I beg to move:—"That Section 1 stand part of the Bill." This Section speaks for itself. Copies of the Orders, referred to in the First Schedule, have been made available for Deputies during the past week. The Section provides merely for a continuation of the charges which were found, upon enquiry, to be justifiable, subject to revision as provided for under Section 1 (5) of the Tramways Act. I beg to move the adoption of the Section.
DAIL IN COMMITTEE. - THE STATUTORY UNDERTAKINGS (CONTINUANCE OF CHARGES (No. 2) BILL, 1923. THIRD STAGE.
SECTION 1.
The several Orders specified in the First Schedule to this Act, and made under the Statutory Undertakings (Temporary Increase of Charges) Act, 1918, as amended by the Tramways Temporary Increase of Charges Act, 1920, shall, subject to the power of revision subsisting under the Acts aforesaid continue in force so long as this section shall remain in force.
I beg to move my amendment to Section 1, to delete the words "several orders," and to substitute the word "order." I move the amendment for the purpose of drawing attention to the necessity of pressing for a reduction of tram fares in Dublin. I referred to this matter on the Second Reading, because I think it is the duty of the Ministry to tackle the Tramway Co., and insist upon a revision of their fares. The fares are now at the highest point they have reached under the provisions of this Act. No reduction whatever has been made in them, and no relief of any kind has been granted to the public, though we have it on good authority that, in wages and materials, the company's expenses have gone down considerably. There has been a reduction of wages in the case of practically every employee in the company's service, while the cost of materials used by the company has also been considerably reduced. At the annual meeting of the company held some time ago, it was announced that the running expenses of the company were reduced by £39,500 for the year 1922, as against 1921. The reduction in the price of coal alone amounted to £29,000, while the substantial sum of £161,000 was brought to the Profit and Loss Account. We think it is the duty of the Minister to press upon the company that they must consider this matter. It is a charge that presses heavily upon the people generally, but especially the poor. In the case of families with a large number of children who have to travel long distances, the expense on tram fares amounts to a very considerable sum. It may be only a penny or two pence on each journey, but the total per week amounts to a big sum, and imposes a very severe tax upon families so circumstanced. We think it is the duty of the Ministry to press for a revision of these fares.
Deputy O'Brien has made a case here for the reduction of tram fares, but I am not here to defend the Tramways Co., nor am I in a position to say whether the fares should be reduced or not. Deputy O'Brien belongs to a Corporate body in the City of Dublin, and if he is of the opinion that the Tramways charges are excessive, he should move, or he should have moved, in the Corporation that an enquiry be asked for. Had he done so, and had the Corporation asked for an enquiry, we should have had no option but to set up the enquiry. If Deputy O'Brien will get the Dublin Corporation to move in the matter the enquiry shall be set up immediately, and the case for a reduction of fares shall be investigated. There will be no difficulty about that matter, but I do not think it would be fair, on the mere statement of an individual, even though he happens to be a Deputy that we should act in the matter. I am afraid I cannot accept the amendment. I think a perfectly reasonable method of dealing with the question has been provided. Section 1 (5) of the Tramways Act says: "If at any time it appears to the Minister of Transport that owing to changes in the cost of labour or material or other circumstances affecting the Tramway Co. with respect to which an Order has been made, the powers of charging affected by the Order are insufficient or excessive for the purpose aforesaid, the Minister may—
Hear, hear.
"The Minister may and if representations to that effect are made to him by the undertakers, or by the local authority or any district served by the Tramway or, in case where the Local Authority are the undertakers, by 20 ratepayers in the district, he shall refer the matter to the Advisory Committee hereinafter constituted." I think that is a reasonable method of procedure.
Will the Minister say whether it is a fact that this Advisory Committee "hereinafter constituted," does not yet exist?
Yes, I can say that. The Advisory Committee does not exist, but the Advisory Committee will exist immediately on representation being made to the Ministry.
The statement of the Minister justifies the attitude taken up by Deputy O'Brien. The Minister has power to cause an inquiry to be held, and the Minister will be the person responsible for setting up a tribunal. But the Act, under which these increased charges have been made, is about to expire. Now the Minister comes along and says "Extend the time." He does not make any case for extending the time. He says the onus for making the case for extending the time or for reducing the charges rests upon Tom, Dick or Harry I submit that the case for extending the powers of the Dublin Tramways Company for increasing their charges by 50 per cent., or any other company in these various schedules remains with the Minister. It is for him to make a case why these limitations in the old law should continue to be of non-effect, or why the increase of powers should continue. I suggest that the right course to be adopted, in regard to this clause and in regard to the schedules concerned, would be to hold over the discussion of this stage of the Bill, so that we may learn from the Tramways Co. what they propose to do regarding the reduction of charges or the extension of the stages. I think we should not proceed to pass this Bill until the Tramways Co. has given some information to the public as to what they propose to do. The report of the annual meeting would rather lead one to think that they intend to pile up reserves and values pending the expiry of the 16 years, when the Corporation will have a right to take over the undertaking at a price. If it can be shown that the profits of this undertaking have been steadily increasing, that the undertaking, as a profit making institution, is becoming more and more valuable, then I dare say a claim can be sustained for a higher market value than would normally be the case. I have no doubt that there are conditions imposed as to the price that a Corporation would have to pay if they decided to take over such an undertaking, but one knows that in such an undertaking the profit-making ability of the company is a very considerable factor in determining its value—even its scrap value.
