I move amendment 48:—To delete sub-section (1), and to substitute therefor a new sub-section as follows:—(1) No appeal shall lie from any decision of the railway tribunal on a question of fact." This amendment is much in the nature of a previous one moved by me. In our opinion the wording is simpler and more direct than what appears in the Bill, and we believe that except on questions of fact an appeal should lie in the case of all matters brought before the tribunal, whether under Part (1) or any other portion of the Bill.
DÁIL IN COMMITTEE. - RAILWAYS BILL.—COMMITTEE STAGE RESUMED.
(1) No appeal shall lie from any order made by the railway tribunal in exercise of any jurisdiction conferred on them by Part I of this Act, nor from any decision of the railway tribunal under any other jurisdiction on a question of fact or any question regarding the locus standi of any person appearing or claiming to be heard before them.
(2) Save as otherwise provided by this Act, an appeal shall lie from every decision of the railway tribunal to the Supreme Court, but no such appeal shall be brought except in conformity with rules of court of the Supreme Court.
(3) On the hearing of an appeal from the railway tribunal the Supreme Court may draw all such inferences as are not inconsistent with the facts expressly found by the railway tribunal, and are necessary for determining the questions raised on the appeal, and shall have all such powers for that purpose as if the appeal were an appeal from a judgment of the High Court, and may make any order which the railway tribunal could have made, and also any such further or other order as may be just, and the costs of and incidental to an appeal shall be in the discretion of the Supreme Court, but neither the railway tribunal nor any member or officer thereof shall be liable to any costs by reason or in respect of any appeal.
The amendment as put down has a greater effect than what has been described by Deputy O'Connell. The section as drafted makes the decision of the tribunal final as regards amalgamation and absorption schemes. It precludes appeal even on a question of law on any matter connected with amalgamation and absorpsorption. This amendment would propose even with regard to amalgamation and absorption schemes, and on a point of law, and that would undoubtedly lead to serious delays in the final amalgamation scheme. For that reason it is not proposed to accept it.
I think this is a major question. The position that the railway tribunal would be in would be one which makes it superior to any court, except a Court of Appeal. The tribunal in questions of amalgamation and absorption will have to consider the relations between the different classes of stock-holders, and I put it to the Minister as conceivable, though extreme, but of course there is the possibility, that a tribunal which consists of three persons, only one of whom is a lawyer, might by a majority make certain decisions which are contrary to the accepted law. The judge who is chairman, according to the provisions of the Bill as supported by the Minister, will not be entitled to express any dissent, though he is a lawyer and he knows the two men are deciding a matter of law against the law, but there shall be no appeal. I put it to the Minister that that is a most unfortunate position to allow ourselves to be led into. There was a case I understand under the British Act where certain stockholders of a company believed they had a grievance and that their legal rights had been contravened, and the tribunal decided against them. They did in fact appeal on a question of law, and appealed successfully against the tribunal. Bear in mind the position, that you have a tribunal consisting of one lawyer and two laymen; the majority of that tribunal will decide on a question of law, and the chairman who is supposed to know the law has no right to express any dissent, and yet no one has a right to appeal even on a question of law. Surely that is not common sense, and should not be embodied in an Act of the Oireachtas?
I realise the force of what the Deputy has said, and even though it may lead to delay, the delay, of course, is negligible in comparison with the equity and justice of the situation. Having regard to the amendment carried by a free vote last night that individual judgments were not to be allowed, this will certainly have to be considered. If Deputy Johnson will leave it in that state I can promise to have it again referred to in the Report Stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment 49 will depend on the decision on amendment 51.
Amendment not moved.
I move: In sub-section (1) to delete in line 38 the words "question regarding" and to substitute therefor the words "ruling admitting." I think it is obvious that if one puts in the words I propose in the amendment that it makes the meaning of the section much more clear. I think it makes this section better than the original.
It does rather more than make the section clear; it changes it. As it reads, the section is "No appeal shall lie on any question regarding the locus standi of any person appearing or claiming to be heard before them." It is proposed to amend that and make it that "no appeal shall lie on any ruling admitting"—but an appeal would lie on any ruling rejecting—"the locus standi of any such person." To that extent it enlarges; it gives a further right of appeal than what is contained in the section, and as this would be leading up to the innumerable delays of the law, so horrible and horrifying to business men, I do not think the Deputy, in the interests of his particular section, should press this point.
If the Minister will not accept it I cannot do anything.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question: "That Section 21 stand part of the Bill"—put and agreed to.
SECTION 22.
(1) Every function, jurisdiction, power, and duty which was on the 6th day of December, 1921, exercised by or imposed on the Railway and Canal Commission by statute or otherwise shall (with the exceptions hereinafter mentioned) from and after the passing of this Act be exercised and performed in Saorstát Eireann by the railway tribunal.
(2) Every mention or reference contained in any British Statute of or to the Railway and Canal Commission shall as respects the doing or not doing any act, matter, or thing after the passing of this Act be construed and take effect, subject to the provisions of this Act and with the exceptions hereinafter mentioned, as a mention of or reference to the railway tribunal.
(3) The several functions, jurisdictions, powers and duties conferred or imposed on the railway tribunal by this section may be exercised or performed by them for the purposes of this Act as well as for the purpose for which the same were conferred or imposed on the Railway and Canal Commission.
(4) This section shall not apply to any of the functions, jurisdictions, powers, and duties exercised by or conferred or imposed on the Railway and Canal Commission under or by sub-section (1) of Section 1 of the Defence of the Realm (Acquisition of Land) Act, 1916, or to any mention of or reference to the Railway and Canal Commission contained in any British Statute in relation to any of those functions, jurisdictions, powers, and duties.
