I beg to move: "That a sum not exceeding £7,385,000 be granted to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending 31st March, 1924, for expenditure in respect of destruction and injuries to property on or after 21st January, 1919." (A sum of £3,000,000 had been voted on account.) I do not think the estimate will lend itself to criticism. Sub-head A deals with compensation which is awarded by the Compensation Commission which was formerly called the Shaw Commission. It is in respect to the Damage to Property Act which we have already passed. Sub-head E deals with compensation for damage to railways after the 11th July, 1921. A memorandum has been circulated in connection with that.
COMMITTEE ON FINANCE. - PROPERTY LOSSES COMPENSATION.
I want to raise the question of the contract that was given for the repair of the bridge at Mallow. On two or three occasions statements have been made in the Dáil, and outside, regarding the attitude adopted by the Great Southern Railway Company in the matter of this bridge. The result has been that the contract for the repair of the bridge—or shall I say the rebuilding of the bridge—was given to a firm, I think, in Newcastle-on-Tyne. The information that has come to my hand within the last few hours is that this firm in the course of its work, is making preparation to introduce, if it has not already introduced, fifty or sixty men for the building of this bridge, and that they are bringing from Newcastle-on-Tyne rivetters. I wonder whether that was contemplated in the contract or in the handing over to this firm of this job. I wonder whether it is good public policy to give such a contract to a firm in England, or Scotland, and to allow the whole work to be done on the spot by men whom they brought over with them while other men in the same trade, in the same kind of work, are idle in this country. I think, however, such a procedure may be defended on the ground of economy, it is bad public policy to invite a large number of men to be brought over the water to work at this Government work while men of the same trade available are walking the streets, perhaps not in that town, but not many miles away. I suggest that that is a bad public policy. I wonder what would be said supposing the request for tenders for this work had not been confined to the Free State and Great Britain, but that German and Belgian contractors had been invited to tender, as they ought to have been once it was decided to go outside the Free State—what would be said if the contractors in this case had decided to bring into the country men to do the work not, bear in mind, to come to the country, to settle in the country, and give their time and service to the country, but to come for a specific purpose, to take away their wages, while other men in the same trade are looking on? One might go a little further and suggest the analogy of coolie labour. The contractor is entitled to take a Government contract and to bring labourers into the country to do the work. I have no doubt you will be able to get a great deal of work done at a very much lower price because of the fact that imported labour can be brought to the country at a very much lower rate of wages. What is to be the condition? Is it to be a standard rate to be paid? Is it a standard rate in the place where the work is done, or is it a standard rate in the home or place of occupation of the men concerned? I take it that in this contract there has been inserted a fair wages clause. I am not going to assume, because I have no information, that the wages paid to these men brought from Newcastle will be any lower than the wages paid to Irishmen doing the work there. I suggest to the Minister that it is a very unwise proceeding to make a contract with a firm for a big job and to allow, not specialists, not men of any particular accomplishment, but the general workmen on the job, to come over and undertake the work before the eyes of men in the same trade, possibly even of the same Trade Union, who are unemployed. I think it is a very unfortunate experience, and I hope it will still be possible to obviate it. If there were no men in this trade to be found in the Saorstát then one would have nothing to say. I am informed that there are plenty of men to be obtained, competent men to do this work, having done it in different parts of the world, and who are quite as competent as these men who do piece work and who will be working under the same kind of conditions to be found in the Free State. It is very unsatisfactory to hear that the firm obtaining the contract is not only doing the iron work in its own establishment in England but is bringing over the men to do the work in Ireland. Perhaps it might be wiser not to raise any other question at the moment inasmuch as I think that that is a serious item and raises questions that may have rather serious repercussions.
Under Head E, "Compensation for Damage to Railways," I would like to draw the attention of the Minister to the position of affairs between Mallow, Mitchelstown and Waterford. For the past ten months all that large area is without a railway service owing to the destruction of bridges by the Irregulars. It is a very important area and people are suffering very severely in the towns along the way for want of a railway service. They have had to pay high prices for coal and other necessary commodities. I would like the Minister to give an assurance that the bridges along that line, which I am informed are only very small bridges and would not take a considerable time to repair, will be repaired as soon as possible. I am informed if the Railway Maintenance Corps were sent down they would have the place repaired in a very short time. I think it is reasonable to ask the Minister to urge that the line be reopened at a very early date.
