Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 22 May 1924

Vol. 7 No. 12

DÁIL IN COMMITTEE. - RAILWAYS BILL, 1924. COMMITTEE (RESUMED—SECTION 29.)

Mr. HEWAT

I beg to move:—

In sub-section (1), lines 21 and 22, to delete the words "save in so far as the same are rescinded or varied by this Act," and to substitute therefor the words "unless the same are inconsistent with the provisions of this Act, in which event any such agreement or enactment shall be deemed to be modified to such extent as may be necessary to give full effect to the provisions of this Act.

I bring forward this amendment as an improvement of the section. It follows on the discussion that has taken place in a very full way, and is part and parcel of the argument that has been used in favour of securing fair treatment for the ports generally.

Amendment put, and declared lost.

Amendment 17 not moved.

Mr. NAGLE

I beg to move:—

At the end of sub-section (1) to add the following proviso:—

"Provided, however, that the Minister shall be entitled, at any time within three months after the passing of this Act, to lodge with the railway tribunal an objection to the continuance of any such agreement on the ground that its continuance would be contrary to the public interest, and the tribunal shall consider any objection so lodged and shall make such order as to the continuance, annulment or variation of such agreement, including matters ancillary thereto, as shall seem to the tribunal to be equitable and expedient in the public interest, and an order so made shall come into full force and effect on a date to be fixed by the tribunal when making the order."

As there has been already about three hours' discussion on Amendment 15 (a) as to the agreements and the effects they have on the welfare of the public, I do not wish to say very much. This amendment gives permission to the Minister, if he thinks fit, to lodge with the Railway Tribunal within three months of the passing of the Act an objection to the continuance of any such agreement. As it confers power upon the Minister to do something in the interests of the general public, if he thinks it fit and necessary, I do not think he should have any objection to accepting it.

Mr. McGILLIGAN

I have only the objection to this amendment that Deputy Johnson had previously to the tribunal. I am not convinced that any future Minister would be a good person in whose hands to leave the decision as to whether or not an agreement of this sort would be contrary to the public interest. I prefer to leave that to a judicial tribunal.

Mr. JOHNSON

I wonder does the Minister agree that any such agreement shall be made known to him, or to his successor, or whoever is the authority at the time. I have information that shows how necessary a provision of this kind is. Certain powers were applied for by an English railway some years ago to run into a station owned by another company. They argued when they applied to Parliament for the power that it was necessary in the general interests and for public convenience. But having got the powers, the first company entered into an arrangement with the company owning the station to refrain from exercising the powers they had obtained, and in consideration of so refraining they paid an annual sum of £30,000. That may seem to be quite satisfactory between company and company, but if such an arrangement, for instance, were made as between the amalgamated company and any other organisation of any kind, it would impose upon the amalgamated company the necessity for taking out of the trading public an additional £30,000 per year. That sum would be required to be expended to meet the annual requirements of their traffic. It would be consequential upon an agreement, and, of course, the public would have to pay. If such an agreement may be entered into without notification to the Minister or without his having the right to object and to bring the matter before the tribunal—which, I think, is what this amendment provides for— the public will be made to suffer. The Minister is not asked in this case to judge finally. He is asked to take powers to object to the continuance of any such agreement and to submit that objection to the Tribunal. Does anybody think that is unreasonable? Does anybody disagree with the contention that such power is essential to be given to the Minister? I would have thought that was the obvious desire the Minister would have in such a Bill as this, and I would like to hear his reasons for disagreeing with it.

Mr. McGILLIGAN

I was viewing this amendment in the light of what I had said yesterday: that it was now proposed to limit Section 29 to agreements confirmed by Statute. This amendment, as I now read it, deals with agreements, and if Deputies will look at Section 58 they will see that we have pretty well the same ideas with regard to agreements—that agreements may be varied or rescinded on an order made by the Minister.

Mr. JOHNSON

"Save as in this Act expressly provided." This section expressly provides.

Mr. McGILLIGAN

It is going to provide expressly with regard to Statutes only. Section 29 will have that effect when I have finished with it on the Report Stage.

Mr. JOHNSON

Why not finish now?

Mr. McGILLIGAN

I cannot do it now. I promise that it will be introduced for the Dáil to pass it, if sufficient argument can be adduced to constrain the Dáil to pass it. Section 58 has exactly the same idea underlying it as in this amendment. It is also proposed to amend Section 58 slightly. It is phrased in the negative and the words "without the consent of the Minister" would seem to imply that appeal would have to be made to the Minister before he could interfere. A proposal will be made to remove that, and to leave it that they shall not be varied or rescinded without an Order from the Minister, but the Minister may by Order get the matter referred to the tribunal, In so far as this deals with agreements it is met by Section 58.

Mr. JOHNSON

Except that 58 only deals with new agreements.

Mr. McGILLIGAN

"Under any Act or agreement or arrangement ...in existence at the passing of this Act."

Mr. JOHNSON

"Nothing in this Act shall prejudice or affect the rights or liabilities of any amalgamating absorbed company under any Act or agreement or arrangement (whether made under statutory powers or otherwise) in existence at the passing of this Act." I want the Minister to have power to submit for review to this tribunal agreements existing at the passing of the Act.

Mr. McGILLIGAN

As Section 58 stands, what Deputy Johnson says is true, but it is proposed to amend that section to this extent, that it will be possible to vary or rescind agreements not statutory by an Order from the Minister or to have them referred for variation or rescission to the tribunal.

Mr. JOHNSON

That will meet the argument subject to a final decision on Section 29.

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

It can be taken on the next Stage when the Minister's amendments are introduced.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

Does the same apply to Amendment 19?

Mr. HEWAT

Yes. We would be very glad if we could have the considered view of the Minister on the whole matter of the statutory clauses between the two companies.

Mr. McGILLIGAN

I do not want points to be made which might be brought up against me on the Report Stage. There is no statutory agreement as between the London, Midland and Scottish and the Dublin and South Eastern Railway from clauses 1 to 11 of their agreement. Clauses 1 to 11 are not statutory. It is only from clause 12 on that the agreement is made statutory. This section has relation to a statutory enactment dealing with the protection of ports. This section is limited to that, but I propose to put it to the Dáil to amend it, so that it will read: "Terms and conditions and provisions of any statutory enactment, or of any agreement which has received express statutory confirmation." I do not propose to introduce into Section 58 in the matter of agreements any such idea as that contained in amendment 19: that it shall be lawful for one of the parties, within six months after the passing of this Act, to give notice to rescind or modify. I do not accept the idea contained in this amendment at all. It is different entirely from the last amendment, in which the idea is not merely acceptable, but is to be included in the proposed addition to Section 58.

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

In any event this amendment can be introduced when Section 29 has been amended, if it is amended, by taking out the word "agreement."

Amendment 19 not moved.

Amendment 20:

In Sub-section (2), to insert in line 30, after the word "it," the words "or by unfair diversion of traffic."

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

The first part of amendment 20 is really contingent on there being more than one amalgamated company—down as far as the word "and." It falls in with the idea of two amalgamated companies. The second part, to insert in line 30, after the word "it," the words "or by unfair diversion of traffic," is, I think, in order.

Mr. HEWAT

I beg to move the amendment in that form. The meaning of this amendment, I think, is that in Section 29 it gives protection, which seems to be taken away to a large extent by Section 34 (1 and 2) and Section 55 (1). The main contention I am standing for is, that the ports should have full protection against any undue preference, and, more particularly, as far as Dublin is concerned, so that it shall not be put in an unfair position. As far as Section 29 is concerned, I think the discussion has gone very fully into the whole matter. In some way I think the Minister appreciates the need for revision or modification of some of the provisions of the Bill. I would be agreeable not to press the amendment if he has the matter under consideration.

Mr. McGILLIGAN

Again I wish to utter a word of warning. I have proposed to reconstruct Section 29 by preventing it applying to agreements which have not been confirmed by statute. This is an entirely different thing, to insert the words "or by unfair diversion of traffic." That is definitely met in sub-section 2 of Section 29. That surely includes what is sought to be prevented by the words set out in the amendment.