I move Amendment 51: Before Section 22 to insert a new section as follows:—
ESTABLISHMENT OF RAILWAY RATES TRIBUNAL.
(1) There shall be established a court styled the Railway Rates Tribunal, consisting of three permanent members, that is to say, a chairman and two ordinary members, with power to add to their number as hereinafter provided.
(2) The permanent members of the railway rates tribunal shall be appointed by the Governor-General on the advice of the Executive Council.
(3) The permanent members of the railway rates 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 their appointment and then retire; but a retiring member shall be eligible for re-appointment.
(4) A permanent member of the railway rates tribunal may resign his office at any time.
(5) A permanent member of the railway rates tribunal may only be removed from his office by a resolution passed by Dáil Eireann and Seanad Eireann for incapacity, or misbehaviour stated in the resolution.
(6) The railway rates tribunal shall be a court of record and shall have an official seal, which shall be officially and judicially noticed, and the railway rates tribunal may act notwithstanding a vacancy in its number.
It has been most unfortunate for the discussion of this Bill, so far as I am concerned, that this question of one Tribunal was not decided at an earlier date, but as I am as much responsible as anybody else for the postponement, I realise that the complications which have ensued are to be laid at my own door. But the question of establishing a Railway Tribunal to have two functions which are not even allied—to do two jobs, and to do them both at the same time in a great measure—seems to me to be wrong and undesirable. I have no feeling so far as the Railway Companies are concerned in this, and no interest is being served by a suggestion that there should be two tribunals set up, except public convenience and more business-like procedure. What is proposed in the Bill is to establish one Tribunal which will, in the first instance, have to receive and consider proposals relating to the amalgamation and absorption of companies existing, and in case of any failure to agree on the part of existing companies to make a scheme of their own, in effect to impose it upon the companies. That may be a very considerable undertaking; it may occupy a considerable time, and it will require certain faculties of a judicial character and, as has been suggested, financial and business experience on the part of the Tribunal. But this is a work which will be undertaken and, one would assume, finished within a few months. One might reasonably expect that the persons who would be appointed to do that work could apply themselves for a few months and finish the work. The proposal in the Bill is to take those same persons, appoint them to do this work of arranging the amalgamation terms, and then to carry on for a period of five years to do an entirely different kind of work. I suggest that it is possible that the best persons to do the first part of the duty are not the best persons to do the second. Then I would ask the Minister and the Dáil to recognise the difficulties that will be placed before that Tribunal if the scheme of the Bill as proposed is adopted. Under Section 9 of the Bill the Tribunal will receive and consider any preliminary schemes which may be submitted, and their duty will be to decide whether procedure, as laid down in the Bill or as laid down in the Act as it will then be, has been faithfully followed. Then before the 31st July of this year, according to Section 3, the amalgamation scheme which has been agreed to by the companies shall have been submitted to the Tribunal. An absorption scheme shall be submitted to them at the same time; that is, before the 31st July. But in case of failure to agree, the Tribunal will be obliged to prepare a scheme of their own for forcible amalgamation. That will have to be done before the end of this year. I submit we have a right to consider all the possibilities; we have a right to consider that it will be incumbent upon the Tribunal to prepare a complete scheme from the date of the passing of this Act.
They may be obliged to take into consideration within the following 7 or 8 months the whole of the railway undertakings—share classifications and all the intricacies of railway affairs— and in that few months to propound a scheme, to hear objections from the companies, and to make the scheme effective. All that has to be done between the 31st July and the 31st December, and while this tribunal is fixed by the Bill to do that work, it has also to take into consideration and review all the existing rates, and then it has to proceed to a re-classification. It has to promote a new classification, and, I presume, hear evidence from thousands possibly of traders and decide upon new rates before the end of December, 1925.
I submit that it is not possible for a single tribunal to do those two operations simultaneously. Unless the Minister is in a position to say with absolute certainty—and if it were so, it should be put in the Bill—that the scheme is ready and only requires a formal decision by the tribunal—unless that is the fact, the tribunal ought not be asked to do that work and also the work of reviewing the rates and charges which are paid by the trading community. The proposal we have tabled is to repeat here what was thought to be desirable and what proved to be practicable and effective elsewhere—to have two distinct tribunals, one of which would deal with the proceedings relating to absorption and amalgamation and an entirely separate tribunal to carry on the work relating to charges and classification. We are proposing a Railway Rates Tribunal, and if this proposal were adopted it would be necessary, at a later stage of the Bill, to define and amend previous sections to make it appear that the "railway tribunal" already in the Bill would be a railway amalgamation tribunal.
The railway tribunal in the Bill it is proposed to continue only for five years as a rates tribunal. It is expected by the present Minister that there shall be either a new tribunal or a modified tribunal to carry on the work after five years, and it is not expected that the duties of the tribunal regarding rates shall cease at the end of five years. Presumably the guarantee of standard revenue under Sections 52 and 53 will also cease at the end of five years. But also there will have ceased any control at all of the rates to be charged by the companies after the five years. It is not enough, I submit, to say that after five years a court or a new tribunal may be appointed. If it is intended that there should be a tribunal, then we should make that mandatory. The proposal in the amendment, which seeks to establish a railway rates tribunal, will ensure that the rates tribunal will persist, that there shall be a rates tribunal until new legislation alters the matter.
