PRIVATE BUSINESS. - DAIL IN COMMITTEE.
SECTION 11.
(1) The provisions of the Third Schedule to this Act shall, with the modifications hereinafter mentioned, apply to every person who was on the 3rd day of April, 1924, an officer or servant of the Irish Railway Clearing House and who, as a result of any reorganisation of the Irish Railway Clearing House taking place within three years after the passing of this Act, is discharged on account of the abolition of his office or situation, or is required to perform duties such as are not analogous, or are an unreasonable addition, to those which he was required to perform immediately previous to the date aforesaid.
(2) For the purpose of the application of the Third Schedule to this Act to the persons aforesaid, the said Schedule shall be construed and take effect as if the Irish Railway Clearing House were substituted in the said Schedule for the amalgamated company, and the persons aforesaid were officers or servants of an amalgamating company.
Mr. O'CONNELL
I move the following amendment:—
To insert before Section 11 a new section as follows:
(1) The amalgamated company shall, for the purposes of the Irish Railway Clearing House and the Acts and Regulations relating thereto, be deemed to be a party to the clearing system in place of, and shall enjoy without diminution or limitation merely by reason of the amalgamation all the rights and privileges of, the amalgamating and absorbed companies from which it is constituted.
(2) The Irish Railway Clearing House may submit to the railway tribunal and the tribunal shall settle a scheme to effect such alterations of the Acts and regulations applicable to the Irish Railway Clearing House as may be rendered necessary by reason of the constitution of the amalgamated company.
(3) The provisions of this part of this Act applicable to an amalgamation scheme when settled by the railway tribunal shall apply to a scheme under this section.
The object of this amendment is to ensure that the new amalgamated company will be in the same position with reference to the Irish Railway Clearing House as the existing companies. The amalgamated company will take the place of the amalgamating and absorbed companies which are parties to the Irish Railway Clearing House. It is thought that unless some such provision as that suggested in the amendment is made, the amalgamated company would not stand in the same position as the existing companies, and acquire all the rights which they have at present in relation to the Irish Railway Clearing House. There is, I understand, a similar provision to that suggested here, embodied in the British Railway Act. Section 2 of the amendment provides that the Irish railway companies may submit to the tribunal and the tribunal shall settle a scheme to effect such alterations of the Acts and regulations applicable to the Irish Railway Clearing House as may be rendered necessary by reason of the constitution of the amalgamated company. As I say, the object is to ensure that the new company will have all the rights and facilities which existing companies have with regard to the Irish Railway Clearing House.
Clauses corresponding to the amendments now suggested were considered and designedly omitted from the Bill for two reasons. The first reason depends on the position of the Irish Railway Clearing House, which, unlike the British Clearing House, comprises servants other than railway servants. It includes in its ranks shipping and canal servants. The second point is that the functions of the Railway Clearing House depend not so much on statute as on voluntary agreement, and a voluntary agreement under the Railway Clearing House can be carried on even if the amendment suggested by Deputy O'Connell be omitted. It is quite certain that all the desirable functions of the Railway Clearing House depend on voluntary agreement, not so much as on Statute, and so there is no deprivation of rights or weakening of the position by reason of this amendment not appearing.
Am I to understand that the Minister's point is that the section of the Bill which says that all agreements that are at present in operation as between company and company will be confirmed under this Bill, and that it is under the protection of that section that will be secured the rights of the present members of the Irish Railway Clearing House? Is that the Minister's contention, that it is under that provision in the Bill that they will be protected?
I have not said that all agreements will be confirmed. I do say that all the functions of the Irish Railway Clearing House depend on voluntary agreement, and that no statutory alterations are required to continue the position.
I think the Minister will see that unless some provision of this kind is inserted in the Bill the new amalgamation will be a company comprising a number of companies of different size and weight who will be dominated by a single company, or one or two companies. Other companies of less weight may not have the same influence on the amalgamated company that they have now by understanding and agreement with the Irish Railway Clearing House, and the interests of those smaller companies and persons affected by smaller companies within the Irish Railway Clearing House system may be detrimentally affected unless protected by the Bill. I do not think there would likely be any objection to this section. I thought it would be quite recognised that the advantages such as they are within the Irish Railway Clearing House membership would continue, and that it would not be possible after the amalgamated company had formed for that company to deprive any of the other elements of any rights which they now possess. It is for the purpose of protecting against possible wrong that this section is sought to be inserted, and, of course, within the Irish Railway Clearing House system we have a number of associations, companies, corporations, both inside the railway world and outside the railway world, which are not intended to be brought under the Bill as drafted. If a single company is to be part of the Irish Railway Clearing House of the future, it is only one against a number of others, and its power and weight within that Clearing House is thereby reduced, so far as numbers go, and it surely should be recognised as right that the constituent members of the amalgamated company shall carry over their rights with regard to the Clearing House against possible injustice or overbearing by a large number of smaller companies which are organised outside the amalgamation.
Do I understand Deputy Johnson's contention is that employees of the Clearing House are to be provided for in this Bill—in other words, that the amalgamated companies shall take over the charge of the Clearing House officials? Of course, it is a very well accepted principle that where various companies are amalgamated, provision is made for the employees not being thrown on the world after long service. If that was the amendment on this clause I would support Deputy Johnson in accepting it, because it would ensure that the amalgamation will not do any injustice to the officials of the Clearing House who have had a long service.
I look upon this amendment and the one following it as a necessary protection for a number of individuals now serving the companies, as they need protection against any possibility of their removal under unfair conditions as a result of the clause as it stands in the Bill. I do not think the Minister is giving away much if he accepts this amendment. He has stated that agreements with regard to the Irish Clearing House are voluntary. It is quite true that conference arrangements with regard to the Irish Railway Clearing House and agreements carried through, concern the shipping companies or canal companies which are owned and controlled by railway companies, but there is an over-riding authority in the Irish Railway Clearing House and of the railway companies as they stand. I think there is nothing in the amendment which should prevent the Minister from accepting it, particularly from the point of view of the existing staff. I trust he will see his way to reconsider the amendment, if he cannot see his way to accept it.
The question of the staff is dealt with, and the position of the staff is protected by Section 11 in so far as we have it here. It may not be protected up to the wishes of Deputy Davin, but protection is sought for. The object of this new section is not so much a question of staff. The question of staff will arise on Deputy Davin's amendment.
The question of staff will arise on your proposed amendment to Section 11. With regard to the other points, on the question of the Irish Railway Clearing House and whether this section should be embodied, it was previously considered, and was left out mainly on the ground that it meant no advantage that was not to be gained in some other way, and because it was undesirable that we should legislate here for people who are definitely outside our jurisdiction, as we would be doing if we adopted that section, because it includes Irish and British railway, canal, and steamship companies. It is too far flung in its effects. For that special reason the clause was omitted. As regards the substance of the contention of Deputy Davin, I say again, in so far as the Clearing House effected any useful purpose it effected that through voluntary agreement. On the point raised by Deputy Johnson, no combination of companies such as will take place in the amalgamated company can over-rule any other company. It will certainly be in the interests of the amalgamated company to keep and to extend whatever rights or whatever privileges had been previously gained.
Including representation on the present basis?
Representation is not dealt with. If this amendment of Deputy O'Connell is not carried, the question of representation will be dealt with in some other way. It is not dealt with specifically in the Bill.
There you have the possibility of lots of controversy. The Great Northern Railway, so far, is out of this Bill, and others associated with the Railway Clearing House will be remaining as individual companies. Unless some provision is made to ensure that the new amalgamated company, which is a single body, will carry with it the rights within the Clearing House that the existing companies had, the single company may well be over-weighted by other companies. You may say, "It is a voluntary matter; they may withdraw." But the cost of withdrawal may be great, and it may be unsatisfactory to withdraw, or it may be undesirable to smash up the system of the Irish Railway Clearing House. They may say rather than have the loss of breaking-up this clearing house system which is most undesirable, we will submit to the pressure, to say no more, of other complicating companies. This is only a possibility, but when promoting a Bill for the amalgamation of a number of companies, each of whom has certain rights, it is not unreasonable to suggest that in the Bill which is approving of the amalgamation there should be provision made that so far as the constituent companies are concerned they retain such rights as they have within this Clearing House system, and that it is not henceforward to be considered as merely a single company, subject to the pressure, perhaps, of a larger number of other companies. The Minister says: "We cannot legislate outside the jurisdiction." As a matter of fact we have done so, in accepting the Acts of Parliament relating to the Railway Clearing House. We carried over from existing legislation such legislation as has been passed relating to the Irish Railway Clearing House, and, in so far as we have done that, we did exactly that thing which the Minister says is not desirable to be done. We have legislated in effect for those things that are outside the jurisdiction. The Minister may have other reasons for not acceding to this amendment, but the reasons he has given do not seem to be of sufficient weight to warrant the disapproval of the amendment.
The Minister has stated that it is not proposed in this Bill to legislate for companies that are not likely to be and that are not, as the Bill stands, at the present time included in the amalgamating company. In a clause dealing with the supervision of the railway tribunal over questions of rates, they have the power to deal with rates on the Great Northern Railway Company, and any other railway company, for that portion of its mileage which is within Free State territory. Is that so, or is it not? As I read the Bill, it is so. I do not see what difference there is, then, in accepting an amendment of this kind legislating in the same way and holding powers over the companies as they are constituted today. It would be very useful information to get from the Minister now, as to whether or not it is within his knowledge that it is the desire of the amalgamating companies to retain within the Clearing House Conferences of the future, representation that would be based upon the existing procedure. If the amalgamated company under this Bill is only going to have representation as one company, then the amalgamated company is going to be in the hands, very largely, of British railway companies and shipping companies, owned and controlled by British companies, and Northern railway companies, the greater portion of whose interest is concerned with the North of Ireland. That is a very undesirable thing, and it is very important that it should be made clear, before we go any further, as to what is to be the future representation of the amalgamated company, and whether or not the companies constituting it are going to carry all their existing rights as regards their future representation in the Railway Clearing House.
Mr. O'CONNELL
I confess that I cannot understand the objection the Minister has to accepting this amendment. The amalgamating companies have at present certain facilities, powers and rights in connection with the Irish Railway Clearing House under the Acts and Regulations referring to it. All the amendment proposes to do is to ensure that the new company will have all those rights. It does not, in my opinion in any case, confer any powers on the amalgamated company which the constituent companies have not at the present time. The Minister suggests that it is important that the amalgamated company should keep and maintain its present rights in the Clearing House, but I submit that is the very object the amendment seeks to ensure, and that the Minister has not shown us how, otherwise than by inserting this amendment, the new company will be able to keep and maintain its present rights in connection with the Clearing House. The position is, that it is not sought to confer any powers whatever on the amalgamated company which the constituent companies have not already got. The amendment only proposes to ensure that those present rights and facilities are continued to the amalgamated company.
The question is a question of representation, and whether certain powers and rights of representation are to be continued. I take it that that is what the question boils down to. With regard to representation, representation is only valuable in so far as it means voting power. Voting power in the Clearing House means nothing. The primary function tion of the Clearing House is the division of receipts, and the division of receipts is a purely voluntary arrangement.
Has it nothing to do with the arrangement of through rates?
Whatever other power it has is just as much a matter of voluntary agreement as the division of receipts, and a fight about representation and equal voting power, when voting power means nothing, is useless. That is where I regard the amendment as being useless, and it does, even though it be only another instance, in this instance, seek to legislate for those outside our jurisdiction. Being useless and seeking to do that. I do not consider it is a proper amendment.
Amendment put.
The Committee divided: Tá. 10; Níl. 37.
Tá
- Seán Buitléir.
- Tomás Mac Eoin.
- Pádraig Mac Fhlannchadha.
- Tomás de Nógla.
- Tomás O Conaill.
- Aodh O Cúlacháin.
- Liam O Daimhín.
- Domhnall O Muirgheasa.
- Tadhg P. O Murchadha.
- Pádraig O hOgáin (An Clár).
Níl
- Seoirse de Bhalbh.
- Próinsias Bulfin.
- John J. Cole.
- John Conlan.
- Louis J. D'Alton.
- Máighréad Ní Choileáin Bean Uí
- Dhrisceóil.
- Patrick J. Egan.
- Henry J. Finlay.
- John Good
- William Hewat.
- Liam T. Mac Cosgair.
- Pádraig Mac Fadáin.
- Pádraig Mac Giollagáin.
- Risteárd Mac Liam.
- Eoin Mac Néill.
- Seoirse Mac Niocaill.
- Liam Mac Sioghaird.
- Liam Mag Aonghusa.
- Patrick McKenna.
- James Sproule Myles.
- Peadar O hAodha.
- Criostóir O Broin.