Mr. HEWAT

The Minister recognises that the agreement with the Great Western Railway might operate in a very unfair way, but he has pointed out safeguards. The Minister says he must stick to the statutory agreements, but inferentially he admits that the ports, or the people concerned, should have protection against undue preference. For instance, in the Great Western agreement there is a provision that the Great Southern should influence traffic from Dublin along to Kilkenny. He says that is embodied in the Act, and, therefore, it is not non-statutory. In furtherance of that agreement the Great Southern continue to do, what we claim to be an improper act, and we want protection, as far as we can get it, even if we cannot convince the Minister that it would be wise to interfere with the statutory rights of the company. We claim that we should get reasonable protection in this Bill against the undue inner working of the railway mind in this matter. If we could go to the Tribunal and say, "Traffic is being influenced from Dublin and other places via Rosslare," we want to be perfectly sure that that will be considered undue preference to Rosslare.

Mr. McBRIDE

As far as I can understand Deputy Hewat, he wants to translate "undue disadvantage" altogether in favour of Dublin. All the Deputies who have spoken have argued in favour of Dublin.

Captain REDMOND

I beg your pardon.

Mr. McBRIDE

There is no other port in the country! The amendment asks the Minister to interpret the provisions of the Bill in favour of Dublin. There is not a word about Galway, Sligo, or Westport. According to the imperialistic Deputy Davin, all traffic from this country should turn towards London. I hope the Minister will not agree to the arguments of Deputy Hewat and adopt this amendment, to the advantage of Dublin alone.

Mr. HEWAT

I would like to say that I am ploughing my lonely furrow here.

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

So is Deputy McBride.

Mr. HEWAT

Well then, Deputy McBride can plough away on his lonely furrow.

Mr. DAVIN

I would be prepared to admit that I was as imperialistic in my outlook as Deputy McBride suggests, if I held the imperialistic Free Trade views that he has given expression to. I suggest, as an explanation of his ignorance, in regard to the interpretation of this section the fact that he was not present here during the Committee Stage of the proceedings. While I do not care for a good deal of Deputy Hewat's argument, I may agree with what he is aiming at, but not for the same reasons that he gives in support of his attitude. The object of the Deputies who supported Deputy Redmond's amendment yesterday evening was to see that no undue preference was given to one port, that is Rosslare, as against any others. The Minister's contention is this, that he only makes any concession for a revision of agreements where these agreements are not conferred by statute. He is not prepared to admit that any case can be made out in any circumstances for the revision or reconsideration of any agreement in the nature of a statutory agreement. The President argued the other evening that a bargain is a bargain, and as far as I can understand the reason for that argument that a bargain is a bargain was because the bargain was made by some law passed in the British House of Commons. It is a new kind of argument for an assembly of this kind. It may be, and I am quite certain it will be that the laws we are passing here to-day in the machine made way we are turning them out may not be suitable to whatever Minister is sitting on the Government Benches in five or ten years hence. If that is the case and the laws we are making now can be repealed five or ten years hence for good reason, surely the laws made in the British Parliament can also be repealed if there is good reason for it.

Professor O'SULLIVAN

Does this arise strictly on the amendment?

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

I am wondering if it does.

Professor O'SULLIVAN

I submit whether you accept or reject Deputy Hewat's amendment, the whole question of statutory agreements or other agreements has nothing to do with it. Seeing that the first words of the sub-section are "subject to the provisions of this Act," which includes a portion of the sub-section that we are dealing with, I submit that Deputy Davin's argument has nothing to do with the amendment.

Mr. DAVIN

I submit I am entitled to ask the Minister whether or not it is the opinion of the Government that where an agreement conflicts with the interests of the public it should not be altered.

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

Were not all these questions of agreements and statutes discussed yesterday on another amendment? It has nothing at all to do with this.

Mr. DAVIN

I submit, with all respect, that an unfair diversion of traffic has a bearing upon the existing agreements.

Mr. McGILLIGAN

Is Deputy Davin pressing for an answer to his question? I may not have taken him up right, but I believe he asked me if I hold that this House can vary an agreement made by the British Parliament. I give the answer quite definitely in the affirmative—we can. But what I put to the House yesterday was, knowing the House has that power, was it equitable to vary and rescind a particular agreement? That particular agreement, I take it, is the worst of a series of agreements, and it was dilated on, to some extent, to show that even taking it as the worst of them, it was not very objectionable.

Mr. JOHNSON

I think this matter has all to be discussed again, and the question of the wisdom of confirming this agreement will come up again.

Professor O'SULLIVAN

It can be discussed when discussing the section as a whole, but this is not the place for discussing it.

Captain REDMOND

The Minister proceeded to discuss it.

Mr. McGILLIGAN

I did, because the question was put to me, and I wanted to end the matter there and then.

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

I remember telling Deputy Davin privately yesterday, when we were discussing Deputy Redmond's amendment, that on the question that the section stand part of the Bill, the whole matter will arise again. That would be the most suitable place also.

Mr. JOHNSON

The general question of rescinding agreements will come up on the section.

Mr. HEWAT

I ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. HEWAT

I beg to move amendment 20 (a):—

In sub-section (2), line 30, after the word "place" to insert "(a)" and set out the remainder of section as a paragraph, and in line 32 after the word "carried" to add the following paragraphs:—

"(b)" traffic destined for or to pass through any one port in Great Britain at an undue disadvantage as compared with traffic destined for or to pass through any other port in Great Britain, or

"(c)" any trader forwarding or desirous of forwarding traffic destined for or to pass through any one port in Great Britain at an undue disadvantage as compared with any other trader forwarding or desirous of forwarding traffic destined for or to pass through any other port in Great Britain.

I think it is only right to inform the Committee that this is an amendment which follows on a resolution passed by the Manchester Chamber of Commerce, and indicates the position that they would like the Committee to consider. As far as I can make it out the Manchester Shipping Canal when it was originally built received a very considerable measure of support and excited a great deal of interest on the other side. Therefore, I suppose they wish me to claim on their behalf due consideration for the amendment which I now bring before the Committee. The development of traffic on the canal has been greatly hampered by the attitude of some of the railways. One can, of course, understand that that is so. The Manchester Canal came in competing at points with a system operating via Liverpool and other ports. The canal and Manchester port do not get through rates, but traffic taken by the railways is carried on a through rate basis to centres in Great Britain from Ireland. Of course that is a handicap to Manchester and they seem to resent it, and it also throws light upon the ramifications and powers of the railway companies in dealing with traffic, which I would like to emphasise this time, because the Committee may consider that I have been an advocate of the railway companies in some cases, and I would like to disabuse their minds on that point. I have no interest in the railway companies as such. As far as I am concerned, I tried to plough my lonely furrow, but with due regard to the traffic passing through Dublin.

The English and Irish railways have in the past refused to extend through rates to the Canal. I hope the amendment I propose on this occasion will have the sympathy of the Committee, and that Deputy Cooper will not be able to taunt me again with championing a lost cause. I hope the Committee will provide that the amalgamated company, when it operates, shall not differentiate between ports, and that as far as it can through rates shall operate fairly all round, and that in this particular case the through rates shall operate through Manchester by Liverpool, Holyhead, or any other ports. After all, this is a Bill for unification, and so far for a national railway concern. I hope that this amalgamated company will treat everybody fairly. All the Manchester Chamber of Commerce asks is that they shall not be put in a disadvantageous position and that the amalgamated company will see that through rates are put in operation for them. That comes up in Clause 30, and in various other clauses of the Bill. If the Minister would indicate his acceptance of the principle of this amendment as a whole, it would simplify matters. He might accept the principle that in the operation of the amalgamated company as a whole, they will see that there is no bar, and that the amalgamated company shall not be in a position to put into operation through rates from centre to centre on one route if they do not put in similar rates for other routes: in other words, to see that there will be absolute fair play all round, and that the routes shall be natural and satisfactory as far as possible to all parties concerned.

Mr. McBRIDE

I am not concerned with the foreigner as Deputy Hewat is in his amendment. I am concerned alone with my own people here in Ireland, and if through rates are to be operative from Ireland to England for the benefit of Englishmen, I think these through rates should operate in the same manner from all parts of Ireland in the opposite direction. Up to the present Irish railway companies are differentiating. They allow through rates to one company and not to another, and I hope the Minister will see his way to make these through rates work for the benefit of Ireland just as Deputy Hewat asks that they should work for the benefit of the Manchester Ship Canal shareholders.

