I move in sub-section (1) to delete the word " date" in line 18, and to insert in lieu thereof the word "passing."
RAILWAYS BILL, 1924. - DÁIL IN COMMITTEE.
The Dáil went into Committee on the Irish Railways Bill.
SECTION 29.
(1) All the terms, conditions and provisions of any agreement or statutory enactment which, at the date of this Act. are in force and binding on any amalgamating or absorbed company, by which the forwarding of traffic is affected, or for any other purpose, shall continue in full force and effect, save in so far as the same are rescinded or varied by this Act; but no such agreement or statutory enactment shall be construed as affecting or extending to any part of the railway of the amalgamated company or the traffic thereon which was not at the date of this Act subject to or affected by such agreement or statutory enactment.
(2) Subject to the provisions of this Act the amalgamated company shall not by the rates or fares charged, whether through or local, the facilities provided or the accommodation afforded by it, or otherwise, place any one port in Saorstát Eireann at an undue disadvantage as compared with any other port in Saorstat Eireann to, from, or through which traffic is or may be carried.
(3) No rebates, commissions, or agency or other allowances shall be given by the amalgamated company to traders at or using any port in Saorstát Eireann which are not given by the company in similar circumstances to traders at or using any other port in Saorstát Eireann, and the word "traders" shall include any incorporated railway or steamship company.
(4) 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 company 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.
Question put and agreed to.
I beg to ask the leave of the Committee to move amendment 15 (a) which has not been on the Order Paper but which I handed in on the 8th instant, and which reads:—In sub-section 1, line 21, after the word "effect" to insert the words "save in so far as under any such agreement or statutory enactment any amalgamating or absorbed company undertook or was bound to forward the traffic which such company could control by any particular port in Saorstát Eireann and."
Major COOPER took the Chair.
The section as it stands provides:
"... any agreement or statutory enactment which at the date of this Act are in force and binding on any amalgamating or absorbed company by which the forwarding of traffic is affected ... shall remain in full force and effect save in so far as the same are rescinded or varied by this Act."
What my amendment proposes is in effect to exclude any such agreement or enactment which would be of the nature of preferential treatment for any one port in the Saorstát over another. I do not think it will altogether come as a surprise to the Committee that there are such agreements in existence. There is one agreement in particular which I beg to take special exception to, that is what has been termed the Rosslare agreement. This agreement took place between the Great Southern and Western Railway of Ireland and-the Great Western Railway of England in the year 1898, and it was subsequently embodied in the Fishguard and Rosslare Railways and Harbour Act of 1899, Schedule 7, Section 17. The agreement is as follows:—
"The Companies, parties hereto of the second and third parts, will on the opening of the railway between Rosslare and Waterford forward by the Fishguard and Rosslare route and in the meantime via Waterford traffic of all descriptions that they can control between such portions of the district served by their respective systems in the South and West of Ireland and the South and West of England, including London, as may be hereafter agreed between them and as can in the interests of the public be most conveniently forwarded by Waterford. Rosslare and Fishguard routes."
Then it goes on to state—
"They shall afford all reasonable facilities to induce passengers between the said districts to travel via Rosslare and Fishguard as soon as that route is opened."
That agreement was made between an English railway company——
Will the Deputy say what is the date of that agreement?
The date of the agreement is 1899, and it was embodied in the Fishguard and Rosslare Railways and Harbour Act of 1899. That agreement was made between two of the principal railway companies, one the Great Western of England and the other the Great Southern and Western of Ireland. That agreement was made with a certain object, and the object is perfectly clear from the wording of it, namely, that these two railway companies should do everything in their power to favour one port, that port being Rosslare, to the detriment of other ports. Perhaps the Committee is not aware that Rosslare is what is known as a privately owned port. It is not like the Port of Dublin or the Port of Cork, or the Port of Waterford. It was made and is owned by a railway company. Therefore, the principal enshrined in this agreement is not only vicious from the point of view of dealing out preferential treatment to one port in the Saorstát over another, but it actually favours a privately-owned port over existing public ones. This agreement is still in existence, and if this section passes, as at present worded, it will be perpetuated. What I am seeking is not that all existing agreements should necessarily be scrapped, but that any agreement which embodies, as I submit this one does, any principle of this nature, should be hereby cancelled and repealed. It may be said—in fact on a previous occasion it was said—would that be equitable. This Bill is unlike all previous railway Bills in connection with Ireland. It is not dealing with railway companies as such; it is proposing a new system in regard to the control of railways in this country. Only the other day I noticed that when it was proposed that a certain existing agreement in relation to, I think, the representation on the Board for a certain railway company, should be perpetuated, it was received in rather a different way by the Government.