I think every resident in Dublin is entitled to hear something from the Tramways Co. as to their intentions regarding the fares and the lengths of stages. Rather than throw the onus of appealing to an unknown tribunal, so that a case must be made against the Tramways Co., the more sensible and the easier course to adopt would be to suspend this Bill for a week or two to give the companies concerned an opportunity of saying whether they intend to pass on any of the advantages that the Chairman of the Company boasted about, or whether they intend to retain all these advantages for the shareholders. I think that is a reasonable suggestion, and that in so far as this particular undertaking is concerned, the first line in the first schedule should be deleted and consequently that the words "several orders" in Section I should be changed to "the Orders specified," that is, limiting these powers to the Cork Electric Tramways Company. It might not be necessary to refuse assent to the Bill at a later stage, provided the Tramways Co. would make known their intentions I suggest to the Minister that after the Dáil has expressed an opinion, in the course of the discussion on this amendment, that he should move the adjournment of the discussion on this Bill for, say, a fortnight, to allow the Tramways Co. to indicate what its intentions are regarding fares and stages.
There is undoubtedly a strong belief in Dublin that the Tramway charges at present are too high. During the war, when it was proposed to raise the fares, the power to do so was vested in an Advisory Committee which sat over in London. I am aware that some of the Townships believed then that the proposed new fares were too high and the stages too short, but they did not wish to go to the trouble and expense of going over to London to fight the matter out with the Advisory Committee there. I do not think that Deputy Johnson is going the right way to achieve his object. I think it would be a waste of time to ask the Dáil to constitute itself a tribunal to go into the cost, expenses and receipts of the Tramways Company. You have a method, and a very good method, already suggested.
The Advisory Committee will not now be sitting in London. It will sit here on Dublin. The statement made at the annual meeting of the Company referred to by Deputy Johnson and Deputy O'Brien and the receipts and expenditure of the Company could be put before a properly constituted Committee and could be gone into. If we put the question to the Company, as Deputy Johnson suggests, and if they send back an answer, this Dáil will not be in a position to go into the pros and cons of the matter without having all the evidence before it in connection with the working of that body. I think the Tramways Company should reduce its fares. They are too high, and I think some of the public bodies ought to move in the matter, but I do not think the method suggested by Deputy Johnson is a wise one. I think it is blocking the proper way.
I wish to take this opportunity of drawing the attention of the Ministry to the aspect of the case that affects both the employees of the Company and also the convenience of the travelling public. I have been reliably informed by the employees of the Company, and by people who use the Tramways in getting to and from their daily work, that recently the Company has considerably cut down the number of cars on certain routes, more especially on the long distance routes, their object being to cut down the running expenses of the company at the cost of the convenience of the general public. Anybody who stands at one of the waiting places from five o'clock in the evening until eleven at night can see that there is something in the complaint which I make here. I put it to the Minister that he should get into communication with the Minister for Home Affairs to see what the D.M.P. (whose duties it was hitherto to look after matters of this kind) can do to bring the Tramway Company to some realisation of their duty to the travelling public. I do not think anybody in this Dáil can say that the D.M.P. are overworked, and this being part of their necessary duty—it was under the old regime at any rate—they would serve the interests of the public by putting into operation whatever law existed regarding the question of overcrowding in the tramways.
In cases of this kind, in any case where nationalisation of the means of transport or municipal control of tramways is talked about, the Tramways Company and all such companies tell the public, through the Press, that they have such control, and how much more they as a private enterprise can do to serve the interests of the travelling and trading public than the State could do if they had control of these undertakings. I suggest that in the interests of the employees, some of whom have been thrown on the State funds, as a result of action of this kind on the part of the Tramways Co., and in the interest of the travelling public that something should be done by the Minister for Home Affairs to stop this overcrowding.
There is one aspect of the case made by Deputy Johnson with which I cannot agree. That is where he suggests the postponement of this Bill, to see if the Tramway Co. will give some undertaking that they will reduce these fares. But I find that this measure is out of date on 31st May. I am not concerned with the first Schedule.
I am with the second Schedule, and I would not like to agree to the postponement of the measure on account of the position in which it would leave some of the harbours and other works around the coast. I do think that we should not postpone this measure at all, because I know, as a matter of fact, that it would be impossible for the harbour authorities to carry on their work if this measure were postponed. Therefore, anything that Deputy Johnson suggests for the postponement of this measure would be most injurious to the country and I would have to oppose that postponement.
Deputy Johnson would place on the Minister the onus of making a case for the extension of time. If he had tried to place on the Tramways Co. the onus of making a case I should be in thorough agreement with him.
That is what I want to do.
At the present moment what is the position? The Act at present in force will be out of date by the 1st of June, and unless this Bill is passed the Tramway Companies, Railway Companies, Harbour and Canal Authorities will then have to revert to the pre-war rates. What I am prepared to do in the circumstances, in view of the case made by Deputy Johnson as to the Dublin Tramways Co. is to interpret the word "may" as "will." I will set up an inquiry immediately if a number of Deputies will put up the case that an inquiry should be held. But until a request of that nature is put up I do not think that I have information that would justify me in assuming that the Tramway rates in Dublin at present are so excessive, or rather that the profits of the company are so excessive, that there is a case for the company going back to pre-war rates. But I will undertake on representation from Deputies, and on facts they can submit to me that an inquiry will be set up. That is as far as I am prepared to go. I do not think that I am prepared to undertake the responsibility for the supervision of police duties which Deputy Davin asked me to do.
I asked you to get in touch with the Minister for Home Affairs.