The agreement which was made in this case between the representative of the Government on the one hand, and the Railway Co. on the other, seems in many of its clauses to be very elastic, and to allow an interpretation on the part of the Government on the one hand and of the Railway on the other that would be quite conflicting. The words "reasonably required" and "reasonably necessary" are right throughout this agreement. In the case of a dispute, I would like to know who is to be judge as to what is reasonably required, and reasonably necessary. The Government are no doubt aware that for a long time as a direct result of the trouble which started in this country in June last, thousands of employees in the Inchicore Works were out of employment for a period, and had only three days' work a week in another period, and numbers of them were without work that would enable them to keep their dependants and others. The point Deputy Johnson raised has a direct bearing on that issue. I would like to ask the President if when this agreement was being negotiated, any understanding was arrived at between the two parties as to putting the overhead bridges which were destroyed into proper order. I understand there is contention between the Government and the Local Councils as to the direct responsibility for the repair of certain bridges. Seeing there is an urgent need for the repair of those bridges I would like to know what took place between the Government and the Railway Company. With regard to the repair of bridges and signal cabins, their equipment, plant, tools, stores, and everything except locomotives, carriages, waggons, the following provisions shall apply:—"The Railway Company concerned shall furnish to the Government Consulting Engineer such particulars as he may reasonably require, and he shall forthwith furnish a certificate showing the amount which he considers represents the expenditure reasonably necessary for the purpose of effecting a permanent repair, and the Government will thereupon pay the amount." Does that mean that the Railway Company shall furnish to the Government particulars of where the material has come from, particulars as regards the conditions of employment, and whether or not in such cases Irishmen shall be employed? I ask for the information because it was not made very clear as to whether these were some of the particulars the Railway should furnish to the Government's Consulting Engineer. The agreement also said: "In the case of a repair carried out by the Railway Maintenance Corps, credit shall be given to the Government for the value of so much of the work done by the Corps as, in the opinion of the Government Consulting Engineer, is of use towards completing a permanent repair." I would like to know in a case of dispute who is to be Arbitrator and who fixes what is a reasonable amount to be given in credit. I drew the attention of the Dáil on two occasions to the fact that the Great Southern and Western Railway had on many occasions imported into this country railway engines and wagons from across channel. In view of the large amount of unemployment, and as it has a very big works at its own disposal in which is all the machinery necessary for the re-building and repair of any locomotive wagons and carriages, etc., I would like to know if any understanding exists between the Government and the company for the beginning of new engines to take the place of those destroyed; or if, where carriages, etc., have to be replaced, they are to be built in the Company's works at Inchicore.
Another clause says: "In the case of any rolling stock destroyed beyond repair, the Government shall pay so much of the cost of replacement as represents in the opinion of the Government Consulting Engineer the fair value at the date of destruction to the Company of the locomotive or vehicle destroyed." It may be reasonable to think that this is a very fair consideration on the part of the Government to the Company seeing that the engine or wagon or whatever other article was destroyed has not been replaced, and that between the date of destruction of either locomotive and now there has been no effort whatsoever to replace that particular locomotive. It would not be unfair to assume that the compensation should be on the basis of cost of replacement. Further, I would like to hear from the President as to the reasons for the insertion of such a clause so favourable, in my opinion, to the Railway Company. One would not attempt, generally speaking, to criticise the agreement, with the exception of the item referred to by Deputy Johnson, were it not that there has always been a tendency by the Railway Company to jibe at any agreement arrived at with regard to wages and services, and to take a mean interpretation of anything put down in black and white. It has also been the tendency of the company's directors and officials to look across channel for things that could be made in this country. I think that in view of the fact that men have been walking round the country for twelve months that any agreement made should tie the Railway Companies down to employing Irishmen, as far as possible, in the renewal of its works.