I must intervene for a moment. I would like the Deputy to explain whether that was a statutory enactment.
No, sir. I believe that was not a statutory enactment. I would not suggest it was. But it was an agreement—I would not be positive that it was not a statutory enactment—and it was a well-known agreement. If it is possible to rescind that agreement with equity—because I am dealing with equity now, and not with a question of law—I do not see why a statutory enactment could not also be equitably rescinded. The fact that this particular agreement is a statutory enactment, I do not think prevents the Dáil in dealing with it in the manner I have suggested, either legally or equitably. The two companies—the original parties to this agreement—will not be in the some position either in regard to one another or in regard to the two countries in which they are, in the future, that they were in the past. As far as statutory enactments are concerned, there is another agreement actually portion of another statute, in regard to this very same port—the port of Waterford and Rosslare. It is contained in Section 70 of the Fishguard and Rosslare Railways and Harbour Act of 1899. That agreement takes this form in the statute—Section 70:—
(1) The Great Western Company shall, unless and until Parliament shall otherwise determine, continue to provide or afford a daily service by steamer between Waterford and either New Milford or Fishguard as efficient as that provided by them at the date of the passing of this Act.
and so on. Now, that agreement is also in existence. That agreement is also a statutory agreement. That agreement is embodied in an Act of Parliament. But that agreement is not in operation. That agreement, unfortunately, has been allowed to lapse, and to this day, to my knowledge, the Great Western Railway Company of England do not carry Out the terms of that agreement and provide a daily service from Waterford by steamer to either of these ports. What I ask is this: Either let both agreements be put into operation. or let both agreements be rescinded and repealed. What I do complain of is that it should be proposed that one agreement, the one I referred to first— the direction of all possible traffic via Rosslare—should be kept in operation, and that the other agreement—the sailing of a daily vessel from Waterford to New Milford or Fishguard—should be allowed to be inoperative. I would be perfectly prepared to have this agreement contained in Section 70 of the Act of 1899, dealing with the daily sailings from Waterford, repealed. This latter agreement was really put into this Act in order to safeguard the port of Waterford when the further agreement was made between these two companies that all possible traffic should be diverted via Rosslare. Now, we are in the position that this section of the Bill provides that all these agreements are to be perpetuated.
We are also in the position that this agreement concerning the daily sailings from Waterford has been allowed to lapse and is at the present moment not in operation. Therefore, in the interests not only of the particular port I have mentioned, but in the interest of the public at large, I am desirous of inserting this amendment, that all agreements may be perpetuated save and only such as deal out, as undoubtedly, this one does, preferential treatment to one port—in this case a privately owned port—over another port—in this case a public port. It may be said, and it has been said, that the traffic in this case is confined to unconsigned traffic. That may be so. But what the percentage of unconsigned traffic is, I have not been able to discover. It may be said that it is large, or it may be said it is small. I think it has been said that it is very small. If the amount of unconsigned traffic—traffic which has not got a particular route marked on it, for I presume that is what is meant by unconsigned traffic—is particularly small, then I do not see what very great hardship it would be to do away with these agreements. If, on the other hand, the amount is particularly large I think that the carrying on and continuance of this agreement would be an unwarranted hardship for one Irish port to the advantage of another. I hope that the Government will see its way to accept either this amendment or something of a similar nature. I do not think that it is asking very much. It is only asking that this Bill shall not perpetuate agreements which undoubtedly may have been all right at the time they were made between the different railway companies, but which should not I think in the minds of most reasonably minded people be included in a Bill such as this providing for the control of railway companies in a different manner and by a different system.