Will the Minister say how many Deputies he will consider sufficient to be a number for that purpose?
You will find that out on the division.
If Deputy Magennis would suggest how many members of the Dublin Corporation would equal one Deputy in this Dáil, perhaps I might be in a position to say. I think the number will be found reasonable.
Does the Minister mean by a number a majority of the Dáil?
Certainly not.
I take it the only way to find the number is by a vote.
It seems to me that the Minister has taken up a very reasonable attitude in view of the wording of the Act of Parliament. These Orders will cease to operate in a few days unless the Dáil renews them, and in order to prevent the comparative chaos that would ensue it is necessary to keep them continuing. But then from the point of view of the citizen injuriously affected by their continuance the matter presents itself in quite a different manner to what it does to the citizen who is trying to preserve the ordinary continuity of Sta tutory Orders. Would it not occur to the Minister before the Legislative Assembly proceeds to keep these in being that a petition should come from the bodies interested to have them continued? There is no evidence adduced, as far as I can see, that these companies plead that they are now under such disabilities that the Legislature must come to their assistance so as to authorise additional charges. In the absence of that I would suggest that the "may" of the Act of Parliament should become almost imperative in the Minister's mind, and, watchful to see the charges shall not be continued post-war which war conditions rendered necessary, that before he asked the Dáil to continue the orders he should inquire from these bodies if they are in a position to make the case that they require the favour to be extended.
Is not the Deputy speaking to the wrong amendment? I think that is Amendment No. 3.
I am speaking to the speeches that have been made, and in a Bill of this sort with only a few Clauses and a few Schedules the principle is practically the one principle, and the same speech might be made mutatis mutandis, with a few variations of reference to the title, upon any one of the Clauses indifferently. I am speaking on the point whether or not the Dáil should be called upon to extend the period of the operations of these Orders without cause having been shown by those interested in the continuance why they should be continued. Deputy O'Brien brought forward the case of the Tramways Co. That happens to be one I am particularly interested in—more than in the canals. I pay no charges whatever on the head of canal traffic, but I do habitually pay with regard to tram fares, and I have a grievance which I will not air. I am speaking on the thing broadly. I do not want chaos produced. At the same time when the Minister is so reasonable, so willing to put his powers into operation if a number of Deputies will only give him the necessary push, then I think it my duty to speak in order to vindicate that I am a Deputy ready to give him that impulse which his lethargy requires.
Deputy Magennis seemed to think that we have not been approached by any of these bodies. The Ministry has been approached, and the case has been put up by these bodies for continuation of these charges. As the law has existed there was no reason why a public case should be put up. Of course, it is for the Dáil now to decide whether the Tramways Co. should come forward and make their case. You must remember, as Deputy Magennis has pointed out, that the charges at present enforced under the Statute cannot be legally continued after the 31st May, and I am undertaking to have an inquiry made if a reasonable number of Deputies will put up the case for the inquiry. The bodies referred to in the Orders in the various Schedules in the Bill have certainly not been slow in putting up their case for the continuance of the charges.
I would withdraw the amendment if the Minister said that from the evidence here he is satisfied there ought to be an inquiry, and would be prepared to grant it if the desire is expressed in the proper manner to him.
Do I understand the Bill to be assented to?
I think I will withdraw the amendment if the Minister is satisfied from the evidence he has had that an enquiry should be granted.
I am satisfied there is a demand for an enquiry.
Very well.
Does that mean that the Minister will concede that demand?
Yes, I will undertake that.
I withdraw the amendment.
Amendment by leave withdrawn.
I move: To replace the words "so long as this Section remains in force," line 33, by the words, "until the 31st day of August, 1923." On the Second Reading of the Bill when I took the unusual course of calling for a division, I did so because it was the most effective means open to me to call attention to two things, first the growing need for penny fares on the Dublin trams, and secondly, the shocking scandals of a Minister proposing that fares increased three years ago should automatically, as a matter of course, and without enquiry be continued indefinitely. Now, the amendment I have put down is designed to get a date fixed up to which the increased charges shall operate, and if the Minister does not like this particular date he can put in another. The Minister said the Section speaks for itself. That is just what it does not do. This particular Section is drafted by the very wily advisers of the Minister in such a way as to justify fully the Irish title of the Bill. I pointed out on another occasion that the Irish title of the Bill meant "to perpetuate" these charges, and I consulted two Ministers who are experts in the Irish language, and both of them said that that was so. The very expert translator who translated the Bill realised the little trick in this Section. What is going to happen is this—next December when the Ministry bring in an Expiring Laws Continuance Bill, they will discover that this Bill expires on the 31st December.
This Ministry——
They will put into the Bill to continue the Expiring Laws, the Statutory Undertakings Act, giving it another year's run, and by the wording which I am now objecting to, making the increased charges last as long as the Section. That would give another year's run to the increased charges, and the Dáil will know nothing about it. I put it to the Dáil, whatever the proper date should be, that a definite date should be put in here as the date to which you are going to authorise the increased charges instead of simply saying these charges are to continue as long as the Bill is in force, and giving the Tramway and other companies concerned a long lease of life of increased charges by a side wind. I am not concerned with the harbours particularly. I make a big distinction between Harbour Boards and Tramways. In the case of Harbour Boards, the great part of their expenses consists of wages, and I do not suppose these expenses have fallen very much. In the case of the Trams, as I shall have occasion to show on the next amendment, the position is quite different. If a different date is required for the harbours I have nothing to say against it. I do ask the Minister to agree, and I am glad to say he has met the case put to him reasonably, that a definite date should be put in. If he does not like my date let him suggest a better one. I do not very much mind what the actual date is.
