gavan Duffy, I am not a Gaelie expert and I was not aware that Deputy Gavan Duffy was. He says the word "Buanú" does not mean continuance but a perpetuation. I think that the people who made the Gaelic draft of the Bill are Gaelic experts. I understand they are; I am not one.

With regard to his request that the documents should be made available— all the documents and orders referred to in the Schedule—I agree it is right they should be made available, and we are undertaking to have them made available before the Bill is passed into Committee. As to the scope of the Bill, I would point out that I think Deputies are labouring under a misconception if they take it that we mean to continue the charges. This Bill gives us power to continue the charges or to revise them. It is not a Bill to continue them purely. It is a Bill giving the Ministry power to continue or revise the charges as the case may be. That is the power we ask. As to the case for revision, I think I stated, on representation by local authorities or by a group of users, that the Minister has no option in the matter. He must institute an inquiry and must set up an Advisory Committee, if the Advisory Committee be not already set up. Therefore if the users of the Dublin Tramway Co. consider themselves overcharged and consider that there would be no justification for the rates existing on the Tramway system, they have nobody but themselves to blame if the case for the rates be not investigated. There is one other point, and that is in connection with the Advisory Committee that was alluded to. There will be no difficulty in finding an Advisory Committee which, we hope, will be able to thoroughly investigate any cases that may be brought to the notice of the Ministry. It is for the users in the present instance to make their case so that it can be put to that Advisory Committee.

Question: "That the Statutory Undertakings (Continuance of Charges) (No. 2) Bill, 1923, be read a second time," put.

The Dáil divided: Tá, 44; Níl, 1.

Níl.

Committee Stage ordered for Wednesday week, documents to be served by Wednesday next.

Tá.Seán Ó Maolruaidh.Seán Ó Duinnín.Tomás de Nógla.Riobárd Ó Deaghaidh.Séamus Breathnach.Padraig Mag Ualghairg.Tomás Mac Eoin.Mícheál de Duram.Ailfrid Ó Broin.Domhnall Mac Cárthaigh.Maolmhuire Mac Eochadha.Liam Ó Briain.Sir Séamus Craig.Gearóid Mac Giobúin.Liam Thrift.Eoin Mac Néill.Pádraic Ó Máille.Tomás Ó Conaill.Seosamh Ó Faoileacháin.Seoirse Mac Niocaill.Piaras Béaslaí.Fionán Ó Loingsigh.

Tá.Séamus Ó Cruadhlaoich.Criostóir Ó Broin.Aodh Ó Cúlacháin.Ristéard Mac Liam.Próinsias Bulfin.Séamus Ó Doláin.Aindriu Ó Laimhín.Seán Ó Laidhin.Proinsias Mag Aonghusa.Cathal Ó Seanáin.Éamon Ó Dúgáin.Peadar Ó hAodha.Séamus Ó Murchadha.Liam Mac Sioghaird.Tomás Ó Domhnaill.Earnán de Blaghd.Uinseann de Faoite.Seán Buitléir.Domhnall Ó Broin.Domhnall Ó Muirgheasa.Ristéard Mac Fheorais.Micheál Ó Dubhghaill.

Seoirse Ghabháin Uí Dhubhthaigh.

Motion declared carried by 44 votes to 1.

Mr. GAVAN DUFFY

Perhaps the one will have the desired effect.