Has this money provivision to be made prior to the Bill going through the Dáil?
COMMITTEE ON FINANCE. - MONEY RESOLUTION (RAILWAYS BILL, 1924).
|
Chun go gcuirfar i bhfeidhm forálacha aon Achta a rithfar sa tSiosón so chun athgléasa do dhéanamh ar Bhóithre Iarainn i Saorstát Eireann agus iad do regleáil feasta, agus chun an dlí a bhaineas le Bóithre Iarainn do leasú ar shlite eile, go bhfuil sé oiriúnach a údarú go n-íocfí amach as airgead a sholáthróidh an t-Oireachtas— |
That, for carrying out the provisions of any Act of the present Session to provide for the reorganisation and future regulation of Railways in Saorstát Eireann, and otherwise to amend the law relating to Railways, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys to be provided by the Oireachtas of— |
|
(a) luach saothair ballra agus fuirinne binse na mbóithre iarainn agus na costaisí eile fe n-a raghaidh binse na mbóithre iarainn fén Acht san, agus |
(a) the remuneration of the members and staff of the railway tribunal and the other expenses incurred by the railway tribunal under such Act, and |
|
(b) suim bhliantúil a íocfidh an tAire Tionnscail agus Tráchtála leis an gcuideachtain chó-nasctha fén Acht agus a bheidh chó mór le hOcht Míle Ceathrachad Sé Chéad agus Ocht bPúint Ochtód i ngach bliain de sna blianta 1925 go 1929, an dá bhliain sin d'áireamh, agus le Seacht Míle Ceathrachad Dhá Chéad agus Ocht bPúint Ochtód i ngach bliain de sna blianta 1930 go 1934, an dá bhliain sin d'áireamh. |
(b) an annual sum to be paid by the Minister for Industry and Commerce to the amalgamated company under the Act, amounting in each of the years 1925 to 1929, both inclusive, to Forty-eight Thousand Six Hundred and Eighty-eight Pounds, and in each of the years, 1930 to 1934, both inclusive, to Forty-seven Thousand Two Hundred and Eighty-eight Pounds. —(Minister for Finance.) |
The practice is to take up the Money Resolution giving the authority for expenditure of whatever money is involved in the Bill before the Committee Stage of the Bill.
The difference in the sums at the end of Resolution B is due to one of the guaranteed companies—I think it is the Cashel extension—falling out.
Could the Minister give us some information with regard to Resolution A, which deals with "The remuneration of the members and staff of the railway tribunal." Surely we are not asked to pass that, in general terms, without some detailed information as to what the expenditure is likely to be.
I think there has been a great deal of complaint in the past because resolutions were too detailed. It would be impossible to state these things at this stage. This is a matter of determining the amount that is necessary for the expenses that should be provided under the Act. I think it would not be proper, it certainly would not be necessary, and I think it is not desirable, at this stage, to deal with that particular point.
May I ask you, sir, a question on two or three points of Order that I wish to raise on this matter and have your ruling on? In sub-paragraph (a) provision is made for "the remuneration of the members and staff of the railway tribunal, and the other expenses incurred by the railway tribunal under such Act." There are proposals for creating a railway amalgamation tribunal and a railway rates tribunal. It may be urged that if this resolution is passed in its present form it prejudges the question, and will prevent discussion upon the proposal to create two tribunals, because two tribunals may conceivably cost more than one tribunal.
In sub-paragraph (b) it speaks of "an annual sum to be paid by the Minister for Industry and Commerce to the amalgamated company." There again the passing of this Resolution may conceivably prevent the discussion of the proposal to have two amalgamated companies. Then there is a third question raised by sub-paragraph (b) by the fact that detailed and definite figures are given of the amount to be provided from the Treasury to the amalgamated companies in respect of baronial guaranteed railways. That, presumably, would preclude any discussion which would directly involve an increase in the payment to the amalgamated companies in respect of other baronially guaranteed railways. I would like your ruling as to whether it would be necessary to discuss all these questions on this motion, or whether it would be in order to discuss them in the course of the Committee Stage.