I desire to support Deputy Gavan Duffy's amendment. If I remember, the old policy for which the Sinn Fein Party, who are responsible for the majority of the members of this Dáil being here, stood, it was that whenever an opportunity was afforded them or those who stood for the policy they advocated at the time, they were prepared to use, as far as they could, and to do all in their power to develop the resources of this country.
I look at the Clause as being an evil. This Clause gives power to make it lawful for certain charges to remain in operation until the 31st December, until a date, perhaps—I am not saying so personally— when the Minister will find himself relieved of his present responsibility. I am not looking at it from that point of view, but I realise, especially after the period through which we have passed, with the trade and commerce of the country paralysed through the destruction that has taken place, that this Government, or any other Government, is faced with a very serious problem from the point of view of trade and commerce. Rates and charges have been reduced in England, and, very significantly, rates and charges have been reduced by railway and other companies operating within and on the border of the area of the Six County Government. I think these are things that should prove to the Ministry that they have got to wake up, and if they do not they will find there is such a strong chain round their necks that they will never be able to recover the position that we held when the Treaty was signed by the Plenipotentiaries. The effect of the rates reduction in England, and by companies who carry to Free State ports is to paralyse traders in this country. I have previously stated that certain railway companies have reduced, especially so far as agricultural produce is concerned, the original increase of 120 per cent. to 100 per cent., making it possible and giving an inducement to traders, especially in the Midlands of Ireland, to develop and send their trade through Belfast Ports. That is part of the little game played by the Six County Government to try to paralyse the trade and commerce of the Free State area. The Minister is making it possible for this to be continued. I would not object so much to these things being continued if there was any tribunal, judicial or otherwise, in existence which would be able to deal with complaints from traders and others interested in the commerce of the Free State, but you are making it lawful for all these charges to continue to be piled on to the trade and manufactures of the Free State area to paralyse them. After all, you must realise that all the charges that are piled on to trade by the carrying companies are in all cases passed on to the consumer, and it is the consumer, especially if he is a man with a salary—a wage earner—of £3 or £5 a week who has to pay for all this kind of thing. If there was any indication that it was the intention of the Government to set up a Judicial Rates Tribunal, where there would be a means of appealing against the unfairness of such rates and charges, then there might be some reason for the demand made in this Clause for continuing this up to the 31st December. When this Bill was passed in its original form it was made operative up to the end of this month. I understood from the Minister at the time that it would be possible to review these things in the intervening period. Now we are told that we must carry on in the same old way until the 31st December, when, as it is quite possible, the people who ask us to do these things now will not be here to answer and to be responsible to us as to the reasons why they ask us to do so, and to explain the effect of such things upon trade and industry and commerce on every individual citizen in the Free State.
Deputy Gavan Duffy said it was a shocking scandal for a Minister to propose continuing charges indefinitely. I think it is a worse scandal to represent any Minister as proposing to do anything of the kind. Deputy Gavan Duffy must have read the Bill sufficiently well to realise that nothing of that nature is proposed in it. As to the covert intentions, which he suggests have been designed to hoodwink the Dáil, I am afraid that even there he gives the Dáil credit for very much less intelligence than I do. Deputy Davin says that the rates and charges have been reduced in England. They have, but the fact remains that in England they have adopted these very Acts up to 1925. If there be a case for the reduction of rates, that case can be made at the Inquiry which we purport to set up. We only propose taking the powers under these Acts to the end of this year, 1923.
You propose to make it lawful?
We do not propose to make the rates lawful. We propose to take power to continue or to reduce the rates; that is the purpose and intention of these Acts. It is simply giving the Ministry power to continue the present rates and set up an Inquiry to investigate whether these rates should be increased or reduced. That is all we ask, but to represent us as seeking to perpetuate charges is a scandal.
Does the Minister raise any objection to the fixing of a date?
Yes, I stand by the date in the proposed Bill.
The trouble is there is not one in the Bill.
In Section 5.
Yes, Section 5, paragraph 2.
Perhaps in view of the explanation we have heard, which is very satisfactory indeed, the Minister will use the word "may" instead of "shall." It is quite a sound proposition to take power subject to the ability to revise on the part of the Government. I am afraid, if he uses the imperative "shall," we shall have lawyers arguing on behalf of these wealthy companies that there is no alternative, and that subject to the revision would then amount to having some sort of costly disputation carried on between the Minister who would revise and the Corporation that would prefer to have no revision. I think the word "may" would cover all his requirements, not indeed that I think the word "shall" is so very objectionable.
I am not quite sure exactly as to which provision the Deputy refers.
I am sorry I was not clear in my reference.
The word "shall" occurs in line 31.
And you propose to substitute the word "may."
Yes.
I am afraid I can hardly accept the word "may."
The Law Adviser will inform the Minister that there are contexts in which the word "may" has been interpreted by the High Courts as imperative, but I do not think there is any record of "shall" being interpreted otherwise than as imperative. If it occurs to some minds that this makes it the law of the land, and that these are to be continued, and there is a possibility of making it clear to the public at large that the Dáil and the Ministry do not intend anything of the kind, but that they are required to have permission if circumstances require the thing to be done to have it done.
I would point out that these charges are made the law, subject to revision:—"The Act of 1920 shall, subject to the power of revision, continue in force so long as this Section remains in force." I do not think that we can change the word "shall" there.