Mr. HEWAT

I do not think I took up that position at all.

Mr. WILSON

I doubt whether we have the power to do what is intended in this case, but I realise if we can have an alternative route to Manchester and beyond Manchester, because Manchester is really only the port, it would be of great advantage to Irish produce. What is sought by this amendment to be done is to ensure that the traffic beyond Manchester for the interior of England will be carried by the Ship Canal and taken then to be carried to the interior of England on through rates the same as the rates that would apply via Holyhead. I do not think we have power to do that, but perhaps when the authority is striking the through rate, if we put this amendment into the Bill, it would give the opportunity of using this alternative route on the same terms as those operating for other companies.

Mr. JOHNSON

I hope Deputy Hewat, who moved this amendment, will explain it a little more in order to show how it would work. I think if he attuned himself more to the feelings of the House he would not introduce his amendment by saying he was asked to propose it by the Manchester Chamber of Commerce. If he was able to tell us that the Dublin Chamber of Commerce approves I think that would be more appropriate to the discussion. Is the suggestion that cattle from Mullingar through Holyhead to Lincoln should be taken at the same rate as that fixed for cattle from Mullingar via Dublin to Manchester by Canal to Lincoln. Is it suggested that you can impose upon the Irish company, the shipping company and the railway company in England the necessity for allocating rates which will be satisfactory, and that the railway companies carrying through from Holyhead to Lincoln will be paid the same share of the freight as it would if it carried through Manchester to Lincoln? Is the long sea journey to be taken into account in fixing the rate? I think Deputy Hewat will require to explain how the suggested amendment could be made operative. If he can say that, and if we can impose upon the Irish company the duty of insisting upon the English companies making agreements to suit Irish conditions, and if he can show that that is possible, then we may consider it favourably, but otherwise I think it is out of the question.

Mr. HEWAT

I appear to have misled Deputy Johnson in the matter of my credentials. What I meant to say was that the Manchester Chamber of Commerce had passed this resolution in favour of the course suggested in the amendment, and not that they sent it on to me because they did not. Further, I understand that the Manchester Chamber of Commerce Resolution came to the Dublin Chamber of Commerce and that the latter approved of it. I hope Deputy Johnson will not think that it damnifies a fair consideration of the question he asks as regards cattle going from Mullingar to Lincoln. All that is asked in this resolution is that the through rates put into operation should be through rates that will give the Manchester Canal through rates also. In other words, that Irish produce going by the Manchester Canal and re-booked shall have the same through rate by that route as by others. That leaves open a certain element of competition so far as traffic is concerned which I think is on the basis of fair play. All the amendment asks is that the amalgamated company shall put into operation through rates that will not be prejudicial to one port more than another. It appears to be a modest request and in favour of people sending goods from Ireland to Great Britain. So far as Deputy McBride's remarks are concerned, I do not think he can ignore this volume of traffic passing between Great Britain and Ireland except on the lines that we are to build a sort of Chinese wall round Ireland. So far as conditions at present are concerned, there is a large volume of traffic passing, and fair provision for that traffic is all that is asked for.

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

Is this a question of rates from one British port to another?

Mr. HEWAT

No, it only deals with the traffic from this side.

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

From the port. Can we control it beyond the port?

Mr. WILSON

It means that you strike a through rate with the London, Midland and Scottish, say, for example, to Derby. You say to the London, Midland and Scottish: "I will give you a rate through to Derby provided you give us one via Manchester." That is all.

Mr. DAVIN

What does Deputy Wilson mean by "you"?

Mr. WILSON

I was talking of the Irish Amalgamated Company making a through rate with an English company and the English company is the L. M. & S. They say we want a through rate of 40/- for butter. The Amalgamated Company say we will take that, but we want it by direct steamer through the Ship Canal to Manchester. We want facilities to Manchester, the same as are given to Holyhead.

Mr. McGILLIGAN

The whole amendment is one for the protection of British ports.

Mr. WILSON

Alternative routes.

Mr. McGILLIGAN

It has been properly stated, at least in the form in which this amendment came. The Manchester Shipping Company state that the Bill should prevent the Irish railways being parties to a through rate arrangement, which would give preference to any one British port over any other. If you follow that out, what does it mean? Take any place on the British seaboard which calls itself a port. Until we get through rate arrangements with them all we cannot make any through rate arrangement. The amendment can be construed that way.

Mr. WILSON

That is far-fetched.

Mr. McGILLIGAN

It may be far-fetched but we are going to have a tribunal which is going to come to all sorts of far-fetched decisions according to some Deputies here. Why should we go out of our way to protect British ports? If British ports want protection, let them get an amending Bill to their own Act of 1921. Let them get a clause similar to our Section 29. Then there will be a question of an arrangement between two sets of parties, each having the same type of protection in its country. If there was a clause corresponding to clause 29 introduced with regard to the British ports, then there would be a definite matter for agreement. If there is not, we have Section 49 in this Bill, which allows the tribunal in its wisdom to determine any question with regard to the institution, variation, or cancellation of through rates. I ask is it considered reasonable that this Dáil should proceed to pass an amendment such as that before us, which ought to be passed on a survey of the whole through rates question, and discriminate as between the short sea route and the long sea passage, and decide what was undue disadvantage and what was not. Is it better to have a technical question like that decided here in a short period, by this Dáil, or have the whole question under Section 49 left to a tribunal? I do not think it is for this House at all to interfere in an endeavour to protect British ports.

Captain REDMOND

I certainly think that up to this we have not provided that all Irish ports shall be treated on an equal plane by this tribunal, and we should not go out of our way now to provide that all English ports get that treatment. For that reason, and also for the reason the Minister has stated, I personally believe that this would be a futile proposal. I think that the railway tribunal is there to determine as between the various English ports, and I do not see that it would serve any useful purpose for us here to tie the hands of the tribunal in that regard. Certainly there is a great deal in what the Minister has said, that it would mean that before any through rate arrangement could be come to, all possible English ports and English routes would have to be taken into consideration. This Bill proposes to set up an Irish amalgamated company, and as far as that company is concerned, I strongly urge that it should be made to deal equally with all Irish ports. But when it comes to dealing outside Ireland, then I say that it should be a matter to be left to the discretion and to the judgment of the tribunal, when they have viewed all the circumstances surrounding the situation. I do not see that English ports can have any grievance in the matter, or English railways either, because they can all come forward. In fact, they can compete with one another if they choose to get the tribunal to secure through rates to their ports, or on their systems. My complaint about the whole Bill is that that will not obtain in Ireland. I suggest that this amendment would not assist —it would rather hinder—the proper negotiations and fruitful, possibly useful, decisions of the tribunal with railway groups and the ports on the other side to bring about what I, at any rate, hope to see in the future, all round through rates from this country to the various ports in Great Britain. Therefore, I do not see really the force of this amendment from the Irish point of view. I do not suppose Deputy Hewat will put it to a division. If he does, happily, or unhappily for the Minister he will find me with him.

Mr. GOOD

I am afraid the last speaker has not exactly followed the amendment. He argues that all ports should be available for the purpose of through traffic. He was anxious to see that. Might I read for him the first clause of this amendment:

Traffic destined for or to pass through any one port in Great Britain at an undue disadvantage as compared with traffic destined for or to pass through any other port in Great Britain.

So the object this amendment has in view is to achieve exactly what Deputy Redmond is in favour of, so that one port shall not have an undue advantage over another port.

Captain REDMOND

I do not like interrupting my friend. Perhaps I did not make myself clear. I think if this amendment were in force that that object would not be achieved. It would put off until perhaps Tibbs' Eve the attainment of that end. It would not be possible if this amendment was passed, for the tribunal to come to a through rate arrangement with any one port before it had done so with all.

AN LEAS-CHEANN COMHAIRLE took the Chair.