- Seán O Bruadair.
- Próinsias O Cathail.
- Séamus N. Dóláin.
- Peadar S. O Dubhghaill.
- Pádraig O Dubhthaigh.
- Donchadh S. O Guaire.
- Aindriú O Láimhín.
- Séamus O Leadáin.
- Fionán O Loingsigh.
- Pádraig O Máille.
- James O'Mara.
- Séamus O Murchadha.
- Seán M. O Súilleabháin.
- Liam Thrift.
- Nicholas Wall.
Amendment declared lost.
I beg to move:—
To delete the section and substitute therefor the following new section:—
The provisions of the third schedule to this Act shall apply to every person who was on the 3rd day of April, 1924, an officer or servant of the Irish Railway Clearing House as if the Irish Railway Clearing House were substituted in the said schedule for the amalgamated company and the persons aforesaid were officers or servants of an amalgamating company.
I trust this amendment will be accepted, seeing that it deals only with a very small number of the staff of the Clearing House likely to be affected, as compared with the very large number of railway officials under the existing system. This section is a variation of a section (14) (4) in the British Railways Act relating to the British Railway Clearing House, which was evidently in mind when the Bill was prepared, but the modified form adopted in the present Bill, which departs from the British precedent, is not fully adapted to the situation in Ireland. It, in fact, takes away from the officers and servants of the Irish Railway Clearing House rights which the Third Schedule gives to the officers and servants of the amalgamating and absorbed companies, as the officers and servants of the Irish Railway Clearing House would not be able to claim compensation unless they suffered their loss within the period of three years after the passing of the Act. It is obvious that the complete re-organisation of the Irish railway system may take some time, and it may well be that the Irish Railway Clearing House, which occupies a central position in the railway system, would be the last body to be affected by the changes.
Moreover, it is not the passing of the Act which may immediately damnify an officer or servant, but it is the happening of some event subsequently which may damnify him. Therefore, if the event (with regard to the Irish Railway Clearing House) must happen within three years from the passing of the Act their officers and servants will suffer an unjust restriction of rights which the Bill gives to the employees of the companies. It is obvious also that the amalgamated company and the other companies in Northern Ireland who are parties to the Clearing House might, if they felt so disposed, postpone a scheme of reorganisation for the Clearing House until the period of three years after the passing of the Act had elapsed, and so deprive such officer or servant of the Irish Railway Clearing House of the protection which obviously it is the policy of the Bill to provide for him. The section proposed is also a much more simple and direct form of enactment than that contained in the Bill.
Section 11, sub-section (1), does definitely limit, the limitation being secured by the words "as a result of any reorganisation of the Irish Railway Clearing House taking place within three years after the passing of this Act." That limitation is deliberate. It arises out of the fact I stated in connection with the last amendment, namely, that the Railway Clearing House includes other than railway servants. If we accepted the amendment we would be in this position, that if any of the steamship companies, who are associated with the Railway Clearing House system, like to discharge a man, not really as a result of anything that happens under this Bill, but for something outside it, the amalgamated company would have to bear the burden of the discharge of that man. We feel that any reduction in the staff necessitated by the Bill will have taken place within the three-year period, and that the proviso with regard to the three years saves the amalgamated company, while it protects, under the schedule, the rights of anybody discharged by reason of anything arising out of the Bill.
The opinion I have in this matter is that the withdrawal of the chance companies such as the Minister suggests—the smaller members of this Clearing House—could not in ordinary practice have the effect of reducing the staffs. If it were likely to have the effect of leaving redundant staffs there might be something in the Minister's point, but that is not likely to be a result of any such possible withdrawal. I take it that from the date of the passing of the Bill—let us suppose it is the 30th June—there will be a lot of work to be done in the next six months; there will be a lot of work to be done in the next eighteen months before they begin to consider reorganisation in the Clearing House. A lot of other reorganisation may take place before the Clearing House is tackled, and three years is too short a time. If this form which is in the Bill is intended to remain, there should be an extension of the period. When one is dealing with the railway system of a nation, judging by the period that it has taken to incubate this Bill, there will be a great deal of work to occupy the attention of the company before they begin to think about the Railway Clearing House. It may well be that it will take longer than three years after the passing of this Bill before they begin to think about the reorganisation of the Clearing House. Consequently, if the Minister objects to accepting the more direct language of the amendment, I would ask if he will accept an extension of the period from three to five years. I would much prefer that he would accept the language of the amendment, so as to place the employees of the Clearing House in the same position as the employees of the absorbed companies, for instance.
The refusal on the part of the Minister to accept the previous amendment leaves the question of the reorganisation of the Railway Clearing House to be decided between the existing bodies represented there. Let us assume that any such scheme of reorganisation does not meet with the approval of the amalgamating companies, either because it does not carry over the existing representation, or for some other reason, and that as a result of that disagreement the amalgamated company decides to withdraw from the Clearing House. That would be much more serious even than the possibility—perhaps an unlikely possibility —of a small shipping or canal company withdrawing. In that event, what is to be the position of the Railway Clearing House staff, who may become redundant in relation to the amalgamated company? I will give the Minister some very useful information as regards the working of the group system in England following the passing of the British Railway Act.
I have been a railway servant for twenty years and worked with one of the companies affected as a result of the British railway grouping, and I know that the amount of work that was thrown on the Railway Clearing House, as a result of the passing of the British Act, was such that hundreds of the staffs of the British railway companies that became redundant were sent to the Railway Clearing House in London to do necessary work. Many of these men, I believe, are still there, some three years after the passing of the Act.
The same thing may happen as the result of the passing of this Bill, and I think it would be a grave injustice to the Railway Clearing House staff that may be affected that they should not get the small amount of protection which the amendment seeks to secure for them. I gave you the result of what has happened in England, and I said it is very likely that what has happened as a result of the passing of the British Railway Act may happen here after the passing of the Bill that is now before the Dáil. I trust for the good and genuine reasons that I have given that the Minister will see his way to accept the amendment.
I am quite in agreement with Deputy Davin in desiring to protect the servants of the Irish Railway Clearing House. His amendment goes further. There are seventy companies parties to the Irish Railway Clearing House, and twenty-five of these are being amalgamated. I am sure that Deputy Davin does not contend that the servants of the other forty-five companies, if they suffer loss of office at any period from now, should be pensioned or have rights secured to them by the amalgamated company which is coming into being as a result of the passing of this Bill. That would be the effect of his amendment. He may not mean that. The amendment would mean that servants of any of the companies that are parties to the Irish Railway Clearing House would be a charge on the amalgamated company if at any time hereafter they suffered loss of office.
If that is the objection of the Minister it could be remedied by the insertion of two or three words. If one spoke of "every person who was on the third day of April, 1924, an officer or servant of one of the companies to be amalgamated or absorbed which company was a member of the Irish Railway Clearing House"—is the Minister prepared to accept that?
If I might interrupt, that defines nothing. They are all officers of the Irish Railway Clearing House. To describe a man as an officer of a company does not get anywhere.
They are officers of the Irish Railway Clearing House. The Minister justifies his refusal to accept the amendment on the ground that these persons are servants of the companies which are parties to the Clearing House. Which is it? Are they servants of the companies, including shipping and canal companies, or servants of the Irish Railway Clearing House? If they are servants of the Irish Railway Clearing House, his objection does not apply.
If there is no objection in saying, that they are servants who happen to be members of the 70 companies who are parties to the Irish Railway Clearing House system, and urging that they should not be included in any scheme which seeks to provide for the loss of office by anything arising out of this Bill, I fail to see that that is not a serious objection. We do not want to include all the people now officers and servants of the Irish Railway Clearing House system, who are not going to suffer in any way by reason of anything arising under the Bill.
Is the Minister prepared to meet the point that three years is not long enough?
That is a different point. I would argue that three years is a period reasonable for the purpose of this section, and that within three years any change that will have to take place as the result of the reorganisation will have taken place, and that a redundancy or otherwise will be revealed.
I might be prepared to agree that three years was a reasonable period of time to take for a reorganisation scheme so far as it affected the railway companies. For reasons that I have given in regard to what happened in England so far as the Railway Clearing House staff is concerned I think, while the argument may apply to the existing officers of the individual companies, it does not apply to the existing staff of the Irish Railway Clearing House. I think the Minister might agree that the three years period might be extended for the length Deputy Johnson has asked.
I can promise to consider it, but it will be considered with great disfavour.
Amendment put.
The Committee divided: Tá, 9; Níl, 38.
Tá
- Seán Buitléir.
- Tomás Mac Eoin.
- Pádraig Mac Fhlannchadha.
- Tomás de Nógla.
- Tomás O Conaill.
- Liam O Daimhín.
- Domhnall O Muirgheasa.
- Tadhg P. O Murchadha.
- Pádraig O hOgáin (An Clár).
Níl
- Earnán de Blaghd.
- Seoirse de Bhulbh.
- Próinsias Bulfin.
- John Conlan.
- Bryan R. Cooper.
- Maighréad Ní Choileáin Bean
- Uí Dhrisceóil.
- Patrick J. Egan.
- Desmond Fitzgerald.
- John Good.
- Liam T. Mac Cosgair.
- Pádraig Mac Fadáin.
- Pádraig Mac Giollagáin.
- Risteárd Mac Líam.
- Seoirse Mac Niocaill.
- Liam Mac Sioghaird.
- Liam Mac Aonghusa.
- Patrick McKenna.
- Martin M. Nally.
- Peadar O hAodha.
- Criostóir O Broin.
- Seán O Bruadair.
- Próinsias O Cathail.
- Aodh O Cinnéide.
- Séamus O Dóláin.
- Pádraig O Dubhthaigh.
- Eamon S. O Dúgáin.
- Donchadh S. O Guaire.
- Aindriú O Laimhín.
- Séamus O Leadáin.
- Fionán O Loingsigh.
- Pádraig O Máille.
- James O'Mara.
- Domhnall O Mocháin.
- Séamus O Murchadha.
- Seán M. O Súilleabháin.
- Seán Príomhdhail.
- Liam Thrift.
- Nicholas Wall.
Amendment declared lost.
Amendment 59 not moved.
The question is that Section 11 stands part of the Bill.
In spite of the fact that the Minister has used his machine to the disadvantage of those on whose behalf I was pleading, I would again urge upon him the desirability of looking into the meaning of the section The Minister has apparently assumed that in the last amendment I was claiming protection on behalf of the staffs of the Companies that were associated with the Irish Railway Clearing House. I was not doing any such thing. He stated that if as a resule of any re-organisation of the Irish Railway Clearing House some shipping company dropped out, the meaning of the amendment was that the employees of that shipping company would get compensation. Now, most of the companies that are associated with the Irish Railway Clearing House, and their staffs, have protection in some form or other. If it was the Caledonian Railway Company, as it was the London, Midland and Scottish Company, the Gt. Western or any of the companies that now go to make up the new amalgamated company, their staffs, either in connection with the British Railway Act, or under the Compensation Clause connected with it, or the Compensation Clause in this Bill, as applied to staffs of the amalgamated company, will get whatever protection is necessary under the Bill. Therefore, for these reasons, it is wrong from the Minister's point of view to assume I am looking for protection for someone who has already got it. I am merely concerned for the moment with the protection of the Railway Clearing House Staff. Under the clause as it stands, it will be possible after the expiration of three years and one month after the passing of the Bill, that these men in the Clearing House would be dispensed with without getting protection which the members of the staffs of the amalgamated companies will get. I think there is something in the thing which requires to be looked into. If that is the position—and that is the position which has cropped up in England so far as the work of the Clearing House is concerned—I think the 100 to 150 men who are likely to be involved, ought to get the same consideration as the staffs of the amalgamated company, who are likely to become redundant as a result of the coming into operation of this Bill.
Question put and agreed to.
PART II.
SECTION 12.
(1) There shall be established for a period of five years from the passing of this Act a court styled the Railway Tribunal consisting of three members, that is to say, a chairman and two ordinary members, all of whom shall be appointed by the Governor-General on the advice of the Executive Council.
(2) At the expiration of the period of five years from the passing of this Act the railway tribunal shall be dissolved.
(3) A member of the railway tribunal may resign his office at any time.
(4) A member of the railway tribunal may only be removed from his office before the dissolution of the railway tribunal by a resolution passed by Dáil Eireann and by Seanad Eireann for incapacity or misbehaviour stated in such resolution.
(5) The railway tribunal shall be a court of record and shall have an official seal, which shall be officially and judicially noticed, and the railway tribunal may act notwithstanding a vacancy in its number.