I would like to point out that I have had personal experience of the truth of the explanation just given by the Minister in a case where the Great Northern Railway Company were charging different rates in different places. Their powers were put into force, and the charges were brought down accordingly.
I would point out to the Minister that the Bill itself says "it shall be lawful." I take it that these things can be done, that they are made legal until some judicial body not an Inquiry, is set up, to alter or amend the law as set out in this Bill.
I pointed out in opening that the provision for revision comes under Section 15 of the Tramways Act, 1920.
The power of revision has the force of law.
Amendment put and lost.
Question: "That Section 1 stand part of the Bill." Put and carried.
SECTION 2.
"The several Orders specified in the Second Schedule to this Act and made under the Harbours, Docks and Piers (Temporary Increase of Charges) Act, 1920, shall, subject to the power of revision subsisting under the Act aforesaid, continue in force so long as this section remains in force."
I beg to move Section 2.
I desire to commend to the Dáil the following amendment which is connected with this Section:—
Before Section 2, to insert the following further Section:—
"(1) Where it appears to the Minister that the finances of an Undertaking to which an order specified in the First Schedule to this Act applies have continued to be so adversely affected as to justify the continuance by the Undertakers of a temporary increase of charges in excess of those prevailing on the 25th day of August, 1918, it shall be lawful for the Minister, upon the application of the Undertakers, to make a further Order, authorising the Undertakers to continue to make such temporary increase of charges, not exceeding the increased charges heretofore authorised, during such period expiring on or before the 31st day of August, 1924, and subject to such conditions as the Minister shall deem just and reasonable.
"(2) An application for any such further Order shall be accompanied by such information, certified in such manner as the Minister may require with respect to the financial position of the Undertaking.
"(3) Before making any such further Order the Minister shall require the Undertakers to give public notice of the application for a further Order under this Section, specifying the manner in which, and the time within which representations may be made to the Minister, and to give a similar notice in writing to the council of each county, borough or urban or rural district within which any part of the Undertaking is situate; and the Minister shall consider any representations which may be duly made."
Possibly the Minister will be able to accept the amendment as it stands, in view of the fact that he has already removed the worst feature of this Bill, namely, the plain fact that without any assurance of inquiry we were to continue these charges. He has removed that and promised an inquiry. The amendment as drawn will give him the opportunity of having that inquiry in a way that will commend itself to him. If he says he accepts the amendment, I shall say nothing more, otherwise perhaps I should develop it a little. My object in drafting the amendment in this way was to make certain that within the next few months there would be an inquiry into the propriety of continuing the charges, to give the Minister power to vary them, and to give him greater power than he may have under the existing statute. I was anxious in the interests of the man in the street, who wants to get off the street on to a tram, that there should at least be penny fares for short distances, and that all the fares and stages should be revised. I want to call attention to one or two matters in connection with the existing state of affairs. I should not have been in favour of the first amendment forbidding the Tramway Company from continuing its increased charges without any inquiry, because it is a big public undertaking which has been doing considerable service, and I think an inquiry is right. Without going into the figures which have been published, there are one or two matters to which attention may be drawn.
May I ask the Deputy to give me a little explanation? Under Section I additional charges remain in force so long as the Section remains in force, but under this amendment it would be necessary to have an order of the Minister to keep them in force.
Under this amendment the order continuing the charges would be made by the Minister here. It would be a new order by the Minister made in August.
Does not Section I., as passed, continue the charges, up to a certain date?
Section I. enables them to be continued, I think, up to a certain date. Section II. would provide that the Minister may make a new order, an Irish order as distinct from a Westminster order.
Section II. refers to harbours, docks and piers.
This amendment proposes a new Section.
I want to get an explanation as to the difference between the proposed new Section II. and the Section we have just passed.
Under the new Section, if passed, the Minister would be in a position to make a revised scale of tram charges lasting until August, 1924. My object in speaking further is to emphasise one point upon which I think there is a difference of opinion between the Minister and myself, and that is the question as to where the onus of proof ought to lie.
On a point of order, if the Dáil has passed Section I. as it stands, is this proposal now in order?
I have asked the Deputy to explain this, and I would be happy to understand him as it is a legal matter.
If the proposed amendment is passed, the Minister between now and the end of August next will not merely have an inquiry, but having had his inquiry, he will then make an order revising the charges, and he may revise these charges for twelve months until August, 1924. The new scale of charges, assuming that the new scale be justified, would come into operation in August for twelve months, or such time as the Minister may direct.
The Act only remains in force until the 31st December, 1923.
That I suggest would not prevent the Minister from making an order for a longer period.
On a point of order. The Deputy proposed an Amendment No. 1, and his next amendment is dependent on that first amendment. I submit that it is consequently out of order to be moved at this stage.
Further to a point of order, I suggest that until we have passed the final Clause, 5, it is competent for a new order to be made, even though we have passed Section 1—a new order of a somewhat different kind carrying on certain temporary charges over and beyond the 31st December.
Where would we be if Deputy Johnson's suggestion were adopted? We would be deciding that the Clause should be taken up to August, 1924, but under Section 4 it is proposed to terminate the Bill in December, 1923.
I was dealing with a point of order, and it is quite competent to us to revise Sub-section 2, Clause 5, if we pass this amendment.