Mr. GOOD

I was glad to hear Deputy Redmond's additional information, but I cannot say that it made the situation any more clear. He prefaced his remarks by stating that this proposal would tie the hands of the tribunal. If I understand the amendment it appears to me to do the opposite. At the present moment I think the objection we all have to through rates is that those who are settling through rates say, "Your traffic must go through certain ports." Those who are in favour of traffic, and those who are interested generally in trade, I think, have the right to say if we want to send our traffic via Manchester we should get the opportunity of sending it that way, if we think it is the best or most convenient route. That is all the amendment aims at. Things as they stand at present leave it in the hands of a body called the Conference. I do not know exactly what body arranges these through rates. Some of the authorities here present could possibly tell us, but I understand it is a body called the Conference.

It should not be the right of any conference to settle what particular way traffic should go, and to say that it should go no other way. It appears to me that that is the principle we are very largely supporting, and that that is the principle this amendment strikes at. As Deputy Hewat has pointed out, the Manchester Ship Canal people, when they opened this canal a number of years ago, opened it for the purpose of facilitating trade between Manchester and Ireland, on the one hand, and between Ireland and Manchester, on the other hand. Are we in trade to be debarred from the advantages that accrue from the making of that canal?

Captain REDMOND

I should say not.

Mr. GOOD

That is exactly the position we are in. This Conference says: "We will only give through rates via Holyhead, Liverpool and Rosslare." Are we to be tied to that decision? Are we to be tied to this Conference, who will say what way they will give through rates, and that we cannot go any other way? That is the position this amendment strikes at. That is the position at the moment. If you are anxious to get through rates via Manchester Ship Canal you cannot get them. This Conference says: "No." Is that in the interest of trade? Is there a Deputy who will stand up and support that principle? It is not the right of any port that traffic should go by that port for all time. One port may have certain advantages for traffic to-day; another may have advantages to-morrow. We want to be in a position to send our traffic via whatever port is most convenient for that traffic. I hold that that is a principle we ought to endeavour to establish in this Bill. This amendment makes for that and for no other principle. I hope, therefore, the Dáil will support it.

Mr. JOHNSON

I would like to support this motion. I would like to embody the idea in the Bill but I do not see the sense of trying to legislate for the London, Midland and Scottish Railway Company. We may embody this amendment in the Bill, and the only effect of it may be that you will get no through rates at all via Holyhead or via Dublin. If the London, Midland and Scottish Railway Companies say, "We are not prepared to enter into an arrangement with you in regard to Manchester," then the amalgamated company may be in the position that they cannot make any through rates via Holyhead or Liverpool, because the London, Midland and Scottish Railway Company is the body that is determining the course of traffic through these ports. If the Deputy moving this motion can persuade the Manchester Chamber of Commerce to insist that the British House of Commons and House of Lords—the British Oireachtas— pass legislation to cover this point, then it will be very satisfactory. Possibly, if the Minister for Industry and Commerce took a leaf out of the book of the Minister for Agriculture, or, perhaps more pertinently, the President himself, he could say, "We will pass a Bill identical with yours," as they propose to do in regard to Land Bonds. If he can persuade the Minister for Industry and Commerce to approach the British Ministers with a view to a guarantee that this idea will be embodied in British legislation, then I think we might be justified in supporting this amendment. I cannot see the sense of passing this amendment, which means, in effect, that you are legislating for the British railways. The British railways can tell the Irish railways, "We are not prepared to enter into any through rate agreement with you under those circumstances."

Mr. HEWAT

If Deputies take up that position, it seems unanswerable. Of course, we cannot legislate for the carrying of traffic on the other side of the water. The amalgamated company will have the power of negotiation in connection with through rates and it will be a very valuable factor. What we want them to do is to exercise that power in inducing through rates. Let me say that, in mentioning the fact of Manchester being in favour of this amendment, I did so as explaining where the amendment came from. So many amendments are down in my name, that it might be taken that this was from the Port and Docks Board, whereas it is not. It came from Manchester. I maintain the principle embodied in the amendment is a valuable one, not with a view to helping Manchester, but with a view to securing an alternative route for traffic going from this country to the other side.

Mr. McGILLIGAN

All the fulminations with regard to what the Conference has done and how through rates have been determined so far, have nothing whatever to do with the case before us. The Conference, whatever it may have been, disappears. There is going to be a Railway Tribunal, and Section 49 gives that Railway Tribunal power to determine questions relating to through rates.

Mr. GOOD

It cannot make through rates, with all respect. It will have to be a party to the Conference.

Mr. McGILLIGAN

I am stating very definitely that the Railway Tribunal cannot make through rates. I am only alluding to the Conference to point out that whatever it has been up to this, it will have a different position under the Bill. I think I can put, in a very brief way, to Deputy Good my objection to this amendment. The idea of through rates is one that we are very favourably disposed towards. If Deputy Good will point out to me how I can make a British railway company agree to a through rate via a particular port, I will take the matter into consideration.

Mr. GOOD

The only way it can be done is, when negotiations arise in connection with matters, it very often occurs in trade when you are considering one subject, and a difficulty arises, you point out that there arc difficulties in other directions that these railway companies could facilitate, and it is very often a matter of business that you give way on one point, and they give way on another point. If you have a clause such as this it assists to that end. Business is very largely negotiation, and certainly nothing in this would debar— in fact it would help towards—such negotiation, because it would be in the mind of the Tribunal, following the discussion that has taken place here, that through rates if possible should be made available via Manchester. Then, of course, while the Minister points out that a Conference is now set aside by this Bill, it may be set aside in name, but in substance it is practically the same body. There will be representatives of the Amalgamated Company on the one hand, instead of representatives of the individual railway companies, and representatives of the shipping and other companies on the other side. While there may be a difference in name, it will be practically the same body in substance, and when they come before that body to arrange through rates then, if we had such a clause as this, it would be naturally a subject for negotiation to consider whether through rates could not be also made via Manchester, and then give us the alternative routes. If this clause cannot be acted on, it is certainly no load on the Bill; if it can be acted on it will be an advantage, and why not incorporate it?

Mr. HEWAT

Amendments 22 and 23 are all on the same subject. Suppose I withdraw this amendment, then the whole matter could be considered on those two, and we could eliminate individual cases altogether?

Mr. McGILLIGAN

I am glad to have reached agreement with Deputy Good on the one point that through rates were a matter of voluntary agreement. I recognise now what he urges in his talk of conferences; that is to say, even after the Bill is passed there will have to be a joint conference, the Irish party to the conference being the Tribunal or some representative of the Amalgamated undertaking.

Mr. DAVIN

It cannot be both. Will it not be the representative of the amalgamated company that will be a party to the Conference for the fixing of through rates, and not the Tribunal?

Mr. McGILLIGAN

I do not purport to speak with very definite accuracy on that point. It will be, I suppose, the representative of the amalgamated undertaking, and not the Tribunal; the Tribunal will be the body over and above. It now comes to a question of voluntary agreement on the basis of negotiation. I say it will be best to leave the amalgamated company in an unfettered position and leave its hands free. This ties it up to a certain extent, and it is because this would be a hindrance in the negotiations that I object to it. If it is any consolation to the Dáil to know, there are already through rates to Manchester.

Mr. WILSON

Not to Manchester, but through Manchester to English ports.

Mr. McGILLIGAN

That goes a step further.

Mr. WILSON

That is the point.

Mr. McGILLIGAN

It is difficult for the Dáil to pretend to determine rates to an English port. It is worse still to determine rates to some place in England via an English port; it is still more absurd. It is quite reasonable on a voluntary basis. My only statement on that is to leave the undertaking unfettered in every way. This would be a restriction, a very definite restriction, and the Tribunal will certainly be able to instruct the amalgamated undertaking to press for through rates via all, any, and every port in Great Britain.

Mr. McBRIDE

And by every company. They cannot refuse it to one shipowner and admit another shipowner. That is what they are doing.

Mr. DAVIN

Certainly. Deputy McBride, apparently, has got the point in this amendment from the admission the Minister has made. The Minister says the amalgamated company should be left free, and the freedom to act will always be in accordance with existing agreements. The freedom to give, for instance, through rates, if they are allowed to be quite free on that point, will, in view of the existing agreements between the G.S. and W. Railway and the G.W. Railway, give them the right to give these through rates via the route which they are compelled to send traffic by in accordance with the agreement.