Amendment by
1. To insert in Part I., before Section 12, a new section as follows:—
"Nothing in this part of this Act shall in anywise affect, impair, or prejudice the existing property, rights, power or privileges of the Dublin and South Eastern Railway Company, the City of Dublin Junction Railways and the New Ross and Waterford Extension Railways and the Dublin and Kingstown Railway Company."
I am not clear as to the significance of this amendment. I intended to ask Deputy Redmond to explain it. Deputy Hewat, do you move it?
I have no authority, Sir.
It can be moved at a later stage if there is any important point in it.
Amendment not moved.
Before Section 12 to alter the heading "Establishment of Railway Tribunal" to "Establishment of Railway Amalgamational Tribunal."
It is not necessary to move any amendment to the heading in Section 12 at all unless Deputy Johnson would like to move this amendment. You could leave it over until his later amendment (No. 51) is reached. It is a matter of choice.
It is merely a matter of convenience, and I think that it would perhaps be better to leave it over. The Dáil does not seem to be in a particularly eager mood to discuss a matter of considerable importance such as this, and it may be in a better trim the next time we meet, at least when we reach this stage on Sections 21 and 22. I think there is no necessity to amend the heading, and therefore I will not move it on this section.
Amendment not moved.
There is a series of amendments later on by Deputy Johnson with a view to establish not only a railway tribunal but a railway rates tribunal, and that will arise on Amendment 51 and later amendments.
In sub-section (1), lines 46 and 47, to delete the words "for a period of five years from the passing of this Act."
I think this amendment is overloaded with names of proposers, but as the rest of them are absent, I will take it on my shoulders. The clause as it stands reads: "There shall be established for a period of five years from the passing of this Act a Court styled the Railway Tribunal" and so on. I propose to delete the words "for a period of five years from the passing of this Act," as the period for which the Tribunal should be in operation, is put down at five years. The English Act, I think, says seven years. I move to leave out the words "five years from the passing of this Act."
I recommend the Minister to accept the principle of this amendment. If it does nothing else it shows some confidence on the part of Deputy Hewat in this great tribunal and the necessity for continuing it. In the circumstances I think the Minister might be disposed to consider the lengthening of the period and then it might not be necessary to constitute a separate court for this work. If it were, say, a judge of the High Court, with one day or two days a week, or a sufficient number of days, he would be enabled to discharge the duties of this particular office. But we would be in a position to get value for his services in respect of the days on which he would not be so engaged. That was our intention originally. In introducing the Bill, while we realised that the greater work that the tribunal would have to discharge would be discharged in five years, nevertheless we had it in mind that legislation would be introduced to continue the life of this tribunal, notwithstanding all the criticisms of the Bill and the value of this tribunal.
I want to say a word by way of explanation as to how the section comes to stand in its present form, and the reasons for it. If the Deputies will look at the definition section they will find that the expression "railway tribunal" is defined:—"Shall until the expiration of five years from the passing of this Act, mean the court to be established under Part II. of this Act, and shall after the expiration of such five years mean the court or other tribunal for the time being appointed by law to exercise the functions assigned by this Act to the railway tribunal."
What the draftsman was aiming at in the present form was this—it will be observed in Section 12 that the railway tribunal is constituted as a formal Court of record and that the persons who constitute the tribunal are put in the position of judges, and cannot be removed save by resolution, and in the same way as judges of the High Court. Now one of these persons has, under Section 13, to be a legal man, and it is thought that as long as the tribunal exists it will be necessary to have legal assistance in its constitution. But when the great weight of the work is disposed of, in a period estimated at five years, it was thought that that element would be re-constituted by assigning that particular position to one of the judges of the High Court who would have time and who would be assigned to it, without throwing the burden of an additional salary for a legal man upon the expenses of the tribunal. It was in order to enable the thing to be re-constituted so that the work would be lightened by assigning one of the ordinary judges who have ordinary salaries to this particular position that the section was drawn in that way. It was thought that if a special legal man were appointed there might be some difficulty in removing him and substituting a judge for him. It will be seen from the definition section that it was not intended to bring the tribunal itself to an end, but simply at the end of that period that a judge might be assigned to this position and a tribunal might be reconstituted as regards the chairmanship by the substitution of one of the ordinary judges for the judge who would be acting during the first five years.
One would have thought that the intention, when defining, was to delete these words, "five years from the passing of the Act." That seems to accomplish what the Attorney-General has explained was the intention.
Might I explain to the Dáil that the tribunal that is proposed to be established here making a comparison with the tribunal in Great Britain is really taking up the duties that there are dealt with by three bodies—there is the Railway Tribunal, the Railway Rates Advisory Committee and the Railway Rates Tribunal. All these functions will be carried out, it is proposed in this Bill, by this one tribunal, which is put into this Bill. Therefore, it does seem— although one would like to look forward to the time when we would get rid of the Railway Tribunal altogether —unlikely that that will occur within our time. And I think, under these circumstances, we could anticipate the amount of work it will have to do will take it a very considerable time.
I accept the principle of the amendment.
I would like to know whether the decision of the Railway Rates Tribunal will be final in matters affecting rates and charges.
That will arise later. This is a question of how long they are going to last. Is Deputy Hewat proposing his amendment under those circumstances?
I am not proposing any amendments of that nature. They are against my principle as a whole; but I accept the Minister's statement that he will consider the matter.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
As Deputy Hewat has already started on amendment No. 4 I will not deprive him of the pleasure of moving it.
The amendment reads as follows:—
In sub-section (1) to delete in line 48 the word "three," and to substitute therefor the word "five," and in the same line to delete the word "two" and to substitute therefor the word "four."
The argument I would use in favour of the amendment is that this tribunal, according to the lines laid down by this Bill, if and when it comes into operation, will be a very important body. The number constituting it is put down as three and I suggest it should be increased to five. That would make the Tribunal of a more representative character, and it would be a case of many hands making light work, and the larger number would lighten the work in this instance. I am anticipating an amendment of mine which comes later which proposes to give representation to a larger number of bodies.
It increases the representative character of the body that is so set up; in that way five would not be an excessive number, and it would perhaps, be better than three. In the same way as a lot of this Bill has been damned with faint praise, I suppose that is about the measure of support I can give to this amendment. The whole point is that five would be better than three.
I do not think the mover of this amendment has sufficiently taken us into his confidence. This section regulates the number constituting the Tribunal, and the next defines the class of people they are to be drawn from. I would like if Deputy Hewat would tell us if he wants two representatives of commercial affairs and two representatives from people experienced in railway business, along with the Chairman?
I will deal with that in a subsequent amendment.
But we want the information now and perhaps the Deputy will be good enough to tell us.
If we want to find a cause for this amendment we have to look to amendments 11 and 12. There is not a lot of difference between 11 and 12 as far as their substance goes. Much the same idea lies under them, and it is on that point alone that I would be inclined to oppose this amendment.
It might include a representative of agriculture.
That is not the reason. It appears to me the body the Deputies have in mind as constituting the Railway Tribunal is that sort of body one finds running a County Council, a corporation, a business committee or a committee of this Dáil, where collective wisdom is brought into play. That is not the sort of tribunal that we have in mind. We had in mind a tribunal which would be of an analytical order, which would examine closely and which would have firsthand knowledge of the work to be done, which would not accept propositions unless they were proven, and which would go into an examination of every detail to see where and how and at what time any economy could be effected, and so to conduct its business of the tribunal that one could have absolute confidence, not in the possibility of having a fair judgment, but of having an accurate judgment.
To that extent we disagree with this particular amendment, because, seeing the fruit of it below, one would say "in this case we will take a Director from a bank or a Director of a manufacturing company or a shipping company, as that man is versed in commercial affairs." His particular knowledge of business is confined to the business that he has an interest in. We want something more than that in this particular tribunal. We want a man who will be in a position to put before the other members comprising the tribunal any fault there is or any infirmity there may be in any figures submitted, so that the tribunal will be in possession of exact particulars and they will be able to form their judgment, not as a man does in the ordinay way on a jury, but as persons who will have so examined their subject that when it is exhausted there is nothing more to be said on it. To that extent it does not matter whether he has experience in connection with beer manufacture, the financing of a bank, the importation of large quantities of goods from other countries, or anything else. Rather he should be the type of man who might be called upon to look into the affairs of any of these concerns, to deal with their balance sheet, their cost of working, the lines on which they are losing money and the line of goods they might push with greater advantage. There is a very wide difference between the interpretation of Deputies and my interpretation of this particular tribunal.
Deputy Hewat has obviously prepared the ground for other amendments to follow, but if the argument he has given in support of the amendment he has moved is the only argument he can give, I doubt if any Deputy with an open mind has been converted as a result of his eloquence. Deputy Hewat, no doubt, looks at this matter in the same way as he looks at other matters connected with the directors of public business concerns. Directors even on companies with which Deputy Hewat is associated, are not put into these positions because of any ability or any outstanding merit from the point of view of management; they are put there because they have so many thousands in the concern. You may have, from that point of view, a shareholder in a company with very good qualifications to sit upon the Board, but although he has those qualifications, he is not entitled to go on the Board simply because his investments in the company amount to hundreds instead of thousands. That is one of the things responsible for the mismanagement and inefficiency we have in business and the antique furniture type of business concern that we have in this country today. The constitution of a tribunal such as this, which is to be a judicial body with full power to lay down decisions upon all matters with which they are empowered to deal, must be of a different type.
The chairman is taken for granted, in all bodies of this kind, if we are to follow what has happened in other countries, to be a lawyer, and I do not think that the remaining members of the tribunal, whether the number be three or five, should be picked out simply because they represent different classes or interests. They should be picked out, and will be picked out, I hope, because they are five of a type necessary to constitute the tribunal, and because they have particular qualifications in regard to certain things. I trust, therefore, as Deputy Hewat is looking at the matter from a different point of view altogether, in the light of other amendments that are to follow, that he will not press this amendment to a division without giving some better reasons in support of it than those to which we have already listened.
I can assure Deputy Davin that I am not going to put this amendment to a vote, nor am I going into mourning over it. At the same time, I would like to thank Deputy Davin for the nice little lecture he has given me on the duties of directors and as to their capabilities. It will be very useful to me. It is well, I suppose, that attention should be called to my own inefficiency, and I will take the Deputy's lecture to heart.
I did not say that the Deputy was inefficient.
I am inclined to support the Government in this matter. The functions of this Railway Tribunal, in the beginning at least, will be to analyse the various schemes put forward by the railway companies concerned in this question of amalgamation. At the start, at least, the tribunal will be concerned principally with matters of finance, and unless we have men on the tribunal skilled in financial affairs we are not likely to get good results. However much I would like to see a man representing agriculture on the tribunal, I know very well that that would not be the place to put him. When the tribunal is enlarged subsequently by the panel, then we will have our men appointed to it; but I believe that at the beginning, when financial matters principally will be coming up for consideration before the tribunal, that the President has adopted the right course in appointing men to it with a good knowledge of finance. At the start the members of the tribunal will have to give very close consideration to the various schemes put forward by the companies concerned in the amalgamation. One company will be looking for one thing and another company will be looking for something else. Therefore, I think that it is absolutely essential to have men on the tribunal who are sufficiently well up in financial matters to see that the public will be adequately safeguarded, and to see also that all parties will get a square deal.
I am not quite satisfied with the President's explanation on this point, nor with the explanation he gave for not agreeing with the amendment. He did not state exactly that he disagreed with the amendment on account of the increase in the number to constitute the tribunal. He apparently also disagreed with the principle of the amendment because of something in some other amendment that is to follow. I take it from his explanation that what is in his mind is that if he agreed to extend the number of members who are to constitute the tribunal, and subsequently agreed to some of the other amendments bearing on that subject, that possibly he would not get the class of man on the tribunal that he had in his mind. I am afraid from what he has told us that he looks upon commercial men with rather a narrow mind. He seems to think that commercial men are limited to a particular line of business and have very little knowledge outside that particular line. I do not know whether I might be looked upon as a typical commercial man or not. The President has already made reference to, I suppose, my poor abilities amongst other business men, but I might remind him that business men in their experience are not at all limited to the particular sphere of duty that they are often associated with. I think that the President, in his somewhat lengthened experience of public matters, has found from his connection with public Boards, that on many of these public Boards, particularly the one with which he himself was associated for very many years, business men have at all times rendered useful service.
On other Boards we find that commercial men are also to be found in very considerable numbers. Again, they are to be found in departments of commerce outside the particular line of commerce with which they are more or less closely identified. My object in rising is to try and remove from the mind of the President the impression that if we were to take the ordinary business man as we understand him he would not be found incapable of discharging the duty the President has in his mind, or that is likely to come before the commercial representative on that tribunal. If the President has taken that impression of the ordinary business man, it is a quite wrong impression, but I fear it is one of the things that the President or the Executive Council had in their minds when thinking of such an appointment. The man appointed to that position must be a man who will carry confidence, and it is to that particular point rather than to any particular qualifications that I would like the President to address himself when making the selection, because while we might get a man who had apparently all the other qualifications he might not have that very first essential from the public point of view, and that is the feeling that he carried the confidence of the public.