Those are the main reasons why I would urge this amendment upon the Dáil; purely in the interests of convenience and practical working, and I think also in the interests of more efficient practice in the work of amalgamation and in the work of fixing rates—both of which may go on concurrently under the proposals in the amendment, but which I think cannot be carried out practically under the scheme as proposed in the Bill. I, therefore, move amendment 51, establishing a Railway Rates Tribunal as distinct from a Railway Amalgamation Tribunal. I may say that Amendment 51 and later amendments are almost wholly taken from the Bill as printed, with the alterations requisite. Amendments 51 to 55 will depend upon the acceptance of this principle to establish a separate Railway Rates Tribunal.
I am always searching for an opportunity to support my friend, Deputy Johnson's, amendments to this Bill. In this particular case I am sorry that I cannot find that we see eye to eye. Deputy Johnson's proposal here is that in addition to the Railway Tribunal there should be set up a Railway Rates Tribunal. He outlined the large amount of work that will be entailed in connection with amalgamation, plus a much larger amount of work entailed in connection with examining the rates charged by railway companies. The President, I think, gave us some information at a previous sitting, and he rather indicated that not only is the work cut and dry for this Railway Tribunal, as regards the amalgamation of the companies, but I think he even indicated that the personnel of this Tribunal is already arranged in his own mind, though not by Act of Parliament. I think he had it arranged in his own mind, so that he could give us the names of the proposed Tribunal offhand.
Acting Chairman, took the Chair at this stage.
Really I do not see, if the Government are taking that on their own shoulders, that the work of the tribunal in connection with amalgamation and absorption will be very heavy. I have an additional objection to Deputy Johnson's proposal. I do not like tribunals at all.
Constitutionally.
Quite right, Professor. What has been the experience of railway companies in connection with tribunals? We are all conversant with the fact that in connection with the administration of railways, various tribunals have been set up and have heard various cases, for instance, the Carrigan award. I sat the other day on a tribunal at which I spent a great deal of time and out of which I got very little information. That is not the way you are going to settle these things; and to load the thing with another tribunal is, I think loading another staff, loading more expense, and putting any chance that the unfortunate users of railways may look forward to for getting relief in rates further into the dim and distant future. This Bill has had a very detrimental effect on the chances of traders getting a reduction in rates; and the setting up of another tribunal is not going to help us, while the additional expense is, of course, going to be a burthen which, according to the present state of affairs it would appear that the railway companies cannot stand. This railway problem is a serious one and this Bill is a serious Bill. Deputy Johnson's amendment is not helping to simplify it and therefore, with all the goodwill in the world to support any amendment put forward, I am sorry I cannot find myself in the same pew with Deputy Johnson and the Labour Party on this amendment.
Deputy Hewat, on a previous clause of this Bill, has made it quite clear that he has a horrible hatred of anything in the nature of a tribunal or anything that may be contained in any Bill that may mean Government interference or otherwise with the conduct of any business in which he may be interested.
A constitutional objection only.
He stated, I think, at one stage of the Bill that when this Bill was passed he, as a loyal, though perhaps, reluctant supporter of the Government, would do the best he could to see that it was carried out in the most effective way. I hope that I am interpreting his conditional loyalty in the proper way. Deputy Hewat would, no doubt, be interested first of all in the work of this tribunal in so far as he is, I am sure, anxiously looking forward to any relief in the nature of rates. I suggest that it is absolutely impossible for any tribunal to be loaded first of all with the duty of examining the preliminary schemes that may be submitted inside five months, because the whole scheme will come into operation after the 1st January, 1925, and at the same time in three months after the coming into operation to be called upon to go into questions of the revision of rates. That, I think, must be quite clear, but Deputy Hewat, if he were a member of the tribunal, would, I am sure, not get up here and guarantee that he would discharge his part of the duty and undertake that impossible task. Some Deputy in a previous discussion stated that in England they had three of these tribunals to deal with what was to be the duty of one body here. That is quite so, but there is only one body in England with the authority that is given to this tribunal here, that is final authority to determine any questions of law or fact that may arise out of schemes in the Bill. It may be argued that three bodies in England are there because the whole scheme of railway organisation, previous to the passing of the 1921 Act, was much more comprehensive than the scheme of railway organisation we know of in this country. While all that may be true, the tribunal here will be faced with the same propositions and with the same serious questions to be decided as they have been faced with in England following the passing of the 1921 Act. It may be useful to the Minister and others to know, and I am sure his advisers are well aware of this, that following the passing of the 1921 Act in the British House of Commons in connection with the grouping schemes, a railway rates body has been sitting for the past three years in connection with classification schemes, and up to the present they have not brought in any reports. How, therefore, can the Minister expect that any body that he may set up under the terms of this Bill can do in three months what the other body in England has failed to do in three years?
It is not intended.
Section 4 says that the Railway Tribunal shall, at a date not later than three months after the passing of this Act, review existing charges of the amalgamated and absorbed companies.
ACTING-CHAIRMAN
We are not discussing Section 4 but the amendment.
I am endeavouring to explain in my own peculiar way the work which the Minister intends to pile on to this body of supermen which he intends to set up in connection with the formation of the tribunal. Deputy Hewat has argued that the meaning of Deputy Johnson's amendment is to pile on additional expense because an additional staff would be required for any second tribunal that may be agreed to, and such as is suggested in the amendment. The members of the tribunal, provided there are two such tribunals, will be called on to deal with questions arising out of the conditions of amalgamation and absorption, and will be a body of men expert in financial matters. I know that the intention of the amendment is that that body would only be a temporary body for a short time, and it would be necessary for them to determine such questions as might, and perhaps will arise in connection with that part of the Bill. I do not see that it would be necessary to employ any additional staff to assist them in that part of their work, which would only be for a short time. I think whatever staff would be necessary to assist the Rates Tribunal would be quite capable and fitted to assist the other section of the tribunal which I hope will be set up to deal with absorption and amalgamation. I do not think there is much in that point of Deputy Hewat. It is quite obvious that the Government will get a body of men quite competent to deal with questions of rates and fares, and other questions in connection with that matter, and deal with that particular aspect of the application of the Bill, but they would not, and I am sure will not, be able to deal with these great questions of finance involved in connection with amalgamation and absorption.