That is the danger that I have been trying to call the Minister's attention to. That is the reason why I occupied so much time in trying to get the Minister to agree that where the amalgamated company did quote rates it should be through all ports inside the Free State area. The Minister has now made a dangerous admission. The effect of leaving them free is that they will exercise their freedom within the limits of the existing agreement, and give undue preference to one port as against every other port within the Free State area. That is the meaning of what he said.

Mr. GOOD

Could the Minister tell us further whether the hands of the tribunal would be tied, and whether the hands of the Government, as representing this country, would be tied, by passing this amendment? I cannot see anything in the amendment that even limits its effect to the port of Manchester. It does not mention the port of Manchester at any one point. It simply wants for all ports what is given to any one port. What Deputy Davin pointed out is correct in a way. That is, that at the conference if the railway companies are willing to fix a through rate, they should not be thereby given the right to say that through rates shall only be by a certain port.

All we claim under this amendment is that all ports should be placed on the same basis; that if we want to send traffic via the Manchester Ship Canal, and from Manchester to other places in the centre of Great Britain, that we shall be at liberty to do so, and that that particular port will not be handicapped. The Minister pointed out that there are through rates already to Manchester. I would like to know if there are through rates by the Manchester Ship Canal.

Captain REDMOND

I think there is a great deal of confusion in regard to the whole matter raised by this amendment. The existing agreements which we have heard so much about, statutory and otherwise, both of which I abhor, have to do with traffic from Irish ports, and I need scarcely repeat—in fact, I cannot upon this amendment if I so desired—my arguments against the continuance of the practice embodied in those agreements in regard to Irish ports. This amendment does not deal with Irish ports, but purports to deal with British ports.

It is perfectly true what Deputy Davin has said that when the amalgamated company or the conference, as it has now been called, comes to decide on the question of through rates, they will be bound, unfortunately, to my mind—if this Section 29 goes through as it is—by the agreements statutory and otherwise, in regard to Irish ports, a limitation which I detest and which I very much regret. But I do not think that these agreements will bind them in regard to ports at the other side of the water. I think there is a great deal to be said, therefore, for allowing them to deal with both British ports and British railways without the restriction, and I say that, paradoxical as it may seem, the proposal in this amendment is a restriction—that they could not deal with any British ports before they dealt with them all. That, to my mind, is the substance of the situation. I did get a shock for a moment when I heard Deputy Davin's interpretation in regard to the conference having to act upon this agreement. I agree with him that if the Bill passes as it now stands with regard to Irish ports, they will have to act upon it. But this amendment, referring as it does to British ports and purporting to do what probably we are all powerless to do, I consider, without any offence in the slightest degree, is absolutely futile.

Mr. GOOD

No offence taken.

Professor O'SULLIVAN

Perhaps some expert members of the Committee would explain what happens if this amendment passes. I gather that we are anxious to get through rates. These through rates are fixed as a result of the agreement between the railway companies in this country, and the railway companies in England. Now, we want to insist that no through rates can be granted which favours one particular English port. That is, that if there is a through rate fixed for one port, there should be a through rate fixed for every other English port. Is not that the effect of this resolution?

Mr. HEWAT

I do not think so.

Professor O'SULLIVAN

Read the amendment. It can have no other effect. Supposing the English railway company does want to favour one port and then if it says: "We shall not under any terms make through rates with you," where are you? Then you have no through rates whatever. You cannot by legislation compel the English company to do it when they do not want to do it.

Mr. HEWAT

Amendment 22 eliminates the objection the Minister has in mind. I would like if he would let us have his views on amendments 22 and 23.

Mr. McGILLIGAN

I am dealing now with this amendment, 20 (a), and what strikes me about all this debate is that it might very well have taken place in the British House of Commons with regard to the protection of certain ports in Great Britain, as against the dangerous Irish railway companies who might seek to get preference via one British port as against others. Deputy Good has stated that all that it requires is leave and liberty to have through rates to any place. Now, supposing this amendment is not passed, is that leave and liberty that he seeks taken away? It is taken away, of course, by the Rosslare agreement. If we are going to get back to the Rosslare agreement, we are bound to have another field day on it. But we must keep the Rosslare agreement out of this. I hold that the failure to pass this amendment does not in any way deprive Deputy Good of the principle that he seeks. It does not deprive the amalgamated company of the liberty that Deputy Good would like to give it. Deputy Davin wants to introduce a new idea. He desires that we should refuse to have through rates to any particular ports—or shall I put it this way, that through rates should be via all ports.

Mr. DAVIN

All reasonable routes.

Mr. McGILLIGAN

All reasonable routes is a matter for definition afterwards. Now, supposing that to a certain town in England there are certain equal anl natural routes from a particular place in Ireland, and we decide (we are precluded by Deputy Davin's idea from deciding in any other way) we must have through rates which must operate to all those routes. There is another party to the agreement of through rates. Supposing any of these individual people who have to be a party to this question of through rates will not agree to these through rates, and suppose that one, two, three and four ports were concerned, then the whole thing would have to lapse if we could not get through rates to all the ports, for it must be for all ports. It must be to all ports of a particular type where they can be classed together as reasonable routes in a particular way. But if other parties to the agreement do not coincide with that view, then this idea of through rates drops. I think in the other argument used with regard to this amendment that I sense a hint of the Rosslare agreement in it, and that when the amalgamated company comes to deal with through rates they will find themselves bound by a certain agreement as far as traffic to or from a particular port is concerned. That has very little to do with the through rates question, and in so far as it has anything to do with it, it depends upon the consideration which I stated at full length here yesterday. There is nothing to be gained by passing it, and no liberty is taken away by the failure to pass it, and therefore I take it that the amalgamated company undertaking is given greater liberty to deal with the varying circumstances.

Mr. DAVIN

I hope the Minister is not under a wrong impression that we of the Labour Party are supporting this amendment. I am taking advantage of a statement he made.

Mr. McGILLIGAN

I absolve you from that.

Mr. GOOD

I withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. WILSON

I beg to move:

In Section 29, sub-section (2), line 32, after the word "carried" to insert the words "except in the case of ports on the western seaboard of Saorstát Eireann, when a preference of 10 per cent. may be allowed in through rates."

This is a very important amendment. Deputy McBride now will have an opportunity of airing his grievance, and he will also have an opportunity of having Leinster men helping the men on the western seaboard. The object of this amendment is to try to develop the natural harbours which exist on the western seaboard and which, by reason of the paucity of the service given them by the steamship company are not getting traffic. My idea is so to reduce the through rates via any of those western ports by 10 per cent, that it will draw necessarily from the interior of this country traffic via such ports as Westport, Ballina, Galway, or Limerick, to its destination as against bringing it via Dublin to Scotland, or England, as the case may be; that is, to give a rate cheaper than the through rate of 10 per cent. so as to bring traffic to these undeveloped ports and thereby develop that part of the country. That is the idea underlying this amendment, and I hope Deputy McBride will support it.

Mr. McBRIDE

Of course I would not object to a preference of 10 per cent. to the ports on the western seaboard, but as the amendment reads I would be rather inclined to imagine that it is altogether in favour of Dublin, and that Deputy Wilson was about to become an understudy to Deputy Hewat—

Mr. WILSON

Oh, not at all.

Mr. McBRIDE

And press as much as possible the interests of the port of Dublin. I do not know if there is to be no undue preference how this amendment could be retained, but I would like the Minister to define what "undue disadvantage" really means. because a lawyer can interpret "undue disadvantage" in a way that a layman would never think of.

Mr. McGILLIGAN

I am in the unfortunate position of having to reiterate that I have an amendment on this subject to a later section— Section 58—and Section 58, as it is proposed to be amended, provides for differentials, and provides for differentials even at a greater rate than 10 per cent. It is not specific, of course: it does not suggest Western ports; it allows differentials for traffic passing by sea to or from certain ports in Saorstát Eireann. It is proposed to amend Section 58 so as to retain differentials, but, of course, the differentials will, in the last resort, be subject to revision by the tribunal in cases where there would really be undue disadvantage. As to what undue disadvantage may mean in the future, I am not in a position to say; that is a question definitely for the tribunal. It is not for the Dáil; I do not think the Dáil will care to have on its shoulders the burden of deciding what is to be considered as undue disadvantage.