I speak on the amendment, because in substance it embodies the principle we find in clause 29. The main object of that clause as marked in the margin is protection for ports, and it carries us on to another clause at the back which really nullifies the benefit. As members of the Committee will recognise, I am responsible for the amendments put in by the Dublin Port and Docks Board, and this amendment is not out of keeping with them. I think I may say that I would not be a party to scrapping contracts. I think the House will have to take into full consideration the pernicious effect of the Act dealing with Rosslare as a competitive port with Dublin. Let us be clear on this matter. When I say that the agreement is a pernicious one, I do not base the statement altogether on a clause in the Act of Parliament. There was an agreement between the Great Southern and Western Railway Company and the Great Western of England, whereby the Great Southern Company undertook to influence traffic in all directions. Do not let us be making any mistake about this. It is not unconsigned traffic, except in so far as they were not able to influence consigned traffic. This agreement lays down that the Great Southern Railway Company should influence traffic from Dublin via Rosslare. Everything they could send from Dublin via Kilkenny to Rosslare, the Great Southern Company, under obligation to the Great Western Company, were bound to send it that way, and they have done that. Is it natural to send goods from Dublin to a port in competition with the port of Dublin? I say it is unreasonable.
Sent from Dublin.
Yes, sent from Dublin. Is that disputed? If it is I will take steps to put before the Committee evidence to show that that is a fact.
Is the Deputy saying that it is a fact that traffic was so diverted, or that it is a fact that traffic was bound to be so diverted?
I am saying both one and the other, and there is an agreement practically in existence, I think it is in existence, binding the Great Southern Company to send all traffic via Rosslare. If you deny that I say that the issue is between us on that point; but come down to that, and if it is denied, it is up to me to produce evidence that it is so, and I will take steps to convince the Dáil that it is so.
It is easily done.
Very well; that being the state of affairs and we, dealing with a Bill to reorganise the railways, can you as a Committee take responsibility for the continuance of that? If so, well and good, but I say you must shoulder the responsibility for it. A common argument is being used, that the London and North Western Companies, now the London, Midland and Scottish, had another agreement with the Dublin and South Eastern. We dealt with that in amendments put forward the other day, and they were thrown out. The London, Midland and Scottish asked for a continuance of agreements that were in existence, or rather the money that they put down under agreements, which they held, are embodied in the Act of Parliament as between the Great Southern Company and the Great Western of England. I say that that is an intolerable injustice to the port of Dublin, and that this Bill must make provision that such an unfair state of affairs shall not continue to exist. Up to the present we had an alternative more or less in our own hands, or at all events that could be influenced by us. To-day, however, you are taking away all that and you are putting an amalgamated company in the place of certain undertakings that exist, and surely you will recognise the danger of having agreements in existence that will practically close the port of Dublin so far as this Bill is concerned. If the Minister is going to do justice he will have to consider the protection of these ports in a broader spirit than he has done so far.
I looked up the list of amendments dealing with one side of this case, and so far as I can make out something like seven amendments have been put down dealing in some way or another with one English company largely concerned in our traffic, and there has not been a single amendment seeking to do justice, if I may say so, to the other English company which is affected. We had a string of amendments. I do not know if they were from the Dublin Port and Docks Board, but they were in Deputy Byrne's name.
Deputy Byrne's name is not attached to any amendment of the Port and Docks Board.
Then we are concerned with one company having a large interest in our traffic, and not at all with the other. I have no interest in the Midland Railway, and I do not think I ever travelled on their line, though I may have as a prisoner in 1917 or 1918.
You did not pay your fare then.
I do not think I did. How is this case to be met by the Committee? We have unquestionably strong protagonists on one side and they say, "You are doing away with competition," but the only competition I see is the competition of one of these companies. The interests of one which has been secure for 75 years would be wiped out if this amendment passes, and we are to have no competition so far as England is concerned, and one company is to be left in possession.
These prevent competition.
The amendment would.
No, the agreement.
The agreements did not. I believe it to be a sort of joke. Something like 10 per cent. of the traffic goes through, and we are told that this is a private port. I accept that but I would like to know what terms you would apply to the port of Dublin We will be told that it is a public port. How far is it public?
Does the President want to insinuate that the Port and Docks Board is the property of a certain company?