You may and will have men, including the chairman, competent to deal with the question of rates, but even the chairman, who may be a good chairman, a lawyer, judge or whatever he may be, who might be competent to deal with questions of rates and fares and the diversion of traffic in any dispute left to the tribunal to decide, would not have that knowledge of financial matters which would be necessary to deal in a satisfactory way with questions arising out of amalgamation and absorption. If Deputy Hewat is prepared to leave in the hands of such men the great questions of finance and other questions that may arise in connection with that aspect of the proposals in this Bill, I fail to see why he should do so as a business man. I put it to the Minister, and I think every point that is under his consideration has been put to him by Deputy Johnson, that it is an impossible proposition for him to put on to the back of a tribunal the question of the examining of preliminary schemes of dealing with disputes and the question of amalgamation in five months and at the same time to call upon them to deal with the question of rates revision under Section 24 of this Bill inside three months. I, so far as I am concerned, cannot see how it can be done within the period laid down. There are Deputies in this House who always contend both outside and inside the House that simply because the thing is done in England that we here in Ireland, with a different outlook, cannot copy it. The good things that are done in England can be copied to the advantage of the Irish people. I have never been so bigoted as to hold the view that because things are done in that country by people whom we may not like we cannot follow their good example by doing those particular things. Therefore, if we are guided in those things by things that are happening in England we can copy a very good example.
The question here is the erection of machinery. It is only a difference of opinion between the Minister on the one hand, and the Labour Deputies on the other, as to whether it would be necessary to institute a Board or not.
Am I correct in saying to Deputy Wilson that up to the present the Minister has said nothing on that?
His Bill speaks for itself. The super men of whom this tribunal will consist will not have such a tremendous lot of work to deal with as one is led to believe by Deputy Johnson and Deputy Davin. When the companies raised the rates in 1917 and 1918 it was done by one stroke of the pen—50 or 100 per cent.—and they can be reduced by one stroke of the pen, so there is no necessity to inquire into all this question of rates.
That is the way the farmers do it.
That is the idea underlying the Minister's mind, and it has been given expression to by the President. It is assumed that those various Companies will not agree. We know pretty well that the most of them have already agreed, and that for those who have not agreed it is only a question of coalescing the one with the many, and a financial man could soon do that. There is not much work in it at all. Any stockbroker would size up the relative value in five minutes, and the Stock Exchange is a good index of their value. Therefore, I do not see any great necessity in instituting another Board. One is enough. With regard to the rating and revision of classification that is to take place, it cannot be anticipated that the classification will be so altered that its incidence will be different from the classification which will obtain in that portion of Ireland which is not in the jurisdiction of the Free State. It would not be possible to have goods rated Class 4 in the Free State going in on the Northern line and being called Class 2. What will happen, to my mind, is that classification will be general, and the same as exists presently. At one time the Irish railway system had an Irish Railway Clearing House classification and an English Railway Clearing House classification, and goods Class 3 in England would be Class 4 in Ireland. It was found unworkable, and it will be found unworkable here, and the classification will in practice be the same with the northern as with the southern lines. The Rates Tribunal must of necessity have a man skilled in finance, because you cannot fix your rates at the point that will not yield 4.12. The financial man will be there, and will say: "We must earn 4.12, and the rates cannot go down below a certain point."
Is it not nationalisation?
The whole Tribunal has power to do those, and the railway company would be under the supervision of this Tribunal. Your financial man will be the leading man. For those reasons I think the Minister's proposals are more in accordance with the requirements of the Free State, and we do not want a multiplicity of Boards. Also, we do not want the railways to have a staff anything approaching what is required in Britain.
If Deputy Hewat stands for the merchants and manufacturers and commercial men, and is against a separate tribunal, and if Deputy Wilson speaks on behalf of the agricultural community, the cattle dealers, and all the rest of the trading community, and is against the tribunal, I take it that both of them together speak for the regular passengers, and that they are against a separate tribunal. One might ask why I should be so concerned. I am concerned because it is more workable and more sensible and the more likely to lead to the efficient working of this scheme. If Deputy Wilson thinks that the work of the tribunal at this first stage, the reviewing of the existing charges with a view to modification, can be done in three months, and still the earning power of the companies be maintained to ensure them a standard dividend, and that that can all be done with a stroke of the pen, I suggest to the Minister he has one obvious name before him for the tribunal.
The railway companies themselves have expressly stated that they would have to give a reduction long ago.
ACTING-CHAIRMAN
Is this a point of order or an explanation?
The railway companies would have to do it according to Deputy Wilson. The financial authority that will have to come into operation by this resolution will be able to do that with the stroke of the pen. Again I submit this suggestion for the consideration of the trading community, the persons who are primarily concerned with the traffic rates and charges, who are looking forward to the review of the existing charges which are promised within three months of the passing of the Act, with a view to modification. If that term modification exactly means a deduction, and a deduction is intended, then I suggest to the Dáil that it is better not to impose upon that tribunal the duty of examining into the financial matters connected with the amalgamation and absorption and hearing the various parties and considering carefully what the various parties have to say with regard to the schemes of amalgamation and absorption. They will not be able to do them both at the same time, and to do them properly. I am prepared to back my views in this matter notwithstanding that the trading community think I am wrong. And if it turns out in the long run that in the working out of this scheme the trading community are going to be disappointed, then it will be the representatives of the trading community that will be held accountable, and not I.