I think if I were to get the type of man that Deputy Good has in his mind he would be rather expensive. Take a man, say, like himself, and when I refer to him I do not want to be personal, but if we were to take a man like himself, I am positively certain it would not pay him to sit on this tribunal for the amount of money that we intend to pay, even though we intend to pay a fairly good price. But even at the price I do not think it is likely that we would get a man who would separate himself completely from whatever business he is in for a period of five years and who, at the end of the five years might, perhaps, have to sever his connection with this tribunal. I am sure it will be admitted that it is not easy to wrench oneself from the particular business one is engaged in to take up an appointment of this kind, and then, if it became necessary, to go back to that business again at the end of a five years' period. In some cases it is not always easy to get back to the business one has been at.
I have had a good deal of experience of business men on public boards and I must say that I found some of them excellent. I found some of them who, perhaps, occasionally sought the columns of the newspapers and who at times would be prepared to address themselves to subjects as far apart as the poles even at a moment's notice. Some of them who had been in public life and went out of it in a violent hurry, were soon anxious to get back again, but did not succeed. I believe that Deputy Good and Deputy Hewat have not yet got in their minds what we had in our minds as regards the constitution of this tribunal. The man I have in mind is an accountant. I am sure that is a shock and that it does not convey confidence. What I have got to complain of is that this confidence which the business men ask for and speak so much about is very easily disturbed as far as they are concerned. Results will show whether this is a success, and success will be looked for in a very short time. If, as a result of successful working on the part of this tribunal, good results follow, are we not, I ask, entitled to the confidence of the business community in a matter of that sort having regard to the type of man that should be put in?
We have really been on the quality of the tribunal rather than the quantity.
The one arises out of the other.
With regard to the further additions to be made to the tribunal I object to the amendment on the grounds stated by Deputy Wilson. The effect of the panel on the tribunal does not seem to be quite clearly understood. After amalgamation and absorption the panel will necessarily consist of five members. There will be two additional from the tribunal and the two additional can be so chosen as to represent the interest later on spoken of. It seems absurd that a railway rates tribunal in England dealing with large undertakings should be considered sufficient with three as its number, and that we should seek an increased tribunal of five to deal with a relatively small undertaking here, who with the two panel members, would really in most cases amount to a tribunal of seven.
Amendment put, and declared lost.
I beg to move Amendment 5:—
To delete sub-section (2) and substitute therefor a new sub-section as follows:—
"The members of the railway tribunal shall hold office for such term not exceeding seven years from the date of their appointment as may be determined at the time of appointment, but a retiring member shall be eligible for re-appointment."
As I understand the principle of this amendment was, more or less, accepted by the President a while ago in regard to Deputy Hewat's amendment I do not know whether it is necessary for me to say anything in support of it. The idea of the amendment is of course to provide that the members of the tribunal will have more experience and that their experience will be more valuable and that it would be necessary to make the time seven years, as the term five years would be too short. As Deputy Hewat pointed out, seven years is the term of the members of the British rates tribunal. As a matter of fact I believe the members of that tribunal are whole-time men. I gather the principle of this amendment or some other one similar to it is acceptable to the President, and therefore I beg to move it.
Amendment No. 5, as indeed 6, 7, 8 and 9, will be taken into consideration when the question of the continuance of the tribunal beyond the five-year period is being dealt with. In these circumstances I would ask the Deputy not to move his amendment.
Mr. MURPHY
Amendment 5 not moved. Also amendments 6, 7, 8 and 9, which involve the same consideration, are not moved.
Question: "That Section 12 stand part of the Bill"—put and agreed to.
SECTION 13.
(1) Every person appointed to be chairman of the railway tribunal shall at the date of his appointment either—
(a) be a practising barrister of at least twelve years' standing. or
(b) be or have been a judge of the Supreme Court, the High Court, or the Circuit Court, or
(c) have been a judge of the Supreme Court of Judicature in Ireland, or
(d) have been a Recorder or County Court Judge in Saorstát Eireann.
(2) A judge of the Supreme Court, the High Court, or the Circuit Court may while he holds that office be appointed, with his own consent and the consent of the Chief Justice, to be chairman of the railway tribunal on the terms that he may retain office as such judge not withstanding his appointment as such chairman.
(3) One of the ordinary members of the railway tribunal shall be a person of experience in commercial affairs and the other of such members shall be a person of experience in railway business.
(4) A member of the railway tribunal shall not, while he retains that office, enter into or remain in the employment of any person, company or other undertaking engaged in the transport of persons or things, and a chairman of the railway tribunal shall not, while he retains that office, engage in practice at the bar in Saorstát Eireann.
(5) Subject to the foregoing provisions of this section, a member of the railway tribunal may be appointed on such terms in respect of his holding or not holding any other office or employment as the Executive Council shall, after consultation with the Minister if he is not an Executive Minister, advise the Governor-General.
On behalf of Deputy Cooper, I beg to move amendment No. 10. In sub-section (1) to insert after the word "Tribunal," line 8, page 9, the words "(other than a temporary or additional member)."
I fancy this amendment should be to sub-section (4), and I think it is meant to be moved after the word "Tribunal" in that sub-section. I do not think it has any application whatever to sub-section
(1) but it does obviously come in in sub-section (4).
This amendment comes in after the word "Tribunal" in sub-section (4) and is now postponed. Amendments No. 11, 12 and 13 also not moved at this stage.
On behalf of Deputy Cooper, I now beg to move amendment 10, which was postponed. In sub-section (4) to insert after the word "Tribunal," the words "other than a temporary or additional member." I do not know the full implication of this but I think it is obviously intended to exclude a temporary member from the full provision of the section. A temporary man cannot sever his connection with the other undertakings with which he is connected, and give his whole time to the Tribunal, and then at short notice go back to what he was employed at before.
With regard to this amendment, I express by gratitude to Deputy Hewat, and also I take the blame on myself for having drafted it wrongly. The words "or additional" should not be there. But the suggestion is that the temporary Chairman of the Railway Tribunal need not be a judge or a practising barrister. If for any reason, illness or other, the Chairman is indisposed, it might be better to have one of the more experienced members of the Tribunal in the chair rather than bring in from outside a practising barrister or a judge, who was wholly ignorant of the work of the Tribunal. I am willing to delete "or additional" if that will meet the views of the Minister. Otherwise I think it is undesirable that there should be a statutory obligation.
The amendment should really be under Sub-section 4.
The amendment is to Section 13. Sub-section 1. I drafted it very badly.
A CEANN COMHAIRLE
It deals with the temporary Chairman?
Yes, that he should not necessarily be a judge. My intention was that if a temporary Chairman has to be appointed, one of the two permanent members of the Tribunal may be appointed and not necessarily a judge or practising barrister. If the Minister would accept the principle or bring up something on the fourth stage, I would withdraw the amendment.
Of course, Sub-section 3 of Section 16 deals with the substitution or temporary appointment of either the Chairman or the ordinary members of the Tribunal in case of prolonged illness or other unavoidable causes. Provision is made for the appointment of temporary substitutes.
What I am seeking to secure is that when the Governor-General is not bound under Section 16 to appoint a barrister, he might be held under this section to appoint one.
Exactly, a legal person. I feel that one of the permanent members might be a better temporary chairman than a judge or barrister.
That is different to what we anticipated. It does cut across the main part of this section, which is that the Chairman shall be either a practising barrister or a judge. It was our intention so far as that particular individual is concerned that he should be a legal man. The other two members were in a different position. There was a sort of balancing to be done. You had what might be called the analyst on the one hand, and men with a knowledge of railway work on the other. If we take Deputy Cooper's suggestion we would arrive at this stage. We would be putting one of the advocates, as it were, on the Bench to decide between himself and the other advocate on the other. I will undertake to ask the Minister to consider it, but I think it is against the principle which he had in mind.
I hope when people are appointed on the tribunal that they will not act as advocates for any particular party but act as judges to do the best for the country. I am afraid I drafted the amendment badly. I think I have undertaken too much work lately and have not been able to attend to these matters. If the Minister will consider the matter I will withdraw the amendment.
It may interest Deputy Cooper when I say that I have heard of a case in which a Judge of the Appeal Court said: "There is a document in on our side."
The President says that the Chairman is to be a legal man, and Deputy Cooper's amendment runs as if one or the other member of the tribunal might, under certain circumstances, occupy the chair. The President says that the other members are not eligible.
It is not so much a question of being eligible as not having experience of law.
You say that they should under no circumstances go into the Chair.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The next amendment in my name reads:—"In Sub-section 4, line 16, immediately after the word ‘Tribunal,' to insert the words ‘being a member of the Irish Bar.'" I think that is in very much the same position as the previous one—"the chairman of the Railway Tribunal being a member of the Irish Bar." That was the provision put in. The section, in referring to other members of the Tribunal, assumed that they might be going into the chair. The words which I have added in my amendment —"member of the Irish Bar"—after the explanation I have got just now, do not apply and so I withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question: "That Section 13 stand part of the Bill"—put and agreed to.
SECTION 14.
(1) The Minister shall appoint a registrar of the railway tribunal, and may, subject to the consent of the Minister for Finance as to numbers, appoint such other officers and servants of the railway tribunal as he shall consider necessary for assisting them in the execution of their duties.
(2) There shall be paid to the members of the railway tribunal, and to the registrar and other officers and servants of the railway tribunal such remuneration as the Minister for Finance shall determine.
(3) The Civil Service Regulation Act, 1924 (No. 5 of 1924), shall apply to the registrar and other officers and servants of the railway tribunal.
(4) The remuneration of the members (including temporary members) and of the registrar and other officers and servants of the railway tribunal and all other expenses of the railway tribunal incurred in the exercise and performance of their powers and duties shall be defrayed out of moneys to be provided by the Oireachtas, and a sum equal to one-half of the excess as determined by the Minister for Finance of such remuneration and expenses in each financial year over and above the amount of all fees charged and recovered by the railway tribunal under this Act in that financial year, shall, on demand made within twelve months after the end of that financial year, be paid to the Minister by the amalgamated company as part of its working expenses.
I beg to move in Sub-section 4 to delete all words after the word "Oireachtas," line 41 to the end of the sub-section. If the latter part of Sub-section 4 is left in, it saddles the amalgamated undertaking with charges which, I contend, should either be borne by the State, or alternatively, be met by fees to be charged to the persons appearing before the Tribunal. It may be a very substantial charge if it is not provided in some way outside the companies. I think it is important that the new undertakings should not, in view of the claims made by commerce generally as to the needed reduction in railway rates and fares, be saddled with anything more than can be avoided. We all know the expense of appearing before a Railway Tribunal is very considerable, and I think, perhaps, it might not be very desirable to make the proceedings very cheap. If you take some of the expenses which we know, they run into a great many thousands of pounds in some cases, and I think the amendment is not unreasonable. Perhaps I might have the views of the Minister or those of the Attorney-General whether the amendment is reasonable or otherwise.
Day after day, as we know, demands on the State seem to increase, and the requests for further interference or supervision by the State over certain, services are also on the increase. Here it is proposed. that the costs of this particular Tribunal, when the fees and other expenses have been deducted, will be borne, half by the State, and half by the new undertaking, and that it is not an unreasonable amount of money to be supplied by the State. This is something in which the State comes in to try and help. A State department has been for a long time examining this case, examining into it with all its officials in the interests of the country, and the unified undertaking. What is the position of the unified undertaking as it stands? The railways are practically guaranteed something as good as the return they received in the pre-war period, not as good as they ever received, for there were better years, but they are given a very fair bargain. Litigants will have to pay expenses, and it is put up to us on behalf of persons interested in having cases brought before the Tribunal, that they should not be penalised in expenses in going there. So far as the State is concerned, we have already received a good many representations that it should not be outside the ability of the ordinary litigant to appear there, and put his case, and that he should not be saddled with enormous costs, that on the other hand the amount asked, on the face of it, does not appear to be very considerable. The expenses ought not to be of such a character that the unified undertaking will not be able to meet them. In the circumstances I think Deputy Hewat might not press this to a division.