Before you rule I wish to ask a question. I have tabled an amendment that the money for the railway tribunal should not be paid out of moneys provided by the Oireachtas, but should be paid out of the Central Fund. Would that question be prejudged if we pass this Resolution?
Oh, well, I think we will accommodate Deputies. We certainly will not stand on anything that may be in this Resolution to prevent that matter being dealt with.
Might I ask whether the Minister for Finance has authority to rule what is in order and what is not in order?
No, but we can provide a Message, and a Resolution if necessary.
On that point, the Minister would perhaps be aware of a certain discussion that took place on another motion of this kind, and has he provided for the possibility of a ruling of the same character?
With regard to the first point raised by Deputy Johnson, paragraph (a) of the Money Resolution provides for the remuneration of the staff of the railway tribunal. I have given consideration to the matter, and I think that the amendment which purports to establish two tribunals would be in order, and I shall accept that in Committee. With regard to paragraph (b), which provides for a sum to be paid to the amalgamated company, there is an amendment in the name of Deputy Hewat, I think, to have two amalgamated companies, and I think that that will be in order. It would, perhaps, consequentially involve a reconsideration of the Money Resolution, but I would allow the amendment to be proposed in Committee and let the responsible persons deal with the result, if it be passed. With regard to the sum of money mentioned in paragraph (b), it would not be in order in Committee to move any amendment which would increase the amount, but there is nothing in the resolution about the distribution of the amount, and that could be dealt with in Committee by amendment. Then, with regard to the point of the Central Fund. I wonder what the Minister has in his mind; how he proposes to meet Deputy Cooper. I should like to know that.
The same point has really arisen as to the meaning of this, "out of moneys provided by the Oireachtas," and I have been talking to the Attorney-General about it. The matter is not quite resolved, but I would undertake to provide a new finance motion if necessary, to enable Deputy Cooper to move his amendment.
With reference to your ruling that it would not be practicable to increase the amount to be paid, I have an amendment down as to the remission of the debt that is owing by certain railway companies to the Government. Would that be in order or would it not?
What is the amendment?
You will find it referred to in the last amendment of all; to add a new schedule giving details of the various loans which are to be remitted.
I do not like to give a ruling in advance on an amendment which I have not before me in exact detail, but if the amendment would deprive the Treasury of something which the Treasury is entitled to, it would, I think, inferentially impose a charge, and not being in the Money Resolution would thus be ruled out of order.
It is Amendment 14 to Part 5.
I am afraid we will have to wait until we come to it. I am not able to see all its implications at the moment, but the position is that if certain moneys are owed to the State, and if the State is not to get them by the amendment, then I am afraid that is equivalent to expenditure.
The capital shall not be called in for 10 years; the State is not to get it for 10 years.
That seems to be the same principle to a much smaller extent.
I shall be compelled to vote against the Resolution if I want my amendment considered?
That may not accomplish the purpose even. With regard to the question of the Central Fund, two phrases have been used constantly: "the Central Fund" and "moneys provided by the Oireachtas.""Moneys provided by the Oireachtas" heretofore has been held to mean moneys provided annually on the Estimates. I take it that the Minister intends to bring in a Money Resolution which will enable Deputy Cooper to move his amendment, should that ruling be adhered to.
My view was that it would be possible for him to move that amendment on this Resolution. That would test the feelings of the Dáil on the matter without, necessarily, a change. Then a Resolution could be brought in.
I take it that unless you rule that this phrase "out of moneys to be provided by the Oireachtas" includes the Central Fund, it would not be in order to move an amendment which contravenes the Financial Resolution. It was suggested, I think, at an earlier stage that we could adopt the phrase "to authorise the payment out of moneys provided annually by the Oireachtas," and I suggest that if you were to rule now that this phrase will include moneys provided out of the Central Fund or moneys voted annually, this will be in order.
This phrase must be held to mean moneys provided annually by the Oireachtas. Otherwise there would be no need to have in any Money Resolution or in any Message from the Governor-General that the money is to be provided out of the Central Fund. So this is really a case in which a Central Fund amendment would be out of order. The Minister would, I think, require a new Message, and a new Resolution.