Section 1 says "the several orders specified in the first Schedule to this Act, and made under the Statutory Undertakings (Temporary Increase of Charges) Act, 1918, as amended by the Tramways Temporary Increase of Charges of 1920, shall, subject to the power of revision subsisting under the Acts aforesaid, continue in force so long as this Section remains in force." That is to say the charges shall remain in force, and revision shall be as set out in certain Acts. The new section, which it is proposed to insert, seems to vary that in a manner which seems contradictory.
I submit that the contradiction is more apparent than real.
I submit, with all respect sir, that if read the long title of the Bill—I do not know what it is that causes the laughter of the Minister for Local Government on every occasion on which I rise to address this Dáil. I would ask your protection from interference of that kind. It is becoming so habitual that I think I am entitled to take notice of it. I am not a Minister, but I am entitled to all the privileges of the Dáil——
That is so.
I would respectfully draw your attention to the significance of the long title of the Bill. It does not limit us to the proposals set out in Section 1, but to quite a number of proposals. I would contend that until we have reached the last line of the last proposal, we are not absolutely bound.
The first Schedule concerns Tramway companies only. Therefore, the new section will refer to Tramway companies only, and will therefore be relevant to Section 1. The Tramway companies under Section 1 can continue, I am sure, the charges without reference to the Minister, and if we insert a new Section they must refer to the Minister.
The beginning of the amendment is "where it appears to the Minister." Surely there is no meaning in the words "revised by the Minister," unless it is made to appear to the Minister. The opening words of the amendment are "If it appears to the Minister," that is to say, if action by the Minister arises.
May I point out that the extension is only granted under Section 1 subject to the powers of revision? This proposes to insert special powers of revision.
What would be the effect of the new power?
The effect would be to have the enquiry as promised within the next three or four months, and then if the Minister thinks fit to have the charges on his revised scale continued for twelve months hereafter. The fact that the Bill expires on the 31st day of December, 1923, in no way precludes that.
Has not the Minister power to revise the charges already?
He has.
Why does he now require the new powers?
The new provisions make it mandatory on the Minister to call upon the company to give notice to all concerned of its desire for the continuance of increased charges, to hear representations that may be made, and to give judgments thereon. If the Minister objects to the particular form of words, I do not attach any particular importance to them, but what I am anxious to get from the Minister is his consent to the principle that the onus is on the company, and not on the Minister or on the public, or on the local Board. If that is established that goes a long way to satisfy me. The Minister in reply to Deputy Johnson used words in an unguarded moment that more than suggested that he recognised the onus should be on the company, and my purpose in speaking on this further amendment was first that it would be accepted as being the easiest way out of the difficulty and secondly to emphasise one or two reasons as to why the onus should be on the company. Now, the figures of the Tramway Companies of Belfast would be rather interesting to go into. That would take up too much time. I may point out that on the very day when this amendment was to go before the Dáil the evening paper had an interesting announcement that the Tramway fares in Belfast were reduced from 1½d. to a 1d. Belfast leads the way. We all know that the cost of materials has been reduced enormously. I think it will be admitted that the cost of rails which, I suppose, form the largest part of the expenditure on renewals, has actually fallen from £30 to £7 per ton. Surely, that is a reason why the onus should be on this great public company to justify the continuance of those charges. Assuming that its wages Bill has not fallen very much—I do not know—there, at all events, is one big item which, if my information is correct, has fallen enormously, and it is right, under those circumstances, that it should be put to the company, "You, a big, public company, are required to show cause why the increased charges should continue," rather than as was originally suggested, "You as a local body should show cause why the local company should not enjoy the privilege."
There is one other item to which I wish to draw attention, and it is this. I think I recollect in the Balance Sheet of the Dublin Tramways Co. a very interesting item, the sum of £20,000 in the Revenue Account for the purchase of the Sackville Street Club, and the adaptation of the premises. At first sight it would seem that the company in a position to spend £20,000 out of revenue upon such a little entertainment as that might possibly be in a position to reduce its fares, and, therefore, I say again the onus should be on the company. If the Minister as cepts that point of view he will go a long way to meeting any objections.
I take it that the particular form in which I have asked him to accept the amendment is the simplest way of doing the thing, because, if the Company is going to be called upon to prove that the increased fares ought to continue, it would then be fair that it should have a twelve-months run of those increased fares. Under the Minister's Bill he cannot give the Company a twelve months run after putting them to the expense of proving their case. Under my suggestion he can give them a twelve months run if they prove they are entitled to continue their increased fares for that time or some of their increased fares for that time. Lastly, I ask that special attention be directed at this inquiry to the extraordinary custom whereby, if I want to cross a canal bridge—in this instance I speak of the bridges with which I am familiar—I cannot do it unless I pay twopence. That, it seems to me, would take a great deal to justify. If I want to go from College Green to the Pillar I have to pay three-halfpence; that sum, I take it, would take a lot to justify also. So far as the somewhat longer three-halfpenny stages are considered, it may be necessary to continue them, but there ought to be penny fares for short distances, and there ought not to be unreasonable stages whereby you may have to pay three-halfpence more if you get off 100 yards further up, when you want to cross a canal bridge. I ask for a proper inquiry whereat the local bodies may not be asked to appear as plaintiffs, for that is the effect under the Bill of the Minister, and it brings about a good deal of unpleasantness. They can come there and produce their evidence and brief counsel, but to put upon them the expense and onus of plaintiffs is not fair. The Minister should call upon the Company to prove its case independently of what any local bodies do. I shall be glad to hear he is willing to take that course, and I think he will agree with me, if he holds his inquiry, that he ought to have the right to give the revised charges a twelve-months' run and not merely a run up to next Christmas.