What is the alternative about fees? I have got some figures here:—"Expenses of traders appearing before a railway tribunal —counsel's fees cost the British Chamber of Commerce Association £1,029 for appearing in a case before the tribunal. The Liverpool Chamber of Commerce has raised a guarantee of £3,000 to meet cases coming before the tribunal." True, that is what it costs, but there must be some incentive to try and bring the costs within reasonable bounds. On the other side of the water there are organisations to which £1,000 is not much, but there are not very many of them here, and the whole procedure is fairly expensive. My idea is if we can get the cost of the tribunal itself recognised by the Government, it might help to simplify, and help in this age of economy to lead to a cheaper method of hearing the cases unless voluminosity in connection with the whole procedure which surrounds a court of this kind is the rule. I think the tribunal itself will be costly. If it is costly it is a heavy burden on the amalgamated company. If the cost is to be charged to the amalgamated company, whose interest will it be to keep down the cost? I think nobody's interest, not even the amalgamated company, because the amalgamated company is not concerned at all. It does not affect their ratio. They are allowed a margin to pay their shareholders. They do not mind the expense, because their revenue is based on the standard revenue over a certain period.
Therefore, one can easily see that a very expensive process is involved in the thing. First of all, the railway tribunal is there, and pass on the expenses to a body which does not care whether expenses are high or low, because it does not affect them. Therefore, it seems to me to be an unsatisfactory proposition that very large expenditure should be in the air. The Government says we cannot be interested now, because we have already claims made to meet the charges arising out of the whole procedure in various directions, and at all events we are poor and we cannot afford to pay anything we can pass on to anybody else. This passing on to somebody else is going eventually to pass it on to the rates. The rates are going to pay the whole thing. In other words, the rate that is going to be chargeable for goods carried over the railway is going to be affected by the whole principle of this thing. I hope the Minister will be prepared to consider the whole problem in the light of what I said, and I take it that the Bill would need some other provision. The basis of this amendment is that this passing on of the charge, which will be of a very substantial nature, is not right.
There seems to have been some confusion existing. The figures Deputy Hewat has quoted refer to costs.
I only gave them as an instance of what the cost is.
The costs are a different matter from the fees. Section 18, sub-section (2) provides that the court fees and the official payments that have to be made for the purpose of bringing a matter to hearing are to be prescribed by an Order made by the Minister for Industry and Commerce on the recommendation of the Railway Tribunal, and with the sanction of the Minister for Finance. I take it that those three will control the fees to such amounts as may be in suitable proportion to the expenses of carrying on the Tribunal. In the matter of costs I believe the old Tribunal which used sometimes to come over and hear cases was expensive, and as Deputy Hewat knows, the standard of costs before a tribunal of that kind was very much higher than the standard which prevails in this country. I hope before this tribunal functions that the standard of the costs will be in proportion to what we are used to here.
I am quite clear that this does not refer to the fees that will be forthcoming. I only gave that as an instance of the great cost of the tribunal to people whose case is at hearing, but now in this the cost of the tribunal is passed on to be paid in a certain way. Is not my argument sound that that cost will be fairly substantial and will, if passed on to the amalgamated companies, represent a charge which they in turn can pass on to the consumer?
I think there is a mistake. The remuneration of the members and the Registrar and other officers and servants of the Railway Tribunal will be borne by Parliament. Is not that so?
No; paid out of funds provided.
The clause states: "The remuneration of the members (including temporary members) and of the Registrar and other officers and servants of the railway tribunal and all other expenses of the railway tribunal incurred in the exercise and performance of their powers and duties shall be defrayed out of moneys to be provided by the Oireachtas." After that it goes on to state that half of the excess is to be defrayed, by the State and half by the railway companies. We are out for cheaper rates if we can get them, and anything which would tend to increase the expenses of the amalgamated company we would oppose. We would not favour the deletion of the reference, but anything that would reduce the expenses of the management of the companies, knowing we have to guarantee them 4.12 per cent., we would agree with. Therefore I agree with the amendment.
I think there is a fallacy in the Attorney-General's argument. I have not very strong views on the amendment, but I would like to refer to the Attorney-General's statement. The Attorney-General stated that under the old system there were three commissioners. They came over here occasionally and we paid only a proportion of their salary. The cost of their salaries was borne by the taxpayers of the whole United Kingdom, and our proportion of that was very small. Now, there will be three members of the tribunal, who will probably be paid at a lower rate, but still the whole of their salaries is going to come on our shoulders. We are not going to gain financially by this arrangement, however we may gain in other respects. We have got to bear the whole burden of their salaries. In the old days it was a part-time job. The commissioners came over here occasionally and we were responsible only for a relatively small proportion of their salaries—I think one-fourteenth.
I will try to dissipate the fallacy—the fallacy of confusing cost with expenses. What Deputy Hewat really was referring to was solicitor-client costs on appearance before the tribunal, which is one thing, and the fees that cover the expenses of the tribunal, which is an entirely different thing.
They are both involved in this section.
Then the Attorney-General was out of order.
Mr. O'CONNELL
No; he was correcting a Deputy who was out of order.
This question should be reduced to its proper dimensions. We have here a proposal that the tribunal will be remunerated, that the cost of the remuneration be paid by the State, and that the State recover from the amalgamated company a sum equal to half of the excess of such remuneration, over certain fees. The Government is interested to the extent of 50 per cent. of that. The object of this amendment is to shift the burden, as far as the other 50 per cent. is concerned, from the amalgamated company, or from the rates to the Government, and down again to the taxpayer, which does not seem to be a very big change to start with. Secondly, I might point out that by refusing to Deputy Hewat the two extra members he wished to have appointed on the tribunal, we have pretty well saved a sum which, I venture to prophesy, will be equal to, if not greater, than half of the excess of the remuneration of the tribunal over the fees.
Amendment put and declared lost.
Mr. O'CONNELL
I beg to move:
Amendment 17.—In sub-section (4), line 42, to delete the words "one half of."
It is rather an anomalous position to find Deputy Hewat, a great protagonist of private enterprise and non-interference by the State, insisting on the State coming in and bearing all the expenses of this Tribunal, and we, on our side, supposed to be advocates of nationalisation and all that sort of thing, advocating directly the opposite. The proposal in the Bill is, as the Minister says, that the State should bear half of the excess—one half of any expense incurred by the Tribunal, over and above what may be recovered by the fees. We think that that is an unreasonable demand and that all the expenses of the Tribunal, not reimbursed by the fees, should be borne by the amalgamated company, and that the State should not be called upon to bear any expense in connection with this Tribunal. I may state again that in the British Railway Act it was provided that all the expenses should be borne by the companies and the State was not called upon to make any contribution. All the arrangements in which the Tribunal are concerned will be clearly for the benefit and advantage of the amalgamated company, and it will be part of the future routine business of the company. I think it is quite unreasonable to suggest that the burden of any part of this excess should be borne by the State. Therefore, I move the deletion of the words mentioned in the amendment—" one half of." This means that the company will be liable for all the expenses of the Tribunal.
The Deputy who has just sat down expressed surprise at my action in connection with the previous amendment. He need not have done so. I am only making the best of a bad job. My principles are to be in no way taken as being embodied in these amendments at all. If the Deputy would come round to my way of thinking, we both would be right and we would wipe out the Bill altogether.
The proposed Tribunal carries out duties distributed in Great Britain between three separate undertakings—the Amalgamation Tribunal, the Rates Tribunal, and the Railway and Canal Commission. On grounds of economy, we propose one Tribunal to take the place of these three. The method of expense-bearing of these three in Great Britain was that the Amalgamation and Rates Tribunals had their expenses entirely borne by the railway companies, and the expenses of the Railway and Canal Commission were borne by the Government.
Its functions were very large. They were somewhat curtailed under amalgamation but they were very large.
It is important if this argument is to have any weight to know what are the functions of that Commission which are being taken over by the tribunal.
Are we quite in order in discussing that question?
The distribution of the expenses is the question I am dealing with at the moment, and I think it is quite a fair adjustment, that 50 per cent. of the expenses of our tribunal, over fees, should be borne by the railway companies, and that 50 per cent should be borne by the Government. It seems to be the fairest adjustment, taking into consideration the duties and functions of the tribunal here, and taking into account the distribution of the expenses of the three tribunals in Great Britain, which are included in our one.
I think the Minister should assist the Committee by giving some idea, if he can, of what he estimates the cost of this tribunal's expenses to be. Is it likely to be a variable quantity? Is it more or less a fixed sum per annum? Will it be increased according to the extent appeals are made for revision and opposition is offered to proposed rates? For instance, will there be any increase in the cost of the tribunal on account of the conflict between trading communities and the company, because I can see the likelihood of the tribunal's expenses increasing considerably after controversy and litigation and it may be well worth the while of the company to make proposals to fight the traders, agriculturalists and the rest, with a view to warding off opposition—creating expenses, as a matter of fact, to prevent that kind of opposition and that kind of litigation which comes before such tribunals. But if the company is to bear the whole of the excess expenditure there will be a little less likelihood of involving the tribunal in that extra expenditure which litigation would involve. In any case I think the whole of the proceedings of this tribunal will be to the advantage of the railway company. The purpose of the tribunal after the amalgamation has finished is to fix rates at such a figure as will ensure them this regular rate of dividend. If that is the purpose of the tribunal, and it is admitted in the Bill, surely it is the business of the company to pay expenses over and above the fees. Surely you ought not to ask the State to go further to the aid of the company by paying half the extra cost of the tribunal. The tribunal's business, bear in mind, is to fix rates at such a figure as will provide the shareholders of the company with a guaranteed rate of dividend. Then we are asked to say that the company is to be relieved of some of the expenses and the State is to bear those expenses.
This Bill is going to do in effect what if time had been allowed and the country had been patient enough would inevitably have taken place. There would have been an attempt at amalgamation by Private Bill legislation. Had there been Private Bill legislation. do you think that we should have been asked to give State aid to the companies in the cost of a tribunal which is to fix rates? I say the strength of the case for this amendment lies in this, that the work of the tribunal is to fix rates at such a figure as will enable them to pay a standard dividend. When you are doing that, surely the company and not the State ought to be asked to bear the excess cost of the tribunal's work. Deputy Hewat said, and, of course, I am very glad he said it so clearly, and in so many words, that whatever expenses may be involved will be added to rates and charges. That is true, I admit that, but I say it is better in this matter that the users of the railways should bear the charge than that it should be put upon taxation. If the Minister for Finance had been here, I am quite sure he would have supported this amendment. We have been charged a good many times over—I think the President himself a few months ago spoke of the habit— with looking to the State for assistance here and there. Now we are coming to the aid of the Minister for Finance, and we are asking the Dáil to agree with us, that this charge should not be placed upon the Minister for Finance, that it should be borne by the railway company. I think nearly every argument that the President used against Deputy Hewat's amendment is an argument in favour of ours.
I think there is a slight misconception on the part of the Deputy as regards this particular tribunal. This is a body which is safeguarding two very important organisations in the community, the railway companies on the one hand and the public on the other. They are both parties to this particular tribunal. If we were to place the entire cost of the services of this tribunal on the railway companies, what right have we got to have it? We are establishing this body, nominating its membership and all the rest. Would we have a right to impose the cost of that which is corrective, as far as we are concerned, on this new unified company? I do not think we would. I think that the State, representing the taxpayer in this particular case, has a right to pay its portion of the cost. That it will get value for it is a matter which we are hopeful of, but I think we are, in all justice and equity, bound to contribute towards its expenses. That we have got to bring it into existence we admit. To that extent there must be a corresponding liability on the part of the unified undertaking. It is due to the fact that rates are so high that we must introduce this corrective, and they on their part must be asked to contribute their portion. The Government in this case is standing between those who claim too much from it in the one case and those who wish to give it too much in the other case.
The President has just said that the Government and the railway tribunal are standing between two parties in this Bill, on the one side the amalgamated companies and on the other the public and the traders. That is so. He claims that because the tribunal is so standing that the amalgamated companies ought to pay half, and the Government, as representing the public, the other half. That is so. The point that I would like to bring to the President's notice is that it is an instruction in this Bill that the railway tribunal would protect the amalgamated companies to the extent of crystalising their old dividend for ever. But there is no instruction in the Bill that the old rates and tariffs will not be exceeded sometime in the future. So that although the tribunal stands midway between the public and the amalgamated companies, it extends the protecting hand over the companies, but there is no protection for the traders and the public to see that the rates that they paid in the past will not be exceeded in the future. I hope that when we discuss the other sections of the Bill the President will take into consideration that as the tribunal stands between the public and the companies it should extend the same protection to the public as it does to the companies, in view of the fact that the public are paying half the cost of the tribunal.