I would like to say that I take no responsibility for any consequences of this Bill whatsover.
Deputy Wilson and Deputy Hewat assumed for the sake of convenience, and to suit their arguments, that the object of the amendment was to multiply the number of Boards and set up two permanent Boards. If the Minister agrees to accept the amendment, or the principle contained in the amendment, and if a scheme dealing with the conditions of amalgamation or absorption were coming into operation on the 1st January, 1925, I assume, and I think that the work of the Railway Tribunal, so far as dealing with amalgamation and absorption was concerned, would terminate before the scheme would come into operation. Therefore there is no idea in the amendment that would coincide with the argument of Deputy Wilson, that we want to set up two permanent Boards. The really permanent Board will be the Railway Rates Tribunal to deal with all these questions with which Deputy Wilson and Deputy Hewat are much more concerned than we on the Labour benches. Deputy Wilson also speaks about one individual being on this Board skilled in questions of finance. Now that clause of the Bill which deals with the classification of the members of the Tribunal states that one should be a judge or a member of the Bar with a certain number of years' practice; another to be drawn from commercial circles, and another member having a knowledge of the working of railways. The President made it clear to Deputy Good or Deputy Hewat that the individual who was to be drawn from commercial circles would be an expert accountant. Therefore, so far as that part of it is concerned, Deputy Wilson would be quite clear as to what was the intention of the Government on that matter.
He might have given us the name, too.
He may, before the Bill is finished with.
Deputy Wilson argues that the classification of merchandise and goods must be, and always will be, the same in England as it will be in the Free State.
In Ireland.
It might be useful information for Deputy Wilson to know that the body which has been considering the question of the revision of classification of goods in England has actually recommended—though it has not been actually officially announced yet—that instead of the present classification into five ordinary classes there will, in future, be a classification into 25 ordinary classes. That statement is subject of course to this qualification, that it has not yet been sanctioned by the Transport Ministry in England. I have been given that information by a man who is in close touch with the body considering classification in England. Deputy Wilson will have to consider that the classification in England in the future will be different to the classification which is in force in Ireland and England to-day. He will have to consider the question of the complications that may arise in connection with arrangement of through rates. If the classification that will obtain in the future inside the Free State will be different to the classification in England under the new scheme of classification that is going to come into operation, then I say that that is a matter that will have to be very seriously considered in the light of the voluntary agreements that exist between the Irish and English companies. These are things that Deputy Wilson will have to admit will engage attention, and perhaps the very first things that will have to engage the attention of the tribunal, that will have at the same time to deal with the question of the finance connected with amalgamation and absorption. We have put up a previous amendment which the Minister has promised to reconsider concerning the question of the powers of the tribunal.
We have put up a previous amendment which intends to make it clear as to whether or not the tribunal is to go into the whole question of the conditions and agreements that have been come to between the companies that are prepared to submit agreed preliminary schemes. We have put up that amendment which desires to place upon the tribunal the responsibility of considering these schemes on their merits, as well as from the point of view of whether the procedure laid down in the Bill is carried out. The Minister is to reconsider that amendment. I say that it has a bearing on the question that is now being discussed to this extent, that it will place a greater amount of work upon the tribunal in dealing with amalgamation and absorption and will still further add to the work of this railway tribunal as proposed in the Bill. Time will tell, and a very short experience will prove, especially so far as the tribunal is concerned, that if the anticipations of the Government in regard to the success of this measure are to be realised, the amendment moved by Deputy Johnson will make for easy working and will work out in practice better than what the Minister says in theory. I am sure the Minister will give us this credit, which Deputy Hewat cannot claim, that we do not seek to destroy the Bill. That is proved by our vote on the very first clause of the Bill. Our amendments are put up after consultation with experts in railway work, experts so far as their legal knowledge of the British Act is concerned, and they are put up in the most helpful manner possible after these people have so to put it, given them serious consideration. That is our attitude in putting up the amendment and I trust the Minister will seriously consider the amendment before he turns it down, and I think that if the Minister is going to turn it down that we will be called upon to force him to bring up his big battalions, so that those who are absent will come in here and register decisions upon matters that are vital to the successful working of the whole Bill.
There is no point of principle in dispute in this amendment, and, fortified as I am by hearing the opinions expressed by Deputies Wilson and Hewat, I think I may safely leave this to another free vote of the Dáil.
That is no use to us.
Now, with regard to the amendment, two objections have been urged to the particular section of the Bill it is sought to amend. There is an objection to the personnel of the tribunal, as not being suitable for both sections of the work.
That is not quite an accurate description. I suggested that if you wanted the maximum of efficiency it was possible to have two separate tribunals. The most efficient for the judicial work of amalgamation might not be the most efficient for the work of fixing rates.
It is the smaller point of the two objections raised, and in so far as it is to be met at all it can be met in this way: while it is quite right to say a tribunal of three selected for amalgamation purposes might not be a suitable tribunal for rate fixing purposes, there is the other side of the question, that the tribunal of three, selected specially with both ends in view, may be quite adequate to perform both types of functions allotted to it under the scheme.
I suggest that it would be more desirable for the Government, in considering this matter, to give due consideration to the men who will be required to carry on work for five or ten years, than to other men who would be carrying it on temporarily for five months.