One of the Sections of contract for the repair of the Mallow Bridge reads as follows: "The Contractor shall pay rates of wages and observe hours of labour not less favourable than those commonly recognised in the district where the works are carried out by employers and Trade Societies in each trade concerned (or in the absence of such recognised wages and hours, those which in practice prevail amongst good employers), or should there be no such wages and hours recognised or prevailing in the district not less favourable than those recognised or prevailing in the nearest district in which the general industrial circumstances are similar." That is one section, and the other section which concerns this is "The Contractor shall so far as possible recruit the labour from the locality in which the work is being performed, and shall satisfy the Minister, if required so to do, that this has been done." I have not heard the complaint that was made by Deputy Johnson before, and there were two very important considerations, to our minds, in connection with the repair of this bridge; one was the cost of it, and the other was the expedition with which the work could be done. To expedite the work we have allowed some overtime, which will give us the bridge in a much shorter time. We expect the bridge will be completed by the end of September. That is the information we have. Other considerations that are embodied in the contract appear to be satisfactory and I have not heard any complaint about them before. If the Deputy wishes I would investigate the case he has mentioned. It is the first time I heard about it. As regards the matters raised by Deputy Davin, it is an agreement between ourselves and the Railway Company. There was some cause for dissatisfaction at one time, with, I believe, one Company, but there are now no causes for dissatisfaction. We have not had any cause for complaint against any of the Companies recently, and I think Deputies will agree that there is no good reason why we should go into any previous causes of complaint. The Railway Companies suffered very considerably during the disturbances, more so, perhaps, than any others. In one case alone a company lost more than half its revenue by reason of the interruption that took place, and it was natural that persons being aggrieved to such an extent would endeavour to make as good a case as possible for compensation. The agreement that we have entered into, I think, safeguards our interests. They are fair to the railway company. "The fair value at the date of destruction," appears to me to be a fair claim on the part of the railway company, and a fair liability on the part of the State. With regard to the overhead bridges, the overhead bridges and roads are part of the Damage to Property Act and are the liability of the County Councils. They will get compensated for that work out of the Road Board Grant, out of the 6d. in the £. Deputies will remember that that was the only charge placed on local authorities. They have borne no charge for the last two or three years in respect of malicious damage. I explained at the time the Act was under consideration here, that apart from that consideration, very considerable sums of money would be spent in each county. I suppose it would be safe to assume a sum of probably one million pounds in each county. The actual contributions from each county for five years would be about an average of £50,000; it may be more or it may be less. But the amount is calculated to be in the neighbourhood of about a quarter of a million in the year, and divided by twenty-six, that would be about £10,000, which for five years is £50,000, whereas the actual benefit, taking the average sum for each county is calculated to be in the neighbourhood of one million pounds. If the pre-Truce and the post-Truce damage be calculated, it might possibly be even a greater sum than that. I hope not, but I think Deputies will admit that that is a conservative estimate of the damage done. Each County Council, or the various local authorities in each district will benefit very considerably by the expenditure of such sums of money. It will relieve unemployment; it will stir up to some extent commercial enterprise and business in general. Some advantage will be derived from the sums of money that will be expended, and the only charge that we have asked them to meet is that 6d. in the £. That, together with sums already in hand in the Road Board Fund and the ordinary road tax on motors, will provide a fairly substantial sum out of which we expect that they will shoulder the liability for roads and bridges. Overhead bridges do not concern the railways; they are the concern now of the local authorities.
I would like to ask the President one question. If, for example, a County Council has refused to strike the 6d. in the £ rate will they be given any money from this fund to enable them to carry on, or will the full amount of the damage done in the county be placed upon its ratepayers in the future? The County Council of Westmeath has refused to strike this 6d. in the £ rate, and there are at present about 150 or 200 men out of employment. The Labour members of that Council did advocate the striking of the rate here, and they want to know from you whether that Council will receive any money from this fund after they refused to strike that rate, or will the ratepayers of the county have to pay the full amount. Sixpence in the £ on the county would amount to £7,800 each year, or £40,000 in five years, and I think that the amount of damage in Westmeath will be something over £150,000. I would like an explanation on this matter so as to enlighten the people of the county.
To envisage the situation properly we must go back for a couple of years. Very considerable damage was done by the Anglo-Irish war. The local authorities generally objected to any imposition under the Malicious Injuries Acts and did not strike any rate in connection with it. Various wiseacres in many parts of the country said, "This is foolish; you are biting a file; it is impossible to resist the courts," and so on, and for a time some people had doubts as to whether or not we were going to succeed. Well, we have succeeded. Withheld grants have been restored to us; local bodies' moneys that had been held up for a year, or two years, or longer, were paid to them. We got back moneys that the British Government had withheld, and we got back moneys that the British Government had spent in discharging awards under the Malicious Injuries Acts. Several awards for personal injuries were paid by the British Government out of these funds. We got back all that money, and we gave it to the County Councils and the County Borough Councils, and other bodies affected.