Mr. WILSON

Having regard to the explanation of the Minister that the idea is contained in an amendment coming up later, I withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. HEWAT

I move:—

To insert after sub-section (2) a new sub-section as follows:—

"The amalgamated company shall if required by any person interested use all proper endeavours to provide a reasonable system of through booking with through rates, fares, and facilities by all reasonable routes as hereinafter defined."

That, I think, does not infringe on the inability of the amalgamated company through its clearing house to interfere with ports on the other side. It is more or less non-committal in the way of interference, and if it is not another lost cause I think I might impress the idea on the Minister for his acceptance.

Mr. McGILLIGAN

So far from being a lost cause, it is a cause won even before the Deputy rose to speak. The matter is dealt with in another section. Section 49 allows the Railway Tribunal to determine any question that may be brought before it in regard to the following matters:—"(b) the institution, variation, or cancellation of through rates." The other clause provides for appearance before the tribunal of parties interested and desirous of being heard, and that includes all the effect which might be brought about by the amendment.

Mr. HEWAT

I accept the Minister's assurance that it is not a lost cause, and I withdraw it.

Mr. JOHNSON

Of course there is a difference between the intent of the amendment and Section 49. "The tribunal shall have power to determine any question that may be brought before it in regard to the following matters:—the reasonableness or otherwise of any charge made by the amalgamated company," and so on. But in this case Deputy Hewat evidently wants to make it a direction so that an advocate appearing before the tribunal will say: "Here, this is a direction of the Statute that you shall, if required, use all proper endeavours to provide a reasonable system of through bookings." In the one case you are leaving it to the tribunal to consider whether they should do it or not; in the other case you are telling the tribunal that if the railway company fails to do it, they shall do it. In one case it is more or less an indication of what the desire of the Oireachtas is; in the other case you are simply leaving it to the tribunal to say whether they think it wise to do it or not.

Mr. HEWAT

I appreciate what the Minister says about arranging the through rates, that it does not rest with the amalgamated company to do it. It is a matter of conference. I do not know that I can stand for the contention that the amalgamated company could compel a through rate; I would like to think it could.

Mr. DAVIN

If there is any object at all in the idea of Governmental interference with a publicly owned concern like a railway company, surely it should be to secure powers to see that the things asked for in the amendment are done in the interests of the trading and travelling public. No element of doubt should be allowed to enter into a matter of this kind so far as the tribunal is concerned. I gathered from the Minister's statement yesterday that he more or less looked upon the tribunal as a body of people that would be called upon to interpret either acts or agreements, or to give decisions upon any complaints or appeals made in the light of their interpretation of the existing agreements or statutory enactments. I think we should not be giving the tribunal the right to determine whether these things are necessary or not. They are necessary, and that being so, if the Government has any function at all in a matter of this kind, or any right to interfere in the management or administration of a railway company or to say what should be done in the interests of the trading and travelling public, I think that they cannot reasonably say that these things should be left to the discretion of the tribunal. A definite direction should be given in some shape or form, perhaps in the form of the amendment, so that there would be no doubt whatsoever in the minds of the tribunal that these things should be done. I quite admit that you cannot compel people who are parties to a through rates arrangement to fix through rates, but as to the desirability of entering into negotiations or seeing that an effort is made to bring about the necessary negotiations that would make possible the fixing of through rates and facilities by all reasonable routes, I think there should certainly be a definite direction to the tribunal that that is part of their powers, and that it is their duty to make these arrangements, if that can possibly be done, to bring about a voluntary agreement, which is the only way, I submit, that through rates can be arranged.

Mr. McGILLIGAN

I can quite understand Deputy Davin's argument if he believes there is something in the Bill, or in the minds of the Government, insisting that the Railway Tribunal shall be appointed, consisting of three people who will use every possible endeavour to wriggle out of the conditions imposed on them by this Bill, and that they will do everything in their power to nullify the object of the Bill. That is not going to be the case. A Tribunal will be set up, and the idea in the setting up of the Tribunal is to provide for the more efficient and economical working of the railway system. Surely, a Railway Tribunal set up with that end in view is going to be quite as diligent about endeavouring to get through rates as Deputy Davin himself could be? I do not see any great difference between the clause which states that the Tribunal shall have power to determine the institution, variation or cancellation of through rates and the amendment which reads: "The amalgamated company shall, if required by any person interested, use all proper endeavours to provide a reasonable system of through booking." Is there any great difference, or any such difference, between the Section as it stands and the amendment, that makes it worth while to change the Section?

Mr. JOHNSON

Distinctly.

Mr. DAVIN

I suggest there is this difference, that it leaves it open to question as to whether or not it is the duty of the Tribunal to interfere in a matter of this kind until costly representations have been made by some interested party to the Tribunal.

Mr. McGILLIGAN

And this amendment is the same thing: "If required by any person interested."

Professor O'SULLIVAN

If you pass this amendment must it not ultimately come before the Tribunal for their interpretation? Supposing the company does not do what is set out in the amendment, does it not ultimately come before the Tribunal to know whether or not the company has been remiss in carrying out this arrangement?

Mr. JOHNSON

The Deputy seems to assume that the railway company, being a railway company, will endeavour to defeat the Statute. If this amendment is embodied in the Bill it will be a statutory obligation on the railway company to do a certain thing, that Deputy O'Sullivan assumes that it will not do. It is a very natural assumption. If the railway company evades the Statute there will be an appeal to the Tribunal. For the moment, I am assuming, with Deputy Hewat, that the railway company will obey the law. If this amendment is adopted then it will be an obligation on the company, without having to go before the Tribunal, to do so, and without having to put anybody to expense, to provide a reasonable through rate by reasonable routes.

Professor O'SULLIVAN

To make all possible endeavours to do so.

Mr. JOHNSON

True. If, then, some person thinks that the company has not made these proper endeavours they will go to the Tribunal, but they will not be obliged in the first instance to go to that trouble if the company obeys the law—a great assumption, I admit. Let us assume that the Tribunal is a judicial body and that it is to weigh up matters as between the company and the public—it may say that there is no occasion for instituting, varying, or cancelling through rates. It may say that it is not for them to take the initiative, because the Statute which set them up did not state in its body, in the various clauses, that it was expected that there would be this general system of through rates established. From the absence of a provision of this kind, it may be argued before the Tribunal, and the Tribunal may agree with the argument, that the Oireachtas did not intend that this system of through rates should be established. Whatever value there may be in the amendment, it certainly will be an indication to the Tribunal that it was the desire and intention of the Oireachtas that a system of through rates should be established. I want to put in this demurrer: it must not be taken that the be-all and end-all of railway service to and from Ireland should be the establishment of through rates. I would very much prefer to see through rates established from points within Ireland, but I will say that the purpose of the amendment is not effected by Section 49. It is undoubtedly desirable that there should be through rates for some commodities, at any rate, and it is better that we should put into the Bill a specific intimation that that is the desire and intention—that a system of through rates should be established.

Mr. McGILLIGAN

If there is any great insistence on the point that there should be somewhere in the Bill a direction to that effect to the tribunal, I would rather have that expressly put than simply ask that the company should see about through rates, and use their best endeavours to establish a system of through rates. We might have that considered, but I do not know where exactly it would most appropriately fit into the Bill—that is if there is any great insistence on it. I think this phrase "power to determine." taken in conjunction with other clauses which allow persons interested in any particular question to appear before the tribunal, provide an intimation to the tribunal that through rates are necessary, even if we assume, as is apparently the assumption of the Dáil, that those who are going to be on the tribunal are those people who know nothing at all about railway matters and the importance of through rates.

Mr. DAVIN

That is not suggested, I think.

Mr. JOHNSON

Are we to assume that the tribunal in this case is going to be biased in favour of the public as against the company, unless they get a statutory direction that it is the desire and intention of the Oireachtas that this system should be established.

Mr. McGILLIGAN

Very well; if it is considered that owing to the absence of such an intimation from the Bill that there is a danger of their acting in this way, I will have it introduced, wherever it comes in most appropriately, but I do not accept this amendment.