Deputy Davin travels too fast. It has not been decided that there will be any Tribunal to do only work of a temporary nature. That arises if this amendment is passed. But, taking the Tribunal for the five-year period, and admitting that the members on retirement are to be reeligible for appointment, and all the consequential matters that flow from that, it will be a pretty permanent Tribunal that will have to deal with both matters. The big objection is that in the view of Deputies Johnson and Davin it is impossible for the Tribunal to do the work which they believe is allotted to it in the time they believe the Tribunal is limited to. I put it that they have not properly gathered what the work of the Tribunal is to be and the dates on which it is to carry out its work. As I view the matter, immediately on the passing of the Bill, the Railway Tribunal will proceed to the preliminary revision, under Section 24. Not later than the 31st July it must receive whatever agreed amalgamation or absorption schemes there are, but while waiting for the reception of these schemes, and after receiving them, it can keep at the preliminary review of rates under Section 24.
When do you expect the Bill to pass?
That depends on how many amendments are put to divisions, and how far we can succeed in pressing our views upon the Dáil.
And the Seanad, too.
Yes, and the Seanad. After the agreed schemes have been received, the Tribunal proceeds to determine a scheme for the complete amalgamation of the undertaking, and that scheme has to be determined so as to come into operation on 1st January next. After it has got the whole amalgamation and absorption scheme out of its way, it starts on the general classification and the fixing of rates generally, but it cannot proceed to do that until it has got the amalgamation scheme out of its way. It has a complete year from the 1st January, 1925, to the 31st December of the same year, in which to get about the business of the complete classification and re-adjustment of rates. That is a totally different scheme of events from what is in the minds of Deputies Johnson and Davin. Deputy Davin said that the classification period had lasted in England, over three years, and he asked me if it was my view that this Railway Tribunal could, in a period of three months, do what the English were taking three years to do.
What does the Minister mean by the revision of existing charges? Is it the application of a stroke of the pen?
I have described that as a preliminary review. What Deputy Davin states the English are doing is not a preliminary review; it is a general classification which cannot be attempted here until 1925, and we hope to have that completed and in operation by the 31st December, 1925. The preliminary scheme under Section 24 is a very small matter. It is based on a Ministry of Transport Order in 1920, a general percentage order raising rates all round. There are two or three things to be taken into consideration in re-adjusting the charges established under that order. One big thing is this, that the 1920 Order established rates to make up in eleven months for a deficit that was accruing over a sixteen months' period. Obviously for charges so made there is immediate case for reduction, and it is that general percentage Order of 1920, made by the Ministry of Transport, which is to be reviewed in the three months after the passing of this Bill.
The programme before the Railway Tribunal is not so heavy as is made out. They have time, before they receive any scheme, to make preparations for this review. They then receive the agreed schemes and they have to determine a scheme, if it falls to them, and get it out of the way by the 1st January next, and they have then the general classification in the year after. There is overlapping to a slight extent. There is overlapping in so far as the review of the general percentage order may conflict with some of their duties in determining a scheme, if a scheme be not agreed to.
We have been asked if an agreed scheme is ready, merely awaiting formal sanction by the Tribunal. It has not got to that point. There are agreed schemes. There is even an approach to an agreement in one absorption scheme, but there is no general agreement either of amalgamation or absorption. The spade work has been done and a certain amount of progress has been made. It is not considered likely that the work of the Tribunal in the matter of amalgamation and absorption will be very heavy, and it is not thought that it will interfere in anyway with the minor type of review that is to be made under Section 24.
Then we are to take it that all the agreed schemes will be swallowed by the Government without examination by the Tribunal.
Section 3 of the Bill sets out what is to be done. The Bill provides for all that. Therefore, while I am not disposed to put the rejection of this amendment to the Dáil, I do say that no great case has been made for it. There is a small point as regards overlapping which does exist. There is danger of that, and I would not go so far as Deputy Wilson, when he said that it is merely to be a stroke of the pen. Section 24 definitely provides for having regard to the circumstances and also to any reduction in working expenses since September, 1920. There are amendments which may introduce other complications, so that the matter is not so simple as Deputy Wilson would have us believe.
Is the Minister aware that Deputy Davin pointed out that there were savings amounting to three million pounds in coal and wages waiting a reduction in the rates?
That is another argument in support of the amendment, because the companies will dispute that and proof will be necessary and that will take time.
I would simply point out that the time seems to me sufficient for the work to be done. On the other hand, against this amendment there must be urged the claim of economy. If we were to have two tribunals there would necessarily be an increase in expenditure, and that increase will be borne by the companies, and, presumably, passed on in rates.
To the farmers.
Seventy-five per cent. of the increase will be passed on to the farmers. I put it to Deputy Johnson that there is a certain virtue in having the same people concerned with the amalgamation and absorption schemes, whatever they be, and having them afterwards to do with the fixing of rates. There is a certain virtue in having the people who are afterwards to fix the rates and attend to the general classification scheme possessing that intimate knowledge of the railway companies which they will get from the consideration of the amalgamation and absorption schemes that come before them.
That last argument, I think is fatal. The persons who are responsible for the terms of capitalisation, who will say how this scheme should be financed, and who will have to do with the different financial arrangements connected with the new scheme, will be finally responsible for launching it, and will then have to justify their judgement by fixing rates accordingly.
That is not correct.