I can not see where under this amendment the inquiry the Deputy desires can come in. I can well understand an inquiry—I have been in several from time to time— where applications were formally made by companies and public bodies and others for liberty to increase their rates. People knew that the applications were to be made; notice was duly published and numbers of people came in and opposed the applications, but so far as I can see here the inquiry that will be made by the Minister under this third Sub-section is simply that after rummaging through the contents of his letter box for the last week if it appears to him that the finances of a particular undertaking had been adversely affected then he shall hold an inquiry. How is that to appear to the Minister? It is to appear to the Minister apparently by the perusal of some figures to be sent to him by the Tramway Co., or whatever body is concerned. But having examined these figures, if it appears to him, from them, that the order ought to be made, he then, before he makes the order, although he is satisfied it ought to be made, has to make the undertakers give public notice of the application for the order, and then he has to consider any representations that may be made to him. But all the public bodies, county councils, and rural councils, and so on, can do is to write to the Minister. There is no formal inquiry at which they have any opportunity to examine the materials furnished to him by the company or to cross-examine the General Manager, or other people, as to the accuracy of their figures. All they can do is to write a letter to the Minister, or make a representation to the Minister, but there is no provision for the hearing of evidence, or anything of that sort. They make a representation to the Minister, which the Minister under one of those sections is bound to consider; that is, to peruse the documents he has got from both sides. That seems to fall very far short of the inquiry that will satisfy the Deputy, and very far short of an inquiry that the Minister is bound to make under the Statutes set out in the schedules of this Bill and very far from the kind of inquiry he has promised he is going to make in the case of the Dublin Tramways Company.
Are you satisfied, A Chinn Comhairle, that the amendment is in order?
I am not.
Because I have, so far, spoken only on the point of order and I want to be satisfied now that I am free to discuss the proposition.
I confess that I do not understand the proposition. I cannot decide the point of order and therefore I am going to leave the amendment to the Committee.
As I understand, the essence of the proposition is really what I put forward on the amendment proposed by Deputy O'Brien. Now I understand from the interruption of Deputy Gavan Duffy that I was speaking to amendment No. 3, because, undoubtedly, what Deputy Gavan Duffy has expounded to us just now is the doctrine that, before those Statutory Orders are continued, cause should be shown to the Minister that they should be continued rather than be permitted to expire. Now, when we lost that amendment, I tried to safeguard the situation again by asking, in the second amendment, that the legislation be permissive, so that it would always remain open to the Minister to inquire and see that the Company was justified in continuing its exactions from the public purse. We were defeated upon that, and here is the only opportunity left to us, within the four corners of the Bill, to try to save from the wreck the rights of the public in the matter. I do think that the amendment would have been more happily worded if, instead of "it appears to the Minister"—this leaving it to be something very casual and adventitious—it read "if the Minister be satisfied." Then, it would not merely be a case, such as Deputy Fitzgibbon suggests, of the Minister happening to find a letter in his letter box saying something to this effect: "Look here, things are not well with the Tramway Company's charges," but that a body, like the Corporation or one of the Townships affected, should draw it to his notice, and make a prima facie case; in other words, that he was satisfied that an inquiry ought to be made. Now, I thought, and I repeat it, that the Minister adopted a very reasonable attitude in regard to the amendment proposed by Deputy O'Brien, when he promised to institute an inquiry, so long as we came to an understanding in the Dáil on the matter. I thought the situation would be safe, but, when he refused to alter the word "shall," so as to give this thing the character of automatic and irresistible continuance, I confess I began to be afraid that his willingness to institute an inquiry was not quite such a concession as it seemed. Unless an inquiry is to be on this basis: that the Tramway Company is to make its case and prove it up to the hilt, that the costs of running the concern are such, under the conditions now prevailing, that it must in equity be permitted to continue these charges, what is the good of holding an inquiry? The public bodies will be called upon to prove a negative: that the costs of production, the cost of maintenance, the cost of renewals and so on, are not such and such. It is for the Tramways Company, which is demanding this privilege from the people, for that is what it amounts to, to be armed with the authority of the people to exact these charges, and in return for such a privilege, surely the least that we ought to ask is that they satisfy the people that this is a fair thing on their part. It is a public undertaking which gets public authority to make its charges in regard to certain services that it renders. It should show that it cannot render these services, and continue to pay its shareholders and its employees reasonable returns, unless this is permitted: but in the absence of proving that that is so, in view of the coming down of rates and charges of transit and transport in the neighbouring country, we ought to be entitled to presume that there is no reason to continue these rates. I do not want to victimise the Tramways Company merely because it is a corporation, nor to remember its past sins against it; but I only say at the moment that the proposition would give it a tremendous advantage, and the only thing in favour of the proposition is that there will be partial chaos if we do not agree to it. Now, there is still time, between the day of the oncoming of chaos and the present moment, to do in effect what is proposed by any one of the amendments submitted to-day. The onus is on the Company, and not upon the public. The Tramways Company is not entitled to any privilege by way of gratuity or goodwill on the part of the people, because the Tramways Company has shown very little consideration for the public in regard to some of its more recent alterations. If one boards a tramcar within a yard of the beginning of a new fare the additional fare is exacted. That has happened to me again and again. I make no complaint about it, because the Company is acting within its legal rights in doing that, but Shylock should be treated as Shylock. Similarly, if one changes one's mind in a tramcar, and, having had a ticket issued up to a certain point, determines to continue in the tram for a longer distance, he is charged exactly as if he were a criminal who had no right to change his mind and he is punished for doing so.