But we have had long discussions on the subject of whether the District Justices should be on the Central Fund or whether they should be on the Estimates, and surely it is desirable that there should be some opportunity of discussing whether this tribunal is to be a judicial body, paid from the Central Fund, or a body paid from the Estimates, and open to discussion year after year. Is there any means of raising it without a Message from the Governor-General?
I suggest that it would be in order to propose an amendment now to the effect that it is expedient to authorise the payment of money out of the Central Fund, and that will enable Deputy Cooper to raise his general question.
Who would move it?
Deputy Cooper.
Could he? He would require a Message from the Governor-General, and he would require the consent of the Executive Council to get the Message.
My idea was that Deputy Cooper would be able to move an amendment excepting from this provision those moneys provided by the Oireachtas for certain individuals, and if that were carried it would then be open to the Executive Council to devise some other means of paying them, and the matter could be decided in that negative way in the first instance.
What happened in the case of District Justices was that objection was taken to the idea of providing their salaries from moneys provided annually by the Oireachtas, but no amendment was moved. The question was discussed and was objected to, just as Deputy Cooper can object in this case. But the Minister's suggestion that Deputy Cooper should move to except certain members of the Railway Tribunal would mean that if an amendment excepting these people were carried the Minister for Finance would be obliged, if he wants the tribunal, to pay them in some way, and he would, therefore, have to bring in a Money Resolution to effect that purpose. That is a good suggestion.
I beg to move an amendment that sub-paragraph (a) be deleted on the grounds that Deputy Bryan Cooper has already suggested. That suggestion was that the tribunal ought to be in the nature of a judicial body, and that its proceedings should not be subject to annual review by the Dáil.
I am not quite so drastic as Deputy Johnson, though I support his amendment, but I hesitated to propose it myself, for while I consider that the members of the Railway Tribunal should be in the position of judges, and that their salaries and their positions should not be the subject of discussion here, yet I am not prepared to go quite so far as to say that the staff should also be placed in the position of judges. We discuss annually Votes for the staffs of the Courts of Justice, and I do not want to make the Railway Tribunal an even higher power than the Courts of Justice. I think they should be of equal power, and I think the members of the Tribunal should not have to undergo criticism as to their action in fixing such and such a rate for such and such a thing. I ask the Ministers and Deputies to imagine what the discussion on that Estimate would be like when it is going through the Dáil. Some Deputy would get up and complain of the freight that has been put on pigs from Kilrush, and another Deputy would want to know why manure is only carried in 71b. bags, and why they have not made a rate for manure in 31b. bags. We should be mixed up in all the details of an intolerably technical subject. I think it would be, both for the dignity of the Dáil and the dignity of the tribunal, and, on the whole, for the convenience of the State, that the members of the Railway Tribunal should receive their salaries in the same manner as judges, and subject to the same control, because after all they ought to be removable by an address from the Dáil, and in the main have a high, dignified and an independent position.
This Resolution raises the question on the motion of providing funds, and the whole position of the railway tribunal. Deputy Major Cooper indicates what the result of the appointment of this tribunal would be, in other words that his proposal and his idea of the operation of the Tribunal under the Bill is that they are to be above reproach, like Cæsar's wife, and above criticism. That is a fair indication, in my judgment, as to what is forecasted in the Bill. To put the railway tribunal in the position of High Court Judges is, in my opinion, an extraordinary and very drastic proposition, and I am afraid it is one that will not be received with any great enthusiasm.
May I say that even the proposition of Deputy Cooper only puts them in the position of County Court Judges, and not of High Court Judges, both of whom are paid out of the Central Fund. But as far as I am concerned, I am not convinced in this matter at all. I moved the amendment in the way I did because I thought Deputy Cooper was to be precluded from stating his case, and I thought it desirable that a case should be stated. If no better case can be stated than that which he has made, then I will not persist in this amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Motion put and agreed to.