They will be obliged to have in their minds possible mistakes that they made, and they will have to try and prove to the community that they were right in scheme No. 1 by making scheme No. 2 fit in, and possibly they may be wrong in both cases. I, unfortunately, for the purpose of the argument at any rate, assumed that the Bill really meant what it said, and that the Ministry was quite honest in its contention that the tribunal to be set up was to be a judicial tribunal, and that it was to have a sense of responsibility. I assumed that, and as a consequence I thought that when the tribunal was to have the duty of reviewing, with a view to modification, the existing charges, that it would hear evidence and that it would listen to the contentions of companies who have told us up to now that they are not able to reduce charges. Now, if the Ministry has already made up its mind that those charges must be reduced and can be reduced, notwithstanding what the railway companies say to the contrary, and it binds the Tribunal, which is to be a judicial tribunal, and which is to carry out what the Ministry already sees is possible and must be done, then I say the judicial nature of the tribunal goes to the wind, and it is no longer judicial. It is doing what it is told to do.
But bear in mind this is a railway tribunal and is to have as a member a person skilled in railway affairs, and the chances are that such person would be one who had been contending for the last few months that it is not possible to reduce railway charges. First, is he going to turn his back on all he has said? He is going to approach the matter of modification of present charges, and of reviewing present charges, either with his mind already made up, or he is going to examine the proposals. He is going to examine the proposals and the conditions of to-day as compared with the conditions in 1920, and I am only assuming that that is going to be done carefully and thoroughly, and if it is done carefully and thoroughly it will take time. The Minister's argument rather leads one to assume that that was never intended, and that it is to be more or less a general examination. If two and two make four, then two from four leaves two, and the stroke of the pen of Deputy Wilson will come into operation. If that is to be the case, then there is no need to be talking about the judicial nature of the tribunal. As I have said, I have assumed the good faith of the Government in putting in that section in the Bill, in stating that the tribunal would be judicial, and that when it proceeds to review the present charges with a view to modification it will do that carefully and take time and hear all sides. If it is to do that, it is going to find it difficult to do the other work of examination of absorption and amalgamation schemes. If the Bill were already through the Dáil, and there were two months to do that. there might be more to be said for the Minister's argument, but unless he is prepared to postpone dates he has no right to expect that this Bill will become law before the end of June. Then there will be four weeks in the summer when judicial persons will want holidays, and I imagine it will be found in the working out that the review will either be a stroke of the pen review, or it will be unsatisfactory and possibly be considered to be unjust. It might well be that the other railway dividend protection section in the Bill will be violated, and that future schemes will be prejudiced by the fact that they have to make up in next year's charges what they lose in this year's charges. I am not convinced by the Minister's argument unless we are to assume that the decision of the Government is going to be the decision of the judicial tribunal.
I think if the Deputy had confined himself, in recommending his amendment, to the last portion of his statement he would have been on very solid ground. There is a case, and a strong case, to be made, that by reason of the review of railway rates which is to be undertaken by the Tribunal they ought not to be burdened with the other work.
That is the whole of the case.
I think the Deputy went much further in the beginning of his statement, because he criticised this Railway Rates Tribunal as if that were the only body that could make mistakes with regard to the matter of amalgamation and that a stroke of the pen would settle it. Well, a stroke of the pen must settle everything some time or other.
I am afraid the President did not hear the whole of my argument.
I think I did, and I think the Deputy mixed up the two things. The two things are different and are set out differently in the Bill. What we are concerned with and the only thing that matters in connection with the Bill is the standard of revenue. To that extent only is the country committed. Suppose for a moment that a company coming into this amalgamation is allowed in at a much higher price, by reason of the infirmities of the tribunal, than it is worth, that does not effect the issue, good, bad or indifferent. Supposing the Dublin South Eastern came in on its full nominal capital of three-and-a-half millions, approximately, and the Great Southern and Western came in with its capital, the only matter on which there would be complaint there would be on the part of the shareholders of the Great Southern and Western that while the whole amalgamated or unified body which would result would be limited to the standard revenue, the proportion the Dublin South Eastern shareholders would get would be higher than the proportion of the Great Southern and Western.
What will happen after five years?
No matter what happens after five years, that is the case as far as they are concerned, and as far as the country is concerned, and the country cannot lose more—if we put it in that rather crude way, which may savour somewhat of confiscation— than the standard revenue, subject of course to the minor arrangements that are to be made in the event of the railways developing and more economies being effected. If there is a small percentage of increased profits that may be held by the company, I think amounting to 20 per cent. Now, this particular standard revenue to which I referred does not come into operation until January, 1926. The preliminary revision that has to take place almost immediately is a revision which, in the light of the circumstances described by the Minister, does not I think leave that particular revision open to any criticism. The present rates charged were fixed at a particular time and for 11 months one collected 16 months' worth of rates and the only case that is made, or can be made for two tribunals is that one wished to afford the Rates Tribunal all the time at their disposal in order to consider the question of rates. On the other hand, the Minister's contention is a good one, that they will have subsequently to consider, and ought to know, a great many of the circumstances that would be disclosed to them in the matter of amalgamation—and that would be of immense benefit. If the House thinks there is a case for allowing the whole of the time of the Rates Tribunal, then there is a case for having two tribunals, but even if they were to make all the mistakes that the Deputy outlined, that does not affect and will not affect the ultimate result we anticipate from this Bill, because they are limited to the standard revenue.
On that last point—
ACTING-CHAIRMAN
Deputy Johnson has spoken already three times, but he has not exhausted his thirty minutes. I propose to allow him to speak for five minutes on this occasion.
Two minutes will do me. The Bill apparently guarantees the standard revenue for five years. We have a right to assume that when we are legislating in this way it will be carried on beyond five years. We have no right to assume, unless where it is stated in the Bill, that it shall cease its operations after five years, or to assume that the future beyond five years will not be prejudiced by this Bill or anything contained in it. The assurance that the President gives to the public for a period of five years may be all right, but beyond that you leave it open to the companies to make any rates they like. Having withdrawn the standard revenue you leave everything in the air.