The Port Board of Dublin we are told is a public body, but we know that it is far from being a democratically controlled body. Any of us who have had dealings with it know that well. The case that is put up is, is there going to be no other port board than that one? I am as long in Dublin as the average Deputy in this House and my interest would be entirely for Dublin, but I think we must do justice to all parts of the country. We must keep our name clear and clean. This particular agreement was entered into and sanctioned in another place over which I had no control, but perhaps the Deputy moving the amendment may have friends who had control there and who were responsible for it in some way or another. Deputy Redmond, as far as I know, had a number of friends who were in the place where this agreement was made and although we have a big job, surely we are not to remedy all the difficulties of that particular body. A bargain is a bargain, and this one was made between an Englishman and an Irishman. It is the duty of this House to maintain this bargain. Only to that extent have we an interest. There is a bargain made between a national and a non-national in this State and that non-national would have a serious cause of complaint if we now broke that agreement. With reference to the case made here by Deputy Hewat's friends in connection with the London Midland and Scottish Railway I can quote another statement made against them in this. We were told that we were going to frighten capital and that Englishmen would never sink a penny again in this country.
It had no effect, then.
Considering what things you said about us we can return you the compliment with interest.
I do not doubt your ability.
Unconsigned traffic is all that is concerned in this particular amendment. If there be a fear that there is a likelihood in any way of getting more than that bargain we are prepared to put in any safeguards that are asked to secure that that will be effected. The time is not yet exhausted to put in any safeguard to limit that within the four corners of the Act.
Will the President say what he told the Cork deputation?
I have a fairly good memory, but it would be impossible for me to recount all I say to the various deputations that come before me. Some of the things I would not like to be made public, but anything I said to that deputation I have no objection to its being made public if the whole truth be told. I gave them no undertaking that I would not be prepared to stand over here. We discussed the case at great length, this particular clause being one of the matters in dispute. I convinced them that it was a matter over which I had no control, and told them that there are certain things we can do and certain limitations to things which we can do. This is one of them. I may be wrong, but I think we are not entitled to tear up that agreement. I believe Deputy Hewat and Deputy Redmond and those who will support that amendment are honest men, but I could not consider myself an honest man if I stood for the tearing up of that agreement.
I know that the President is anxious to do justice to all, parts of the country. Those, are the very motives which actuated me in proposing this amendment, because, according to this existing agreement, justice is not done. This is preferential treatment for one part to the detriment of the other parts, and it is for that reason that I am anxious to place all parts upon an equal basis. The President has said, and I agree with him, that a bargain is a bargain, and if that bargain was made between—I think he used the term man and man— Corporation and Corporation, is this to be the only bargain which is to be insisted on? My objection is that the second bargain I refer to, namely, that contained in the Act of 1898, Section 70, which provides that a daily service of steamers shall be run by the Great Western Railway Company, should be enforced. If the President assures me that he can enforce, and that he will enforce Section 70 of the Fishguard and Rosslare Railways and Harbours Act of 1898, whereby a daily service is to be run from the port of Waterford, I will be satisfied to withdraw my amendment. It is true that there were friends of mine in another place at the time of the passage of those Acts, but the fact that they were there does not make them responsible for the passage of the Act. It is also true that this agreement of preferential treatment for Rosslare would never have passed through if this second agreement, that there should be a daily service from Waterford, was not also inserted, and it does seem hard that when there are two agreements affecting a particular port embodied in two Bills, that one agreement is to be allowed to become inoperative, and that the other agreement, because it is a statutory enactment, is not to be interfered with.
That is the position to-day, and I would, therefore, ask the President if he can assure me that Section 70 of the Act of 1898 will be enforced, and that if that is not enforced, upon what grounds it can be said that the other agreement must be allowed to stand? Undoubtedly, these two agreements hang together, and possibly, I do not say actually, one agreement was allowed to be made because of the other. I do submit that in all fairness, if an agreement giving special treatment to the port of Rosslare in preference to the port of Waterford is to be allowed to stand, that the other agreement insisting upon a daily service of steamers by the same company from the port of Waterford, should be insisted upon.
I hope that the President will not accuse me, when I support Deputy Redmond's amendment, of being inspired from some sources that he or I could not name. I think that amendments in the Dáil, irrespective of whom they may be put up by, should be considered and dealt with on their merits, and I think the President should have more regard for the merits of the amendment than for the places where these agreements were made or by whom they were made. It is a new thing in Irish life, and perhaps not a bad thing, to come forward now, on this occasion, and say that simply because an agreement was made in the British House of Commons at a particular time that we must stand over it. That is the effect of the President's argument when he taunts Deputy Redmond and his friends with being a party to an agreement which he says is binding for that reason.
The Deputy leaves out the essential part—between a national of this country and a non-national of this country.