Mr. GOOD

With all respect, this is a matter as much for the company, because representatives at these conferences will be representatives of the company and not representatives of the tribunal; that is, they will be actually people connected with the company just as they are at the moment. Then with regard to the other point, I do not know whether the Minister quite sees the whole purpose of this amendment. It not alone encourages the principle of through rates, but it also states that these through rates shall be by all reasonable routes. The Minister said that we were arguing the point that it would be to the interest of the tribunal to encourage traffic. That is true, but it is also the duty of the tribunal to maintain the standard income. That being so, it will be their desire, as far as possible, to get out of that through rate on the part of the amalgamated company, as much as they possibly can.

That being so, if they get more out of the through rate by sending the traffic by one port rather than another, it would be to their interest, being responsible for maintaining the standard income, to send the traffic by that particular route. This amendment, as I pointed out, would, to some extent, direct the railway companies that they must take into consideration the reasonable routes and other routes which might give them the largest portion of the through rates. I hope I make the point clear to the Minister that the Tribunal may be anxious, and doubtless some of them may be filled with the desire, to do all they possibly can in the public interest, but having this other responsibility cast upon them of maintaining the standard income they must have regard to that particular fact, and I am quite satisfied that the advisers from the amalgamated company will keep pressing that fact before them, that certain rates can realise more than the others can. For these reasons I strongly support the amendment.

Mr. McBRIDE

The Internationalist Deputies who sit upon the Independent Benches are simply concerned with the one-way traffic to England, and they want through rates to operate in that direction alone. There is another direction in which through rates can operate, and that is into the country. I hope the Minister will assume that the through rates will operate in both directions, and not as the great internationalists wish, in one direction only.

Mr. HEWAT

I think that the Deputy does not understand what through rates mean.

Mr. McBRIDE

I understand perfectly, but Deputy Hewat has been arguing all along that through rates are for the benefit of ports in Great Britain.

Mr. HEWAT

I think the Deputy is out of order. It does not arise on this amendment. I bow to the superior intelligence of Deputy Johnson, because he convinces me that there is more in my amendment than I thought. That arises largely from the Minister's view of this as disclosed in the discussion. It seems to me that he has the idea that this Bill is going to form a Tribunal, and that that Tribunal is going to manage the railways. Surely that is a misconceived idea? If that is the idea, why make two bites of a cherry, and why not nationalise at once? The position, as I understand it, is that the amalgamated company will continue to carry on the functions of management and the Tribunal will be a Court of Appeal. As Deputy Johnson very properly pointed out, this is an instruction to the Tribunal. I would like to emphasise that view, which I think has been clouded. The Minister's attitude of mind is as if the Tribunal was going to arrange through rates, and I think they are really getting more into the Minister's mind than into the Bill. The Bill does not provide that the Tribunal shall do any such thing. The Tribunal is a Court of Appeal.

Captain REDMOND

I think that Deputy Hewat's last remarks are most valuable, and that this amendment, if proposed in any other form, as the Minister has stated it will, should certainly adopt the term "amalgamated company" instead of "tribunal." This amendment does not altogether refer to through rates and fares. It also refers to all reasonable routes. Now, I do not know whether the term "reasonable routes" has been defined in the Bill. I do not think that they have, but in a subsequent amendment to be proposed by Deputy Hewat it is sought to define the expression to mean "the shortest route and any route not less expeditious than the shortest route and any route which in distance does not exceed the shortest route by more than 50 per cent." What I am particularly anxious to ascertain from the Minister is that when he does propose at some future stage of the Bill in some other form to introduce a provision amounting, as I understand, to a direction to the company, I hope it shall be "proper endeavours shall be made for a reasonable system of booking with through rates, fares, and facilities," and that he shall also include "by all reasonable routes." If he is willing to do that, I certainly would conclude that it would be a very valuable direction to the company. As I read this amendment of Deputy Hewat it would mean that the company in future would have to consider when fixing these routes, fares, and facilities whether routes as defined by Deputy Hewat were also the most reasonable ones, and that the same facilities, fares, and rates should be provided over all routes which would be considered reasonable on that line.

Mr. McGILLIGAN

I am ready to go a step further than that which I last announced. I am prepared to consider the acceptance of the amendment down to the word "facilities."

Mr. DAVIN

Why have you left out the latter part?

Mr. McGILLIGAN

Because I consider the question of reasonable routes is one for the tribunal.

Mr. WILSON

Would the Minister apply that to the railways which do not come under the terms "amalgamated company"—that is, to the Northern and the other railways?

Mr. McGILLIGAN

The next section deals with the other railways. I say now, with regard to this amendment, that I guarantee to consider its introduction here, keeping the phrase "the amalgamated company' but retaining section 49, sub-section (b), having the tribunal as the final court for the determination of these things.

Mr. JOHNSON

I think that is a fair compromise, because if the company is obliged under the section to provide a reasonable system, then it would be for the tribunal to say whether the company is providing reasonable routes.

Captain REDMOND

I hope Deputy Johnson's reading of it will turn out to be the correct one. I was about to make the same suggestion myself. At the same time I do not think that the Minister has quite clearly explained, if Deputy Johnson's interpretation is to be taken as correct, why he would not include the remainder of the amendment. I would like to know from the Minister what objection he could have to this being spread out over all reasonable routes. Is there a suggestion that the tribunal will not have the powers to consider through rates over all reasonable routes.

Mr. McGILLIGAN

No.

Captain REDMOND

Is it suggested that the amalgamated company will not be enabled to provide through rates over all reasonable routes and, if not, then I cannot see why these words would not be included. I think we all must admit the concession that the Minister has made, but if he would go a step further I think it would place it beyond all doubt as to what the intention of the legislature was.

Mr. McGILLIGAN

If you have a sub-section stating that the amalgamated company shall use all proper endeavours to provide a reasonable system of through rates and facilities, and that section stops short there, there is nothing to prevent the amalgamated company considering what is and what is not a reasonable route. The final determination of what is a reasonable route will lie with the tribunal. That deals with the definition consequential on this.

Mr. GOOD

The Tribunal may say that the word "route" may not come within the meaning of the word "system." In order that they might consider that and to remove any ambiguity I suggest that after the word "system" we put the words "or route."

AN LEAS-CHEANN COMHAIRLE

Is the Minister going to accept the amendment or bring it up on Report?

Mr. McGILLIGAN

I have guaranteed to accept the amendment down to the word "facilities." If the amendment as it stands is pressed, I am opposing the whole amendment. I cannot understand how a system of through-booking can be set up without taking into consideration the question of through routes.

Captain REDMOND

"All reasonable routes," is my contention.

Mr. McGILLIGAN

There is nothing to indicate to the Tribunal that they are not to consider all reasonable routes.

Mr. DAVIN

If the Minister's interpretation, or that of the Tribunal later on, of what is to be a reasonable system is guided by existing agreements, then the present statutory enactments reenacted in this Bill will enable the amalgamated company to take their own view of what a reasonable route and facilities are. Will the Minister consider how far the existing agreements can be used to the disadvantage of the trading public and put in a suitable form of words to prevent an abuse of the amendment he has accepted?

Mr. McGILLIGAN

I will not do that. The Deputy is attempting again to get behind the 1899 Act to a certain extent. I am being made to look on that Act with more fervour and enthusiasm than I did forty-eight hours ago. We are definitely taking our stand on it, and, so far as that Act is concerned, we propose to adopt it. It will, of course, have some influence with regard to that particular Board, in and so far as Section 19 of the Schedule applies to it, with all the guarding clauses that are in that section. Outside that there is no possible danger of the amalgamated undertaking or the Tribunal having their view-point distorted in any way with regard to these through rates. In so far as I accept this amendment this section is a hint to the amalgamated company to provide a reasonable system of through booking, and the Railway Tribunal by Section 49 finally determines it. The question of a reasonable route will lie unhampered by any consideration except the 1899 Act.

Captain REDMOND

The statutory enactments?

Mr. McGILLIGAN

Yes.

Mr. DAVIN

If the interpretation of the Minister be what is meant by reasonable facilities——

AN LEAS-CHEANN COMHAIRLE

You have already spoken three times. Is it a question you are asking the Minister?

Mr. DAVIN

I will put it in the form of a question. Am I to understand that the Minister's interpretation of "a reasonable system and reasonable facilities" is that an equally expeditious service is to be given by all routes by which through booking arrangements are agreed to?