I wonder what the Minister for Justice would say if he were discussing this. I remember some time ago—and I think the President supported him—when it was put forward as a virtue in a certain Bill which was introduced, with the object of protecting the public on the one side without hurting the trade on the other side, that certain public services were to be rendered, but the trade was to pay the expense. That was virtue then. Now the President says that because the public is to be protected the public has a right to pay half the expense. When we were dealing with the censorship of films it was right that the trade should bear all the expense. When we are dealing with the censorship of railways it is right that the public should pay half the expense. That is a new doctrine of the President in contradiction of the doctrine of the Minister for Justice. Deputy O'Mara has put the case as clearly as it could be put. The railway companies are being protected and are guaranteed a certain position. We may say the public is being protected against exhorbitant charges beyond that guarantee. But it would have been impossible for the companies to have got those charges beyond that guarantee without this Bill. It is only a paper protection to the public, but it is an absolute protection to the companies. When the Government come along, after talking as they have been, week after week and month after month, about the necessity for conserving the national funds and taxes and say: "We shall hand over to this company (which is in effect what this section does) half the excess out of the State Funds," then it is turning back on every doctrine of State economy that has been preached from Government benches for the last eighteen months.
The Deputy, I am sure, will do me the credit of having said on a previous occasion that this particular Bill is our guarantee to private enterprise. If it is not a success, and if it does not achieve the purpose for which it was intended, then other measures will have to be adopted. We must get a reduction in rates. We are giving, on the one hand, a very considerable amount of security and a great chance. We expect, on the other hand, that the public and the State will get the benefits also resultant from this particular measure. If that be not so the Bill must be reconsidered.
I wonder would the President guarantee, when that day comes, that he will make the companies pay for their failure? Will he not rather say, "well, we guaranteed them in 1924 a certain rate of profit and a certain rate of interest on their capital invested, and they will have to be compensated according to that guarantee."
I am afraid if I was to extend the principle of making people pay for being failures that I would have a big job, much bigger than the one I have at present.
Amendment put.
The Committee divided. Tá, 10; Níl, 36.
Tá
- Seán Buitléir.
- Tomás Mac Eoin.
- Pádraig Mac Fhlannchadha.
- Tomás de Nógla.
- Tomás O Conaill.
- Aodh O Culacháin.
- Liam O Daimhín.
- Domhnall O Muirgheasa.
- Tadhg P.O Murchadha.
- Pádraig O hOgáin (An Clár).
Níl
- Séamus Breathnach.
- Seoirse de Bhulbh.
- Próinsias Bulfin.
- John Conlan.
- Major Cooper.
- Maighréad Ní Choileáin Bean
- Uí Dhrisceóil.
- Patrick J. Egan.
- Henry J. Finlay.
- Desmond Fitzgerald.
- John Good.
- William Hewat.
- Connor Hogan.
- Liam T. Mac Cosgair.
- Pádraig Mac Fadáin.
- Pádraig Mac Giollagáin.
- Risteárd Mac Líam.
- Seoirse Mac Niocaill.
- Liam Mac Sioghaird.
- Liam Mag Aonghusa.
- Patrick McKenna.
- Martin M. Nally.
- Criostóir O Broin.
- Seán O Bruadair.
- Aodh O Cinnéide.
- Partholán O Conchubhair.
- Peadar S. O Dubhghaill.
- Pádraig O Dubhthaigh.
- Eamon S. O Dúgáin.
- Donchadh S. O Guaire.
- Aindriú O Láimhín.
- Séamus O Leadáin.
- Domhnall O Mocháin.
- Séamus O Murchadha.
- Seán M. O Súilleabháin.
- Seán Príomhdhail.
- Liam Thrift.
Amendment declared lost.
Question: "That Section 14 stand part of the Bill"—put.
On the question, that Section 14 stand part of the Bill,
I think I am entitled, though my amendment was out of order, to enquire why the salaries of the members of the railway tribunal are to be placed on the Estimates instead of being paid out of the Central Fund. I do not know if the Government quite realise what they are doing. In the first place, they are taking a judge as chairman of the railway tribunal. They are going to remove him from an atmosphere of judicial security and throw him into the arena of Parliamentary criticism. They will find a judge rather slow to accept the appointment on these terms, I imagine. The second point I want to make is, that as a result of this provision, every year, when the Estimates come up, we shall have complaints from every part of the country that they have been treated unfairly by the tribunal. I venture to think that though that is natural and reasonable, it would be extremely bad for the Dáil if we are to have a Clare Deputy coming here and asking why Kerry got a cheaper rate than Clare from this authority.
One of the greatest dangers to this country is sectionalism; people are too much inclined to think in terms of their own neighbourhoods and not in terms of the State as a whole, and I feel that the fact that the decisions of the tribunal are going to be subjected to annual criticism every time the salaries of the members have to be voted, will intensify that sectionalism, will set one part of the country against another part; will contest the claims of different ports—Dundalk against Drogheda, and Waterford against Cork—and that instead of working more and more towards acting and feeling for the whole of the country we shall be continually divided on sectional lines. I do seriously think that is a danger to the State as a whole, and I am afraid that the decision of the Government to place the salaries of the Judicial Tribunal on the Estimates and lay them open to discussion and criticism here will foment and intensify that evil.
The only reason that I know of why they should not be put on the Central Fund is that, as will be seen, we did not think that this tribunal would have a life beyond five years, and the question is as to whether it is advisable to put a charge in respect of five years on the Central Fund. I do not think that the Dáil would enter into a discussion as to the decisions given by this tribunal, but I do not altogether see that it would be wise to have the absence of it the subject of consideration when putting up the Estimates—not so much decisions that would be given, as other matters in connection with it, and I expect that it is quite likely that even if the Judge's salary were on the Central Fund there might be some discussion in the nature of what Deputy Cooper has told us. As far as the proposal is concerned it is much on a par —I am not comparing them—with that of the District Justices, that we did not know in their case how many we would require. To that extent it should be open to the Dáil to get it cut down, altogether independent of any canvassing of the tribunal's judgments, and to the same extent it is just possible that within five years the President of this court might not have a full-time occupation.
The President will recognise that I am entirely consistent. I objected to his proposal about the District Justices because I thought it was a mistaken step, and I think this is a mistaken step. I think every person who is placed in a judicial position should be able to act honestly to the best of his lights, without fear of criticism here, being removed as far as possible from public criticism, and while I am not going to insist on taking a division, because the big battalions are mustered, I want to place on record my opinion, that I believe it to be a mistake and that it will not conduce to the dignity or efficiency of the Dáil or of the tribunal.
Question—"That Section 13 stand part of the Bill"—put and agreed to.
I move the adjournment until 7.5 o'clock.
The Committee adjourned at 6.45 and resumed at 7.5 p.m., An LeasCheann Comhairle in the Chair.
SECTION 15.
(1) Every person appointed to be a member of the railway tribunal shall within three months after his appointment absolutely sell and dispose of all shares in any transport undertaking which he shall at the time of his appointment own or be interested in for his own benefit, and if any shares in any transport undertaking shall come to or vest in a member of the railway tribunal by will or succession for his own benefit, he shall within three months after the same shall have so come to or vested in him, absolutely sell and dispose of the same or his interest therein.
(2) A member of the railway tribunal shall not, while he holds that office, purchase, take, or become interested in for his own benefit any shares in any transport undertaking.
(3) Any member of the railway tribunal who shall retain purchase, take, or become or remain interested in any shares in any transport undertaking in contravention of this section shall be disqualified for and be deemed to have vacated his office as such member.
(4) In this section the expression "shares in any transport undertaking" means and includes any stock, shares, debentures, debenture stock, bonds, or other securities of any company engaged in the transport of persons or things in Great Britain or Ireland.
I move: In sub-section (1) to insert, in line 50, immediately after the word "appointed" the words "at any time hereafter." I think that is really a verbal amendment. I leave it at the mercy of the Minister.
I do not know what it means exactly—"Every person appointed at any time hereafter." If there is a necessity to say that we have not appointed anybody, I can give that undertaking. We have not appointed anybody, and I do not know what purpose is really served by putting this in.
I think it means the thing in perpetuity. Of course, at the earlier stage the railway tribunal was only appointed for five years. Now we have got to the stage of creating a more permanent body, and I think that the words would improve the clause. If the Minister does not think so, I would not press it.
I will undertake to look into it.
We can have an examination and find out whether the words add anything to the clause.
I am quite satisfied if the Minister would give it a microscopic examination and see if it improves it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move: To add at the end of the section, page 10, a new sub-section as follows:—
"This section shall not apply to temporary or additional members of the railway tribunal."
This amendment seeks to exempt persons who are appointed as temporary or additional members of the Railway Tribunal from the obligation to sell their shares in any transport undertaking. I put it down because I think the Government are asking rather too large an order. I admit that it is desirable that any person appointed to the Railway Tribunal should be entirely unbiassed, but what the Government asks them to do is to sell and dispose of all shares "in any transport undertaking which he shall at the time of his appointment own or be interested in for his own benefit." Railways in South America, omnibus companies in London, are all covered, as far as I can see, by this section, and you are asking a man who is appointed to fill a temporary vacancy, a vacancy, possibly, of two months or so, to dispose of these shares, run the risk of losing a very considerable sum on sale and re-investment, and to serve the State for whatever emoluments the State may give him.
Not South American companies. I beg the President's pardon—South American railways will not be included, but omnibus companies in London and steamship companies would be, any steamship companies registered in Great Britain, and all tramways. I think all tramways in Great Britain have been municipalised by the efforts of the Labour Party, but if there are any which have not been, they would be covered. The Peninsular and Oriental Steamship Company will also be covered, as that is a company registered in Great Britain. You are asking a man to do this for the sake of two months or so, to fill a temporary vacancy.
I do not protest against it in the case of permanent members, but for a man, a judge possibly, appointed a temporary chairman, to have to go through all his investments to see which of them come under this heading, to dispose of them, or possibly to persuade his trustees that it was necessary to dispose of them, and to get his trustees consent for reinvestment—if he is a tenant for life, which I am, it is not always easy to get the consent of your trustees or to get them to agree to it—that, I think, is asking too much in the case of a temporary member, and this only extends to a temporary member. If a man is a permanent member let him by all means dispose of his shares. He would be a member for a considerable period, but it should not apply to temporary or additional members, and I think it would make it very difficult to get temporary or additional members. If the Minister was, in a moment of insanity, to come and ask me to act on this tribunal for a time, I should say "Thanks, very much; it is not worth it; the brokerage would be more than the remuneration you propose to give me."
I should explain it was understood that the words "Railway Tribunal" would have been identified in their meaning merely with the chairman and two members of the tribunal proper, and the expression technically would mean only these three. It is not quite clear it does so mean this, and if the expression "Railway Tribunal," on reconsideration, seems to cover temporary appointments, then some such amendment as Deputy Cooper has down will be necessary, for the reasons he states. Consequently what I intend to do is to consider whether the phrase "Railway Tribunal" should be defined in such a way as to make it to be confined to the three members.
The Minister accepts the principle; then I withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question—"That Section 15 stand part of the Bill"—put and agreed to.
SECTION 16.
(1) There shall be constituted two panels, that is to say:—
(a) a panel (hereinafter referred to as the "general panel") consisting of twelve persons nominated by the Governor-General on the advice of the Executive Council, such advice being given as regards three such persons after consultation with the Minister and with a view to such three persons being representative of commercial and industrial interests, and as regards four other such persons after consultation with the Minister and with a view to such four persons being representative of the interests of labour and of passengers upon railways, and as regards four other such persons after consultation with the Minister for Lands and Agriculture and with a view to such four persons being representative of agricultural interests, and as regards one other such person after consultation with the Minister for Fisheries and with a view to such person being representative of fishery interests; and
(b) a panel (hereinafter referred to as the "railway and canal panel") consisting of four persons nominated by the Governor-General on the advice of the Executive Council, such advice being given after consultation with the Minister and with a view to three of such persons being representative of the railway companies in Saorstát Eireann and the other of such persons being representative of the canal and inland navigation companies and authorities in Saorstát Eireann.
(2) Each member of the panels shall be appointed for such term not extending beyond the expiration of five years from the passing of this Act as the Governor-General shall on the advice of the Executive Council determine at the time of the appointment.
(3) If a vacancy occur amongst the members of the railway tribunal, or if any member of the railway tribunal is incapacitated by prolonged illness or other unavoidable cause from attending meetings of the tribunal, then, for the purposes of Part III. of this Act only, pending the filling up of such vacancies or during such absence—
(a) in the case of the chairman, the Governor-General on the advice of the Executive Council may appoint a person to act as temporary chairman in his place; and
(b) in the case of either of the ordinary members, the Governor-General on the advice of the Executive Council may appoint a member of a panel to act in his place, the person so appointed being selected from the general panel or the railway and canal panel according to the qualification of the ordinary member in question.