If agreements were made in the British House of Commons which, as a result of experience, we know are going to be to the disadvantage of this country, we must pay regard to the facts and to what suits Ireland at this particular moment rather than have regard for the time when these agreements were made, when they were entered into, and by whom they were made. Dublin is, I hope, and will remain the capital of Ireland and not of the Free State. The fact that it is at the moment the capital of Ireland and how long it will remain the capital will depend on the amount of trade which flows through its port. I would not be a party to the existence of any arrangement or agreement which would deprive Dublin of its premier status as a port, and perhaps take the risk of Belfast being placed in the first position, Rosslare in the second, and Dublin in the third. It is quite possible that might happen and that it could be the effect of the operation of this clause, unless there is a distinct understanding, and an undertaking given, that the tribunal will look at the matter purely from the point of view of preserving Dublin as the premier port.
We must understand that the Tribunal which is going to be asked to deal with any disputes arising out of the question of the diversion of traffic is a body superior to this Dáil, by reason of the powers that you are conferring upon it. At a later stage, if it is considered that the tribunal is not doing what it should do to preserve the status of the port of Dublin, the Dáil will not have much right to interfere unless they take the responsibility of dismissing the Tribunal as a body or amending the present Act. Deputy Redmond quoted from some agreement with which I am not very well acquainted; but I think there are many agreements dealing with the very same question. I have a copy of an agreement which was produced at the Canal Commission in 1917 and which, I think, has clauses far more serious and perhaps far more disastrous to the port of Dublin, if they are not dealt with in some way or amended. I have a copy of an agreement entered into on the 20th July, 1905, between the Fishguard and Rosslare Railways and Harbours Co. (hereinafter called the "Fishguard Co.") of the first part, the Great Western Railway Company (hereinafter called the "Great Western Co.") of the second part, and the Great Southern & Western Railway Co. (hereinafter called the "Great Southern Co.") of the third part.
The agreement states: "And whereas this agreement is intended to be supplemental to the said agreement of the 27th May, 1898, so scheduled and confirmed as aforesaid," and it goes on to say: "In order so far as possible to secure the success of the through service via Fishguard and Rosslare all unconsigned traffic from stations on the Great Southern Railway situate South and South-West of Limerick and Limerick Junction (inclusive of Limerick and Limerick Junction) and railways beyond in Ireland and on the Waterford and Central Ireland and Waterford, Limerick and Western Railways, and on any new railways that may hereinafter be constructed or acquired in the South and South-West districts of Ireland, the stations on the Great Western Railway and railways beyond in England, south of an imaginary line drawn through the towns of Ruabon, Stoke-on-Trent, Ilkeston and Boston, shall be forwarded via Rosslare and Fishguard, when that route is open, and in the meantime via Waterford and New Milford.” That is the opening clause and then there is the really important one: “The Great Southern Company shall also use all reasonable endeavours and shall afford all reasonable facilities to induce passengers between the districts mentioned in Article 1 to travel via Rosslare and Fishguard as soon as that route is open. (3) The Great Southern Company shall also forward all traffic they can secure from Dublin and the line between Dublin and Kilkenny, inclusive of the latter to stations on the Great Western Railway and beyond via Rosslare and Fishguard.”
Now, that is the most important and the most serious clause in the agreement, if that agreement is going to be taken over with the meaning that you attach at present to the amalgamated company. Deputy Hewat or Deputy Good—I confuse them because they are always using the same arguments—said a railway company was always anxious and desirous to secure traffic for a long haul. It does not always depend on the long haulage; it depends on long haulage plus a heavy load. It will be the business of the company to see that all unconsigned traffic will be sent from Dublin city viaâ Rosslare to any competitive point across the Channel. When the Great Southern and Western Railway Company dominate the amalgamated Board it will be to their advantage. That will be a considerable advantage to the Great Southern and Western Railway Company or to the amalgamated company, because in the division of receipts the amalgamated company will get its proportion based on the mileage over which the traffic is brought. It can do that quite irrespective of the fact that the traffic may not get via Rosslare and Waterford, the service which it could get if the traffic was brought by the port of Dublin.
The intention of the Government was not so much to set up a system of railway reorganisation which would mean a certain dividend to the amalgamated company, as that the system of reorganisation should provide the most expeditious and the best service for carrying on the traffic. That should be the real intention of the Act from the Government point of view, and I suppose it is. Now, through the port of Dublin, you have several competing shipping companies. You have eight or nine services per day as against one service daily via Rosslare. I say it is not in the interests of the development of trade in this country that an agreement of that kind should allow the amalgamated company to carry traffic from Dublin to Kilkenny inclusive, via Rosslare and Fishguard unless they are in a position to give as expeditious a service as through the port of Dublin.