May I intervene for a moment? The Deputy is assuming that the Railway Tribunal ceases after five years. I think we are giving an undertaking as to that.
No; the undertaking was that it was his opinion and intention that something would be done in five years' time, but the Bill said that something might be done.
No. I made that point quite clear, though I did not accept the amendment which stated it was to run for a period of seven years. We gave the definite undertaking that the Tribunal would be as permanent as the Bill.
If I may intervene again, it was to this effect, that we were satisfied that this particularly expensive court, to put it shortly, would not need to be changed after five years, but that if it consisted of a judge of the High Court one day a week of work would enable him to discharge his duties and we would be saved the salary for the other four days a week.
Deputies, I presume, have received the statement issued to the Dáil by the Great Southern, Cork, Bandon and South Coast Railway and the Midland Great Western Railway, giving their views on this Bill. I do not propose to waste the time of the House reading these observations, but Deputies who have read them should take into consideration the objection the companies have raised to the Bill so far as Clause 24 is concerned——
ACTING-CHAIRMAN
The Deputy must not discuss Clause 24 now; he must apply himself to Deputy Johnson's amendment.
I am trying to prove that it will not be such an easy job for the Tribunal to deal with this question of the restraining of waste in the manner Deputy Wilson indicated. Any revision that the Tribunal may carry out under the operations of the Bill will have to have due regard to reduction in working expenditure.
ACTING-CHAIRMAN
That is Clause 24. The Deputy must address himself to the amendment.
On a point of order, the amendment deals with the duties of the Tribunal. The duties are laid down in a subsequent section of the Bill. Is it not in order, in arguing for an amendment which deals with the duties of a Tribunal, to refer to the duties embodied in a subsequent clause?
ACTING-CHAIRMAN
It is in order to refer to the duties, but it is not in order to discuss Section 24, which will be discussed later in detail.
I am endeavouring to argue that the difficulties that are put in the way of the working of the Tribunal in regard to the revision of rates are such as to make it impossible for it to carry out the task which is laid down for it to carry out, in a period of three months, and, also, to argue this upon the amendment before the House. Deputy Hewat gave the House a slight indication of his recent experience on another Tribunal. He said he learned nothing. I am sorry he did not learn something from his experience on the Tribunal recently honoured by his presence. I have been told, at any rate, that figures were produced before the Tribunal in regard to working expenditure and general administration of the railways which were fairly well flattened out by people on the other side. I do not know whether that was any education to Deputy Hewat, but it is only another indication that the Tribunal which will be set up to deal with this revision of rates when it comes to the reduction of working expenses will be faced with statements from one side that will be taken serious exception to by another. I have no doubt that it would be the duty of the expert advisers of the Government in the Transport Department of the Ministry of Industry and Commerce to examine very closely, from their own intimate association with people who put up these figures, to see that the figures are not taken as they are represented, and if there is any reason whatsoever that would enable them to dispute the figures, it would be their duty on behalf of the Government to question them and prove that they are inaccurate. It takes time to do all these things, when arguments on the one side are contradicted by arguments and statements put up on the other. I contend that that is another reason why the Government, in their own interests and the interests of the people on whose behalf they are putting forward this Bill—the general body of the community—should seriously consider whether asking the Tribunal of three members to deal with two or three things at the same time is not an impossible task and one that will be unworkable in practice. If what we say takes place, it will mean that the dates now given in the Bill will have to be changed. That will be a reflection upon the good judgement of the Government, and, in my opinion, what we anticipate in that respect will take place unless the Government agree to accept the amendment.
Amendment put.
The Committee divided: Tá, 19; Níl, 28.
Tá
- Seán Buitléir.
- Séamus de Búrca.
- Louis J. D'Alton.
- Patk. J. Egan.
- John Hennigan.
- Tomás Mac Eoin.
- Seán Mac Garaidh.
- Tomás de Nógla.
- Peadar O hAodha.
- Criostóir O Broin.
- Seán O Bruadair.
- Tomás O Conaill.
- Aodh O Cúlacháin.
- Liam O Daimhín.
- Eamon O Dubhghaill.
- Aindriú O Láimhín.
- Domhnall O Muirgheasa.
- Pádraig O hOgáin (An Clár).
- William A. Redmond.
Níl
- Earnán Altún.
- Seoirse de Bhulbh.
- Próinsias Bulfin.
- Máighréad Ní Choileáin Bean
- Uí Dhrisceóil.
- Desmond Fitzgerald.
- John Good.
- William Hewat.
- Connor Hogan.
- Liam T. Mac Cosgair.
- Pádraig Mac Fadáin.
- Pádraig Mac Giollagáin.
- Risteárd Mac Liam.
- Eoin Mac Néill.
- Seoirse Mac Niocaill.
- Liam Mag Aonghusa.
- Martin M. Nally.
- Mícheál O hAonghusa.
- Séamus N. O Dóláin.
- Eamon S. O Dúgáin.
- Seán O Duinnín.
- Donchadh S. O Guaire.
- Séamus O Leadáin.
- Fionán O Loingsigh.
- Domhnall O Mocháin.
- Partholán O Conchubhair.
- Seán M. O Súilleabháin.
- Caoimhghín O hUigín.
- Liam Thrift.
Amendment declared lost.
ACTING-CHAIRMAN
Amendment 52 is, I think, consequential. Amendment 53 requires a Money Resolution and a Message from the Governor-General. Has Deputy Johnson a Message from the Governor-General?
It may be at home. I have not it with me.
Amendments 53, 54, 55 and 56 not moved.
Question—"That Section 22 stand part of the Bill"—put and agreed to.
I move to report progress.