(4) Whenever for the purposes of any particular case or proceeding brought under Part III. of this Act the railway tribunal either upon application by any of the parties or otherwise so request, or the Minister thinks it expedient, there shall be added to the railway tribunal two additional members nominated by the Governor-General on the advice of the Executive Council from the panel, one such additional member being selected from the general panel and the other from the railway and canal panel.
In selecting a member from the general panel, regard shall be had to the particular class of case or proceeding to be heard, so that, as nearly as may be, the person so selected shall be conversant with and have knowledge of the technical matter that may arise in such particular case or proceeding.
(5) Every person appointed under this section to be temporary chairman or temporary member of the railway tribunal shall, while he holds that office, be paid such remuneration as the Minister for Finance shall determine and shall have and exercise all the powers and functions of the chairman or an ordinary member (as the case may be) of the railway tribunal.
(6) Any person appointed under this section to be an additional member of the railway tribunal shall, for the purposes of any proceedings in respect of which he may be so appointed, be a member of the railway tribunal, and shall, subject to the provisions of this Part of this Act, and to the general rules made thereunder, have and exercise all the powers and functions of a member of the railway tribunal.
My amendment is to delete the section. It will be remembered that the discussion of the definition section was deferred because of the effect upon other discussions. This amendment was put down to delete Section 16, because we seek to establish not one but two tribunals, to distinguish between the tribunal which will be responsible for the scheme of organisation and amalgamation, and another tribunal having an entirely distinct function, to act as a Rates Tribunal. It was intended that that question would be discussed on Section 1. That was postponed, and consequently the plan of these amendments has become somewhat disarranged. The discussion that would be provided by this amendment will have to be repeated when we come to Section 22. The purpose of the amendment here was to delete this Section, and to substitute for it other sections which will be discussed on amendment 51. In view of this I shall not move this amendment, but would prefer to have a discussion on Section 22, and if that succeeds then this section will require to be deleted at the next stage of the Bill.
Amendment not moved.
I move:
In sub-section (1) (a) to delete all from the word "four," line 19, to the word "railways" in line 22, inclusive, and to substitute therefor the words—"two other such persons after consultation with the Minister and with a view to such two persons being representatives of the interests of labour, and as regards two other such persons after consultation with the Minister and with a view to such two persons being representative of the interests of passengers upon railways."
The proposal in the Bill is that on the joint panel there shall be four persons who shall represent the interests of Labour and of passengers on the railways. I do not think that the interests of Labour and passengers on the railways are absolutely identical. The interests of passengers are low fares. The interests of Labour are high wages. They cannot be always combined. I put down this amendment with a view to separating into two classes—two representing Labour and two representing passengers on the railways.
Labour's interests are also low fares.
If they were all lumped together, Labour, being well organised, would get more than its share, and at best there would be one member to represent the interests of the passengers. I think I have made it fair by giving an equal division. I thought of adding to the total number on the panel, but I think the number is quite large enough already. I think the proposal I suggest is a workable compromise. I should like to suggest to the Minister that in considering the representation to passengers and railways he should consult the Commercial Travellers' Association. I believe a representative of that Association would be a very useful member of the Board. I beg to move the amendment.
It seems to have been forgotten that the panel is to be constituted by this method: nomination by the Governor-General on the advice of the Executive Council, such advice being given after consultation with the Minister with a view to certain interests being represented. The fact, therefore, that Labour is well organised in comparison with commercial travellers does not mean that they would automatically go on out of their due proportion. The Minister and the Executive Council would have a certain amount to say to it. However, if it is a suggestion to divide the four into two recognised groups, the amendment could be accepted. With regard to these panels generally, I might point out that there is very little use in multiplying subdivisions of the representative bodies, because there is only one person from each of the two panels who will be taken on, and that one person will be chosen with an eye to the item that comes up for consideration. So it does not matter whether you leave four to represent two bodies jointly, or two to represent one, and two to represent another. The choice will be the Minister's. However, the amendment has been moved, and I am prepared to accept what is in the amendment.
I am not opposing the amendment, but without that explanation I think it has been put to the Dáil in a way that does not encourage Deputies to support it. I think, so far as the Commercial Travellers' representation is concerned, it must be distinctly understood that commercial travellers, as such, have an advantage over other people as users of railways. They represent companies, and in some cases a few commercial travellers represent very big business concerns. They have season tickets, and, if not, they have certainly a right to claim a return of the railway fare from the company that they represent. The ordinary user of the railway, as distinct from the commercial traveller, is in quite a different position altogether. I do not, therefore, think that the Commercial Travellers' Association should be in a privileged position.
I only suggested that the Minister should consult them. I did not suggest that they should be placed in a privileged position.
As regards the distinction between Labour and the ordinary users of the railways, I do not think there is any such distinction. Labour, or the people who would be termed Labour, according to the meaning of this amendment, would be, for reasons which I have explained, whether in a tramway or railway, third class passengers. Third class passengers, whether labour or agricultural, are entitled to the greatest amount of consideration in regard to representation as regards the rights of passengers or the users of the railways. I do not know whether that is recognised by the Minister, or in what way passengers or users of the railways will be provided for by the acceptance of this amendment. I do not think that Labour has any selfish desire in seeking representation upon a tribunal of this kind, which is merely an advisory body to advise the tribunal with regard to the question of railway rates, fares and wages.
I do not think that there is anything involved by their share of representation on that tribunal. The activities of the tribunal have no bearing on the wages question. I do not see that it has any. The question of wages and service conditions on the railways will be dealt with outside of the authority of the tribunal. There will always be matters for negotiation between the trade unions representing the railway men and those responsible for the administration of the railways, and they are not going to, and do not intend to, allow this tribunal, which is really a rates revisionary body, to have anything to say to the conditions of railway men in the future.
I think the principle advocated by Deputy Cooper is a wise one in this respect, that he suggests that the Minister, before making these appointments, should get into touch with the associations or societies which represent those particular interests. I think that is an action which the Minister ought to take in making appointments of this character. I quite agree with Deputy Cooper in his suggestion in regard to the users of the railways. I think that the interests of the commercial travellers—that is, their particular organisation—ought to be consulted, because after all their interest as representatives of the people who use the railways is a large and important one. The same applies when it comes to the question of labour. I am quite sure the Minister, in order to avoid trouble, if for no other object, will consult the respective associations in connection with the labour organisation. I take it also that when he is considering the appointment of those who represent commerce and industry, he will get in touch with such bodies as the Chamber of Commerce. I think, in adopting that line, he will be acting wisely.
In case I might have been misunderstood. I want to say that I do not object to the Minister consulting anybody and everybody he thinks is in a position to give him advice; but I object to the Minister by inference or otherwise agreeing to put commercial travellers in a privileged position on this railway tribunal or any advisory body.
I want to disabuse the Deputy's mind on that point. I never intended to put the commercial travellers in a privileged position; but I suggested that they, representing a large body of railway users, might be consulted. People like those connected with the Cattle Association might also reasonably be consulted, otherwise the Minister will be in the position that he will be putting his pen through the Dublin and the Cork Directories for the purpose of picking out the name of a man who he supposes uses the railways sometimes. He will find it hard to get suitable people unless he gets into touch with those who do a good deal of travelling.
I am accepting Amendment 21 as it stands.
Amendment put and agreed to.
The following amendment is in the name of Deputy Heffernan:—
To delete the word "four" in line 22, and substitute therefor the word "five."
Deputy Heffernan is not here and it seems to me that it is very hard to interpret what was really in his mind.
Mr. O'CONNELL
If he means that the farming industry should have five on the panel, he should have altered the number from 12 to 13, because I am sure he does not mean to exclude Fisheries. I believe his idea was that the interests of agriculture are so varied that there might be a case in which you could not get a man who would be suitable, because a man might be well versed in one thing and not in another, and it would be difficult to find a suitable man in any case that might crop up because of the diversity of activities in the matter of agriculture. I am not standing for the amendment further than to ask the Minister to agree to it. If he does not agree I will take that with good grace. I move the amendment.
I may say at once that I am not agreeable to this. Why should we have five and not seven or nine or twelve?
If there are so many varied interests among agriculturalists it would be unwise to limit the number to five. The figure four has been chosen and I think no argument has been put forward to convince me that five is a better number; I am going to abide by the figure four.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I beg to move amendment 23, which stands in the name of Deputy Alfred Byrne as well as my own. It is:—
In sub-section (1) (b), line 31, to delete the word "four" and to substitute the word "eight," and in lines 36 and 37 to delete the words "and the other of such persons" and to substitute therefor the words "and as regards two other such persons with a view to such two persons being representative of Shipping Companies trading with Saorstát Eireann, and as regards two other such persons with a view to such two persons being expert in matters of finance or otherwise qualified to assist the tribunal on questions arising on amalgamation, and as regards the remaining one of such eight persons with a view to his."
This amendment introduces a claim for shipping which, perhaps, the Minister will consider. Shipping people being very important, I hope the amendment will be deemed worthy of recognition. I would like to put in a claim for them. They are a hard-working, deserving class, and they do great work in connection with the country. In these circumstances I hope the Minister will accept the amendment.
The only thing I have to say on this amendment is that a railway tribunal is concerned with railway rates, and not with shipping rates, and how it is proposed to add to a tribunal controlling Irish railway rates, shipping companies that are not under statutory control here. I cannot see. As regards two persons "expert in matters of finance or otherwise qualified," it may not have been brought to Deputy Hewat's attention that this is a railway and canal panel. I do not think we could add a special interest in financial matters to this panel. It might have been done on the general panel, although there again I cannot see any case is made out. If financial interests are to come in they can come in in the furnishing of evidence before the tribunal. There is no necessity for having them represented on the tribunal, and certainly no necessity for having them represented on the railway and canal panel has been made out.
In reply to what the Minister said, and supplementing what I already said, the Minister does not seem to understand that there is a great interchange in connection with steamships and railways and that steamship companies are part and parcel of, and are represented on, the Clearing House and are taken into consideration in all railway matters concerned with through rates and generally with the traffic of the country. I would remind the Minister we are an island. Anything that comes in, comes in by sea in the first instance, and anything that goes out goes out by the same liquid method, so I am afraid I will have to ask the Minister to reconsider his decision as to the position of the steam-shipping companies, more particularly the cross-Channel companies, in their relation to the traffic of the railways and canals, and, generally speaking, to the whole question of transit within the area of the Saorstát. I would like to say, as regards the financial experts. I am not quite so keen on that after I heard the President say we are going to have on the railway tribunal, apart from the chairman, at least one who is to be an accountant. That, I think, rather discredits the claim from the financial side, but I do press the claim of the importance of the position of the cross-Channel companies particularly in this matter of railways.
The Minister stated that the tribunal would deal only with questions of rates. Now, in my opinion, the tribunal will have a far greater responsibility in regard to questions of much more importance, and that is with regard to disputes which will probably arise in connection with Section 29 of the Bill. That section deals with the diversion of traffic and this question of the diversion of traffic will be a matter for the consideration of the people upon whose behalf Deputy Hewat has moved this amendment. I contend that the successful working of this whole Bill will depend upon the manner in which Section 29 of it, dealing with the question of the protection of the ports, will be carried out. Deputy Hewat has dropped the idea of claiming representation, either upon the tribunal or upon the board of directors of the new company, because of the amount of the share capital represented. We are getting along in the right direction when Deputy Hewat has been convinced that that is a most desirable proposition to put forward. Sub-section 4 of Section 29 states: "If any dispute shall at any time arise under the provisions of this section or as to any matter or thing under this section, or as to whether the amalgamated companies are fulfilling their obligations hereunder, or taking all reasonable or necessary steps for that purpose, the same shall from time to time be referred to and determined by the railway tribunal."
That is on the question of the internal facilities so far as the amalgamated company is concerned in regard to the diversion of traffic, or as to their responsibility, if they are to be charged with responsibility, for diverting traffic out of its natural course. In connection with that section of the Bill, I think there is a case for consideration in the light of the amendment moved by Deputy Hewat. In view of the existing agreements between the cross-channel companies, you are bound to have disputes arising in connection with that section. It is very doubtful, as far as I can gather from reading the Bill, as to what is to be the conference arrangements between the English and the Irish companies as regards the question of the diversion of traffic and rates. I think it is desirable that existing arrangements should be continued as far as possible, even though the representation on both sides may be reduced. In any future conferences it is very doubtful, I say, whether the existing arrangements will continue, and if they do continue to what extent. In view of the serious disputes that will undoubtedly arise in connection with Section 29 of the Bill, I think the Minister should give further consideration to the amendment moved by Deputy Hewat.