I will illustrate a case which may happen under the terms of this Bill. The Dublin South Eastern traffic from Bray to Birmingham, which is a competitive point, can be sent via Rosslare and Fishguard or by Dublin at the same rate. Under the terms of the Bill the Dublin South Eastern Railway becomes part of the amalgamated company. Under this agreement the proposal would be to send traffic from Bray to Birmingham via Rosslare. From Bray to Rosslare the distance is 90 miles and the distance from Bray to Dublin is only 12 miles. Unless the companies concerned can prove there is a better service via Rosslare and Fishguard, the Government should not allow traffic being sent in that way. I know many cases where traders have reason to complain of delay in getting traffic to a certain point. The result has been in many cases loss of trade, and to send traffic out of this country. If sending traffic via Rosslare and Fishguard means that traffic will arrive later than when sent via Dublin, I say that that state of affairs should not be tolerated by the passing of any such clause as Clause 29 of this Bill. I quite agree with the Government in this, and I believe that they have this in their mind in framing the Bill. Their desire is to create a keen competition amongst cross-Channel companies that are looking for Irish traffic, a cutthroat competition if you like. Where there is competition under ordinary circumstances the result is a benefit to the trade of the country. The existence of the agreement has an opposite effect. There is no necessity for the Great Southern and Western Company to compete for traffic when they have an agreement which enables them to have the traffic sent by this route. There is nothing in the Bill which enables the company to quote through rates by alternative routes.
In the natural state of things this agreement will allow the Great Western Railway Company of England to secure this traffic without any competition whatever. If the President can explain where competition is involved by the carrying out of this agreement I will be agreeably surprised. He refers to the fact that the volume of unconsigned traffic would not amount to more than 10 per cent. I would like to know where he got his statistics from. I do not know, and I cannot find out, where any return has been rendered by the Irish Railway Companies to the Clearing House or to anybody else or where returns have been collected so that he shall know what was the amount of unconsigned traffic. Again I say I would like to know where he got his information. I am informed that traders are very reluctant, foolishly, perhaps, in their own interests, to make out consignment notes. I think that is a disadvantage to the traders who are in the habit of sending traffic. When they come to find out the disadvantage of not sending traffic by a particular route, then they will come to realise that it is to their advantage to make out consignment notes. The trade of this country with England and the development of that trade depends upon the railway and transport services and the facilities that can be given by the railway and shipping companies to get trade commodities to the British market in the shortest possible time. I wish to say that the existence of the agreement which I have referred to, and which the President has treated so lightly, destroys that very competition, which will help to develop the trade of the country. I think the President has dwelt in opposing the amendment—if he has done so—on where this agreement was made and by whom it was made, rather than face the actual facts that are created as a result of carrying over the existing agreement to the amalgamated company, which will be detrimental to the amalgamated company in the future.
I want to supplement what Deputy Davin has said in regard to this agreement. The President has referred to the agreement entered into prior to the Act of Parliament, which contained a general consent to confirm it. He makes the argument that because that agreement was entered into by an Irish national with a British national it was confirmed by the British Act of Parliament, forgetting, by the way, that so far as nationals go, they were both the same so far as the law goes. That argument does not hold, especially when we are dealing now with a legal enactment in a new situation. But this agreement, as has been pointed out, was supplementary to that Act of Parliament, and one wonders, in view of the apparent ignorance of the existence of this agreement, whether there are other agreements of a similar and more binding kind. The Minister says "no." How does he know?
When I nodded my head I meant we were not ignorant of the agreement now quoted.