And quite right.
That rather reacts against the Tramways undertaking. There are other privileges which it has in regard to the setting up and setting down of passengers, and as regards speed. The Tramways Company has been allowed to drive out the hackney cars and other horse propelled vehicles, and has been permitted a greater rate of speed. The public, in return for this, is to continue this power to the Company to make these charges, and the Company is not to submit its charges for revision unless something which is not likely to occur does occur. Surely the Minister ought to be glad when we propose to put this power of control in his hands: that, in the name of equity to the people it should be in his power to determine whether or not these rates are to be permitted for a longer period. If the Deputy's amendment is in order, I beg to support it. If it is not in order, then I regret that it is not.
I would like to say one word in answer to the criticism of Deputy Fitzgibbon and Deputy Magennis. They both object to the words "if it appears." I wanted to make the amendment as simple and as near the original as possible, and I followed the words of the original British Statute. It begins with the same words. You get the same inquiry in the same way under the British Statute as under this. I would also point out that under the scheme which the Ministry has adopted, following the British procedure. it is very easy to see that the original Bill was a Government Bill, because the only people who get any costs out of the Tramways Co., after all their trouble of having an inquiry, are the Ministers. The Minister gets his costs, but the local bodies are not encouraged to take part in the proceedings, because they have to pay away large sums of the ratepayers' money for their part in the proceedings.
I still am of opinion that the amendment is out of order. Regarding what Professor Magennis said, I am afraid there has not been sufficient reading of the various Acts. The provisions for inquiry are such that the onus for making a case for increased charges rests with the body wanting to have its charges increased, or rather to have the present rates sustained. The onus for making a case for an increase certainly rests with a corporate body who make the charges, and the Minister, if not satisfied that a case has been made, may revise the charge to what is considered equitable.
As to the question of Tramway stages, and rates across bridges and all that, I do not know that we have any power to get the Tramway Company to alter these.
Surely you have.
The Dáil, of course, certainly may, but, under this present Bill, I do not see how they could do it at all. The particular Bill here has absolutely nothing to do with that; but there seems to be a grave misunderstanding of the case. The demand for an inquiry should come from a local body—the corporate body, the Pembroke Urban Council, the Rathmines Urban Council, or the Dublin Corporation. The onus of making a case for increased charges does rest with the corporate body which desires to have these charges increased. There is one other matter. Deputy Gavan Duffy—and this is material— would have us extend the powers which this Bill would confer on the Ministry, until the 25th August only. Now, mind, I say extend the powers, not extend the charges. He would give the Minister power—in effect he would make it obligatory on the Ministry—to extend the charges which might be fixed between this and the 25th August for a full year, a thing we are not at all anxious to do.
May I just point out that the order which is now intended to be continued was made by the Minister for Transport, and presumably he was satisfied that the increased charges from 1d. to 1½d., and from 2d. to 3d., were justified when he made the order, or rather when his predecessor made the order. One would wish to know what was the evidence. Presumably evidence was submitted which satisfied him then that such charges were justified. Now, when it is desired to continue those increased charges—in effect, to make a new order—surely some case has been made, or he would not have wished to act. The case that has been made to the Minister has not been made to the Dáil. The Minister says, very generously, "Though I have made this order, though I am satisfied that these increased charges should continue, I am willing to hear representations." I suggest that the case for the amendment has not been met, because there is a possibility that a new order might be made under the amendment, not increasing the actual coin tendered for a distance, but increasing the distance for the minimum fare of 1½d. or the larger fare of 3d. Under the order as it now appears there is no question of the distance except that "no fare shall exceed 2d. for any distance not exceeding two miles." On the proposed amendment it seems to me that it would be competent for the Minister, without having to appeal to a public body to make representations, to reconsider the order he has issued, and to say that, while the 1½d. may remain or the 2d. may remain, the distance of travel for 1½d. or 2d. should be extended. That case, I think, has not been made, and I believe that on that account, if on no other, the amendment should be supported.
I submit that the very matter which Deputy Johnson raises here is met under Section 1 (5) of the Tramways Act of 1920.
Amendment put and declared lost.
Question put: "That Section 2 stand part of the Bill."
Agreed.
SECTION 3.
I move Section 3:
(1) It shall be lawful for each of the several Canal Undertakings specified in the first column of the Third Schedule to this Act to continue for so long as this section remains in force to charge the several rates, fares, tolls, dues and other charges which were respectively directed by the Orders specified in the second column of the said Third Schedule to be charged by such undertakings respectively.
(2) Each of the said Orders specified in the said Third Schedule to this Act may be revised in the same manner as Orders made under the Harbours, Docks and Piers (Temporary Increase of Charges) Act, 1920, may be revised under that Act, and accordingly Sub-section (5) of Section 1, and Sections 2, 3 and 4 of that Act shall apply to the said Orders specified in the said Third Schedule in like manner as they apply to Orders made under that Act.
Is the Minister satisfied in this case that the Canal Companies are not in a position to make any reduction in their charges, in view of the fact that they have reduced wages about 20 per cent.?
The Ministry is satisfied that it wants the powers which it seeks under the Bill.
Question put: "That Section 3 stand part of the Bill."
Agreed.
SECTIONS 4 AND 5.
Sections 4 and 5 put and agreed to.
The decision on Amendment 1 covers Amendment 4.
The First and Second Schedules put and agreed to.
The Preamble and Title put and agreed to.