I rise to support the amendment of Deputy Hewat, and also what has been stated just now by Deputy Davin, and I hope that the Minister will accede to their wishes. In the past we had two bookings from Ireland to England, but these were discontinued in 1913, and it was only recently that some of them were again put into operation. I think it would be very desirable to have some connecting link between the shipping companies and the railways, and in my view the best way to accomplish that purpose would be to have a representative of the shipping companies on this tribunal. As Deputy Davin states, a great deal of trouble may arise in the way of disputes about cross-Channel traffic, and for that reason I think it would be only reasonable to have someone representing the shipping interests on this tribunal.
I would just like to ask which of the shipping interests is to be given representation?
Deputy Gorey, I am sure, understands that this is a panel. The panel is nominated by the Minister. In other words, the Minister takes his choice in picking the company that is selected for representation.
The importance of this question arises not from this amendment, but from a later one, which seeks under sub-section 4 to delete the words "Part 3 of this Act." That is to say that the panel is to be a part of the tribunal which will deal with any question brought to the notice of the tribunal quite apart from the question of charges, classification and the like. Now, this panel would have to take part in the proceedings regarding amalgamation, if Part 3 is deleted. It is understandable on that assumption, but if we are to assume that the later amendment is not going to be carried, then the proposal of Deputy Hewat is going to defeat his purpose. It is going to dilute the tribunal and to dilute the panel, and thus there is less chance of his object being served. Again, assuming that the panel will only have to deal with matters referred to in Part 3 in connection with railway charges, classification, etc., and if you add to the number of the panel those persons referred to by Deputy Hewat in his amendment, you are reducing the chances of a particular kind of nominee being chosen, because while in the Bill as drafted four persons are to be appointed on the railway and canal panel, three of them representing railway companies and one of them canals in respect of navigation, in the proposal we should have eight, three representing the railway companies, two the shipping companies, two the financial experts, and one the canals.
The chances of the persons representing the railway companies also representing the shipping companies are fairly good, because there is a very close connection, as Deputy Hewat knows, between them, and the person representing the railway company might easily represent the shipping company, but if you add four to the number suggested in the original Bill you are reducing the chances of shipping being represented in the way that Deputy Hewat would like. Of course, this motion has not in mind merely the consideration of classification, because it is further desired, as part of the plan, to delete the references to Part 3, so that the tribunal and the panel under consideration would have to deal with other matters besides rates and classification. Consequently, we have the desire to include representatives of shipping companies and railway companies outside the Saorstát perhaps. Then you would have the panel advising the tribunal in all kinds of matters respecting terms of absorption and terms of amalgamation.
I think it is necessary to look ahead in considering this amendment, and try to realise that it is part of a plan which will bring the representatives of the shipping companies into the consideration of all other matters besides transport charges and goods classification.
I quite appreciate what Deputy Johnson has said in this matter, but I would like to say to him and the Committee that I do not look for trouble ahead.
All I ask the Minister in connection with this amendment is to recognise the position of shipping in the matter and give us representation. If he will consider that matter I feel that I will have been met. I am dropping the financial claim. I see that it may be inconsistent later on, but I am afraid that we will arrive at a great many inconsistencies before we get the final Bill, as amended, before us. I will take a good sporting risk and take the addition to the panel now and leave the rest to the future.
It very definitely has to be remembered that Deputies Byrne and Hewat seek to have the panel deal not merely with rates but with amalgamation. They urge later on that the words "Part 3" be omitted. That would leave the panel not confined in its investigation to railway charges. We will have more to say on that question later on. We do not intend to drop the words "Part 3." Taking it purely as a question of railway charges, I do not see why the amendment should be pressed. There is one amendment, but it operates in two ways. We are going to have a panel to deal with rates. I think on principle there is an objection to having steamship representation on a panel which can only deal with railway rates. Even if they were on that panel the member would never be selected. That case would arise in dealing with railway rates where the representatives of shipping interests who are under our control can be called on as one selection on the railway and canal panel.
Would they not be concerned with the question of diversion of traffic?
I do not think that they would be the proper people to select. We are not going to deal with everybody outside the country who is concerned with what may be done inside it. As regards the very obvious statement that this country is an island and all the traffic comes in by liquid medium, I would shrink from the burden of choosing between all the people who might claim representation in shipping interests and what I would shrink from myself I do not intend to hand on to my successor. I am dealing purely with the point of two persons representing the shipping companies. I do not think that that should be pressed. The other point has not been waived. It has been met. As the President stated, it is intended to appoint on the tribunal one, not two members, who will represent financial matters and be interested and versed in accountancy.
I think the amendment should receive support. Shipping interests should be represented if they also have the regulation of shipping rates.
They have at present. It is largely through rates.
If they can arrange shipping as well as railway rates I think they should be represented.
It seems to be forgotten by Deputy Hewat, because he has not moved an addition to the number of persons to be chosen from the panel. The panel is to be formed consisting of four, six, or eight persons, one of whom shall be chosen to assist the tribunal when any particular proposals respecting a particular interest are under consideration. If it is a proposal affecting railway rates, the shipping adviser or the railway adviser, only one, is to be selected. Surely it will not be contended that the personal representative of shipping interests is to be chosen as adviser because shipping has to be carried oversea which once came from the Irish railway companies. Surely the first preference would be a railway representative. If Deputy Hewat had sought to get representation for shipping interests on any matter which was in any way connected with shipping he would probably have moved an addition to the number of persons to be chosen from the panel but he has not done that. It is also forgotten that the shipping interests which may be represented before the tribunal, may plead their case before it and so can any other interest. The proposal here is that there shall be six persons on the panel, two of whom shall represent railways, two shipping and one canals, and when dealing with through rates the person to be chosen is the representative of the shipping company. If Deputies are prepared to agree to that I am surprised. Surely if it is a matter affecting through rates the Irish railway interests have to be considered equally or in preference to shipping interests, and as I think one has to be chosen we must give our preference to the Irish railways and thus Deputy Hewat's claim has no body.
"Shipping companies trading with the Saorstát," suggest to me shipping companies who are not registered in Saorstát Eireann and trading with other companies. Am I to understand that Deputy Hewat says external shipping companies are to be given a right in determining the rates on Irish railways?
That is very weighty, and I find it hard at a moment's notice to controvert the weighty arguments used against the amendment. I quite recognise what the Minister, the Attorney-General and Deputy Johnson said. The amendment does not stand in my name, but the next one does, and is the same. I go no further than to explain the principle underlying the amendment, and I throw the amendment on the mercy of the Minister. I place it before him more in sorrow than in anger.
I want to say that so far as I am concerned I am not to be taken as supporting representation upon the panel that was to be set up to deal with the conditions of amalgamation or absorption, but the whole debate has been turned upside down because we started at the end instead of the beginning. If we had first of all decided whether there were to be one or two tribunals, one to deal with conditions of amalgamation or absorption, then we would know where we were going. I want to say now that my only support of the principle of this amendment is because I believe that people who are concerned with the question of through rates should be taken into consideration and should, where possible, get representation on an advisory body in connection with the formation of such a tribunal. I hope when the Minister is considering all those things and is talking about shipping companies he will realise that 80 per cent. of the traffic carried into and out of Ireland is carried by shipping companies owned by British railways.
Amendment put and declared lost.
The amendment which stands in my name is:—
In sub-section (1) (b) to delete, In line 31, the word "four" and to substitute therefor the word "six"; and to delete all the words from the word "and" in line 34 (immediately following the word "Minister") to the end of the sub-section inclusive, and to substitute for the words so deleted the following words. viz.:—"and with a view to three of such persons being representative of the railway companies in Saorstát Eireann, two other of such persons being representative of shipping companies established in and trading from ports in Saorstát Eireann, and the remaining other persons being representative of the canal and inland navigation companies and authorities in Saorstát Eireann."
Now, as far as I can see, any argument I used in favour of amendment 23, on the joint production of Deputy Alfred Byrne and myself, applies to the one in my name, No. 24. Having heard the result of the previous amendment, I think I will withdraw No. 24 with good grace.
I think Deputy Hewat deserves some assistance in this, because he ought to meet the Attorney-General's protest. In this amendment, undoubtedly, Deputy Hewat differentiates between shipping companies trading with Saorstát Eireann, as in the previous amendment, and shipping companies established in, and trading with ports in Saorstát Eireann. I think the objections, such as they are, apply here also, because Deputy Hewat has not attempted to increase the number of persons in his railway and canal panel. If he had done that I think it would have been possible to support him.
I am afraid that even with the additional assistance of Deputy Johnson I cannot make much use of the amendment.
Amendment not moved.
With the permission of Deputy Doyle I wish to move:—
In Sub-section (2), lines 41 and 42, to delete the words "not extending beyond the expiration of five years from the passing of this Act," and to substitute therefor the words "not exceeding three years from the date of his appointment."
I think the case for this amendment is that it is not desirable for this to continue as long as five years. A shorter period, three years instead of five, is probably more desirable. Perhaps the Minister can give some reasons for five years if I cannot give any for three.
I was rather in hopes that it would have been made easy for me to accept the amendment by some cogent reasons being brought forward.
A person appointed may or may not be proven competent and a representative person. He may not remain for so long as five years really representative of the interest that he was originally appointed to represent. He may be eligible for reappointment at the end of three years, but when the three years have expired he will automatically fall out unless he has shown competence, or that he is still representative, and he will not feel offended because he has not been reappointed. I think there is fair reason for believing that men may be representative at the time of appointment, but may not retain a representative position for a period as long as five years.
I think I can accept the amendment. If a particular representative turns out to be satisfactory he can be reappointed for another period of three years. That will give him six years, instead of the previous five for which he could be appointed.
Amendment put and agreed to.
I beg to move:—
In sub-section (2), line 44, after the word "appointment" to add the words "and shall then retire, but a retiring member shall be eligible for reappointment."
Amendment put and agreed to.
I beg to move:—
In sub-section (3) (a), line 52, to delete the word "may" and to substitute therefor the word "shall."
This amendment stands in the name of Deputy Byrne and myself. It is just making this mandatory by substituting the word "shall" for "may."
The only difficulty about the amendment is that, whether or not there was business pending at the time when the temporary vacancy occurred, it would, if the amendment were accepted, be incumbent upon the Governor-General to appoint a person. I do not think it is weakened in any sense by leaving in the word "may." There is no necessity to appoint unless there is something for which the particular appointment would be necessary.
Surely this has reference to a member of the tribunal, not to a member of the panel?
It is a temporary vacancy in the tribunal: "If a vacancy occur amongst the members of the railway tribunal, or if any member of the railway tribunal is incapacitated by prolonged illness or other unavoidable cause from attending meetings of the tribunal, then for the purposes of Part III. of this Act only, pending the filling up of such vacancies or during such absence...." If the illness were so prolonged that the member could not act and was not going to act again, then, of course, steps would be taken to appoint. This is only pending an appointment in his place. It is a very temporary type of appointment. I do not think it necessary to say "shall." It would be only if a member were absent.
I think that is so. The principle embodied in the amendment is really that the tribunal shall not cease to operate because there is no chairman. I agree it is unlikely to happen and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 29 not moved.
resumed the Chair at this stage.
I beg to move:—
In sub-section (3) (b) to add at the end of line 57 after the word "the" the words "persons representative of commercial and industrial interests on the" and to insert in line 58 after the word "or" the words "from the persons representative of railway companies in Saorstát Eireann or."
This amendment does not in any way alter the principle of the section. It only helps to make it a little more clear by stating which panel representatives are to be selected from. I think it is an amendment which the Minister might accept, as it would strengthen the Section.
The best I can do is to reserve it for consideration.
I hope the Minister will also consider the other interests that are represented on this panel before deciding.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
What is the purpose of amendment 31:—In sub-section (4), line 61, to delete the words "Part III. Of"?
I think the amendment would have reference to another amendment put down to Part III. of the Bill.
It depends really upon an amendment to Part III., does it not, amendment 1 to Section 23 later on?
Would it not be better to take the discussion upon that amendment and if that were carried to move a consequential amendment at a later stage, rather than take the amendment here where it is merely verbal—where it is merely bringing it into consonance?
It is much wider in its effects. If this amendment were carried and the words "Part III. of" deleted, it would empower bringing on the panel members to deal with, for instance, amalgamation and absorption schemes, and a good deal of the judicial matters that would arise before the tribunal replacing the Railway and Canal Commission. It has been pretty well defeated in principle already.
By the fact that the tribunal has been kept within the limits of Section 12.
Amendment 31 not moved.
I move: "In sub-section (4), line 68, to delete the words ‘the general' and to substitute therefor the word ‘either.'"
That amendment is accepted.
Amendment put and agreed to.
Question—"That Section 16 stand part of the Bill"—put and agreed to.
Might we ask the Executive if we have not now done a good day's work.
Will the Minister move to Report Progress?
I move to Report Progress.