Well, then, it was disingenuous of the President to refer to the agreement embodied in the Act of Parliament. This agreement was more binding and more detrimental to the general interests, no matter how it may serve the general interests of the Great Southern and Western Railway. It is not quite correct to say, as Deputy Davin did, that this agreement only deals with unconsigned traffic. Section 1 is as follows, and I am going to trouble the House with it, because it is quite important:—"In order, as far as possible, to secure the success of the true service via Fishguard and Rosslare all unconsigned traffic from stations on the Great Southern Railway Station situate south and south-west of Limerick and Limerick Junction (inclusive of Limerick and Limerick Junction) and railways beyond in Ireland and on the Waterford and Central Ireland and Waterford, Limerick and Western railways, and on any new railways that may hereafter be constructed or acquired in the south and south-west districts of Ireland to stations on the Great Western Railways beyond in England south of an imaginary line drawn through the towns of Ruabon, Stoke-on-Trent, Ilkeston and Boston shall be forwarded via Rosslare and Fishguard when that route is open, and in the meantime via Waterford and New Milford.
resumed the Chair.
Section 2 says "the Great Southern Company shall also use all reasonable endeavours and shall afford all reasonable facilities to induce passengers between the districts mentioned in Article 1 to travel via Rosslare and Fishguard as soon as that route is open for traffic." Then there is a new section 3, which says: "The Great Southern Company shall also forward all traffic that they can secure from Dublin and the line between Dublin and Kilkenny, inclusive of the latter, to stations on the Great Western Railway and beyond, via Rosslare and Fishguard." That does not deal with any consigned traffic.
They have no power to deal with consigned traffic.
No, they have no power to deal with consigned traffic.
Except persuasive powers.
Their powers are implicit enough not to use their endeayours upon customers, either not to consign or to consign by Fishguard, even from Dublin. But they can persuade people by a little hoodwinking. It is quite possible for railway companies to say to a customer, you need not consign it that way. We will put it through all right. You need not indicate the route. And in that way they could secure traffic from many points from Dublin South, and they could secure that every penny's worth of these goods be consigned via Fishguard. I agree that there should be no consent from this Dáil to allow this amalgamated company, which is obviously going to be dominated by the Great Southern and Western Railway, to retain in existence this agreement which binds the Great Southern Railway to use its influence to divert traffic via Rosslare. As Deputy Davin has pointed out, unless the customer is going to choose which is the quickest and most expeditious route, and to do half of the work of interpreting the routes, which the railway company ought to do, the railway company is bound to send the goods by, perhaps, the longest and, possibly, the least efficient and least expeditious route. Surely we ought to be free to tell the railway company, “Here is a consignment which we desire to be delivered at Leicester at the earliest possible hour, and by the safest and the most effective route, and to be delivered perhaps on the best conditions as well as in the shortest time.” Surely we ought to expect the railway companies to do that for a customer. But, no, this agreement says unless you have decided and found out by your own inquiries which is the best route, and the most satisfactory route for that particular class of commodity, the Company is bound to send it via Rosslare.
I say that is not satisfactory for the trading public. And when we are doing for the railway companies, as, I submit, what we are asked to do under this Bill, we ought at least to deprive them of the power of doing things detrimental to the public interest, simply because they bound themselves in years gone by to do a thing when they were in some kind of association with a British company in rivalry with another British company. I believe that this is quite a critical section in the Bill, and this is a critical amendment, and we are bound to insist that the Dáil should not allow this agreement to be continued, and should not insert a section in the Bill which says that any agreement of that kind that has been entered into must remain in force.
The last few points in the speech of Deputy Johnson covered those I wanted to make on this matter with regard to unconsigned traffic. Every member of the House will admit it is vital for people consigning goods out of Ireland to get these goods to their destination as quickly as possible. You cannot expect the people of a business community to look up routes and details as to how long it will take by this or that or the other route. You do not consign your stuff by any direct route. You trust the railway company. And you expect the railway company when you give them the goods on trust to deliver them by the most expeditious route. How can you take them on trust if you know there is this agreement, and I do not know how many other agreements—but, at any rate, this definite one—that prevent the railway company sending stuff to England from this country by the most expeditious route. That seems to me a most important aspect of the situation. I have some experience in these matters. Some members of the House who have no experience wonder why it is that the Great Southern and Western Railway, with an outlet of its own in Dublin, can send stuff south by Rosslare. The fact of the matter is that the Great Southern and Western Railway do it themselves to a great extent, because people shipping from Dublin, or other places in the neighbourhood of Dublin, take the railway company on trust, and take it for granted that they are sending the goods by the most expeditious route, which they cannot do under that agreement. I think that not only that agreement, but any other agreement entered into by any of the companies that will form the amalgamated company with cross-Channel companies, should be laid before this House, and that we should not be asked to accept an agreement like that.
Agreed to report progress.