There are cases here and there through the country where complaints have been made that they have not been paid all their sums of money, and I have explained to several Deputies personally that in one case somewhere about February or March, 1922, I communicated with one County Council, or one Committee in a county, and asked them to forward particulars of their charge in respect of a certain grant, and the answer I got back was "letter marked read." It was sent under Rialtas Sealadach na hEireann, and the Order was "Apply to the Local Government Department, Dáil Eireann, for this money." In other words they were too pure souled to apply for what was their due from the British Government, and they were prepared to rob the Local Government Department of Dáil Eireann of that sum. We have got all that back, I do not mean to say that particular sum, but the sums that have been withheld. We have not been able to get that particular sum back because they would not give me particulars of it. All these demands had to be in before the 21st March, 1922. No vote has been struck in England for any Irish services since that date. Up to that date votes had been passed and the moneys paid. There are some outstanding amounts. I understand that they will be brought in on the ultimate financial adjustments. So far as the local authorities are concerned, it may be some time before they get back any of the sums. We have got rather used to these people. They have lost nothing in the war, whatever others may have lost. We are absolutely independent of them, and a good many of them disputed with us during the time that we would be able to see it through to the end, and that they would not be at any loss. Now having seen the change that has taken place some of them have got new courage and new blood. While they did not give us much assistance in the war with the British, they are now prepared to throw sand in the cogs of the wheels of the Government machine, and some of them are saying "We will not strike this rate," though it helps them to make their counties possible to be travelled over, to make their roads passable, and to repair their bridges. We have got a great deal of unpopularity through insisting on the motor tax being paid. We have collected the motor tax from our friends in spite of their entreaties. We have been deaf to any requests that have come to us to postpone or abrogate the tax. We collected it, and we are collecting it still, and we are collecting it from some people who take every opportunity of showing their independence, their new-born independence. It would not be good business to give money out of that fund to the Council which is independent. The best thing independent people can do is to look after themselves. They do not want Government assistance, I presume, and surely we ought not to force it on them. When they are prepared to accept their responsibilities towards the upkeep of the roads of their county, and their repair, we will give them every assistance. If they are prepared to do that, even now, we will not mind the little bickerings we had in the past, but I think it right to explain that they have lost nothing in the war, and what we are asking them to subscribe to now is something that will benefit their own particular county. In every case in which that money is subscribed it will be spent in the county itself. There are one or two cases in which so much money will not be spent in the county, or county borough, but on examination it will be found I think that in those cases they will get a relatively larger sum out of the Damage to Property Act and out of compensation from what is called the Shaw Commission. This is a sort of hotch potch, which is put into one fund and it is distributed generally as if the country had been at war at the same time. They may say a man in Kerry does not benefit by money spent on the roads in Dublin, but he may have to travel by motor to Dublin, and he will then get the benefit in a nice soft, quiet, easy drive, and I am sure he will appreciate that.
The Minister has not said who is to be the judge in cases of dispute between the Government and the Consulting Engineer.
I am glad to say that none has yet arisen, and I would not advise anticipating it. So far we have got on well together. I think all parties are satisfied that the working of this agreement has been fair, and that every person has made an effort to get the best out of it in the best interests of the country.
I do not want to say anything which will disturb the harmony and good feeling which the President says exists between the Government and Railway Companies, but I would ask him to bring to the notice of the Consulting Engineer, who is directly dealing with the Railway Companies, to see that any locomotive wagons that are necessary to be built in order to cover that aspect of the compensation question, will be built in this country and by Irish labour.
That is a point I will look into. I undertake to do that.
Will the Minister take notice of the point I raised earlier? My information is that about 60 rivetters are being brought from Glasgow to put up the bridge at Mallow, and will he endeavour to arrange in the friendliest way, that they should not be brought so long as Irishmen can be got to do the work? The Minister will bear in mind that all this work, almost universally, is done by piece-work and the question of overtime does not come in. Irishmen are prepared to work piece-work on a job of this kind, just the same as Scotchmen or Englishmen. I think it would conduce to the speedier building of this bridge if this intrusion did not take place.
Very good.