Mr. McGILLIGAN

I do not understand the question, and my interpretation means nothing. The Railway Tribunal will get the Act and operate on the basis of that Act, and anything I say will have no effect on the minds of the Railway Tribunal.

Captain REDMOND

The Minister has said that the amendment is a hint to the company to provide a reasonable system of booking.

Mr. McGILLIGAN

A direction.

Captain REDMOND

I think direction is better—a direction to provide a reasonable system of through booking, with through rates and fares. I agree with him in that. What I would like the Minister to include in this hint or direction is, that they should provide a reasonable system of booking, with through rates, fares and facilities by all reasonable routes. The amendment as he has accepted it, I do not think meets that case. I do not see what objection can be put forward to a direction being given from the Oireachtas that the company should consider the propriety of setting up a reasonable system of booking and of rates and fares by all reasonable routes.

Mr. McGILLIGAN

I am prepared to go so far. I will accept down to the end of "through rates, fares and facilities by all reasonable routes."

Captain REDMOND

I am very much obliged to the Minister for his concessions, but I am afraid I will have to go one step further and ask him what he means by reasonable routes. Reasonable routes have been defined very well in a later amendment by the same Deputy. Perhaps it might be no harm to ask the Minister does he mean the same as the proposer of the amendment does by the words "reasonable routes"? Reasonable routes, according to Deputy Hewat in his amendment 44, mean "the shortest route and any route not less expeditious than the shortest route and any route which in distance does not exceed the shortest route by more than 50 per cent." Does the Minister mean what these words mean, or something to that effect? If he answers that question satisfactorily I will not trouble him any further.

Mr. McGILLIGAN

That question as to what I mean by reasonable routes does not affect me. I wonder would Deputy Redmond, if I may put a rhetorical question, be willing to agree to an amendment to this effect: "by all reasonable routes to be defined by the Minister"? I am sure he would not. It would be very unwise for him.

Mr. HEWAT

And very unwise for the Minister to undertake.

Mr. McGILLIGAN

I have no intention of undertaking it, and I would not care to pass on such a burden to anybody succeeding me. We will accept this amendment for consideration to the end of the word "routes." We are not going to accept the definition and consequently are not going to accept the three words "as hereinafter defined."

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. HEWAT

I beg to move:—

To insert after sub-section (2) a new sub-section as follows:—

"Traffic not consigned by any particular route shall be forwarded by the natural route as hereinafter defined."

I rise with a feeling of elation that all my labour has not been in vain. I would like to solicit the kind consideration by the Minister of my next effort. I think the amendment is a reasonable one. It means that a direction should be given to the companies so that they cannot play "hanky-panky" with traffic that is not consigned. That is, when traffic is handed over to them to send to its destination that they cannot send it round the world for sport. If the old competitive systems were in operation I would not press the amendment, because with ordinary competition between the companies the trader would have the benefit of that competition. It has been stated that the effect of this Bill is to eliminate competition. I have heard people say that there is no competition at present. I disagree with that. I have also heard people say that there will be no competition. I disagree with that, too, because under unification competition will naturally arise in other directions. In the event of competition being done away with, this amendment proposes to take from the companies the power to send traffic round the world for sport, and confine them to sending it by the natural route, which is the most convenient route for the traffic to go.

Mr. McGILLIGAN

This amendmend proceeds on the assumption that the Railway Tribunal will be composed of a body of men who will be likely to agree to the diversion of traffic and the sending of it all round Ireland in order to get extra freights.

Mr. HEWAT

May I point out to the Minister, as I did on the last amendment, that the Tribunal has nothing to do with this in the first instance? The Tribunal does not come in. That is the importance of what I said before on this matter. The Minister seems to put it that this is a Bill under which the railways will be managed by the Tribunal.

Mr. McGILLIGAN

The Railway Tribunal does come in very definitely, because Section 22 confers on the Tribunal every function, jurisdiction, power and duty which was on the particular date exercised by or imposed on the Railway and Canal Commission.

Mr. HEWAT

Not by the railway companies.

Mr. McGILLIGAN

I want to take the position as it will be if this proposed sub-section be not inserted. I take the hypothetical condition of things against which the Deputy seeks to provide, that is to say, a company for the purpose of bigger receipts taking some consignment of merchandise and sending it all round Ireland. In the old days an appeal would lie to the Railway and Canal Commission against such a practice. Under the present Bill, according to Section 22, an appeal will lie to the tribunal against such a practice. There is no necessity. therefore, for the amendment except on the basis that I started with, that the Railway Tribunal is going to be a body which will allow all these malpractices to continue.

Mr. JOHNSON

The Bill should tell the company what the company is to do. If the company disobeys the law then the Tribunal comes into operation. To say that the company should be free to do the right thing if they wish, or the wrong thing if they prefer, and that the trading community, if they have an objection, may go to the Tribunal, is simply putting a charge on the trading community and putting money into the pockets of the lawyers as well as wasting the time of the Tribunal.

That is the process, and I can imagine that, inasmuch as this Bill has been copied from the British Act, which was framed largely in the interest of lawyers, by lawyers, for lawyers, that we are adopting the same plan and rather suggesting that the company would take a certain course. They may take it if they wish. In the long run the Tribunal is there to protect the public. I suggest it is better we should tell the company in the Bill what they are obliged to do. If it fails to do it to the satisfaction of the trading public, then the trading public can go to the Tribunal, to prove that the company is not carrying out the law, as required by this Bill. The conception of the Bill that the Minister is defending is that you must trust the railway company to do this. If it does not do it then you can appeal to the Tribunal. It is assuming that the Tribunal must always be in operation. The President suggested that there will be a time when the Tribunal will have much less to do than in the first three years. The conception of the Bill, as defended by the Minister, is such as would ensure that the Tribunal will be active and always have plenty to do, because the company will only act according to what we tell it it should do. When the public move, even the Tribunal will compel them to do what we could compel them, or very nearly compel them, to do by embodying our wishes in the Bill. I think we are simply going to ask the public to waste money which we would save them by embodying this intention in the Bill itself.

Mr. GOOD

I can support this amendment, particularly on the plea of Deputy Johnson, that it is going to save money. I do not know whether the Minister is aware of cases that came under my notice, of unconsigned traffic from Tuam to Manchester being sent down to the South of Ireland, across from Rosslare to Fishguard, and up the other side to Manchester. That has actually happened. I think nobody will doubt, in view of Deputy Johnson's statement, that that is wasteful. That is the sort of thing that this amendment wants to stop in the interests of everyone. It ought to be stopped. The acceptance of such an amendment as this will ensure that it will be stopped, and that it will be the duty of those administering the Act to see that it is stopped. It is only right that the Dáil should express opinions on this matter, especially when certain cases are brought before it, where traffic is carried by a circuitous route at a loss to the trading community. It is our duty in drafting legislation to insert sections that will prevent such methods in the future. I would strongly urge the Minister in the interests of the tribunal, the company, and particularly of the trading community, to accept this amendment. If such a thing happens in future, and if attention is called to it, there will be no necessity for taking any formal action, as those administering the amalgamated company will see, that by one of the sections in the Bill traffic is to follow the natural and shortest route between two points.

Mr. DAVIN

There seems to be a greater desire on the part of the Minister and of the Government to give protection, in things that cannot be justified, to the amalgamated company, rather than in a Bill of this kind, to the trading and the travelling public. It has been stated here before that it is quite possible for traffic from, say, Dublin to Birmingham, handed in to the Great Southern and Western Railway Company at Kingsbridge, to be forwarded via Rosslare and Fishguard, a route which nobody can claim to be the natural one. If the Minister would accept the amendment that has been moved by Deputy Hewat it would prevent the possibility of traffic being sent in that direction, as I submit, to the disadvantage of the trading and travelling public. If an equally expeditious service was provided via Rosslare and Fishguard, that would get the traffic to Birmingham as quickly as if it went via Dublin, there would be very little reason for complaint. In the light of the existing agreement, traffic sent that way via Rosslare and Fishguard, will not get the same service and cannot get to its destination as quickly as if it were sent via the direct and natural route, the port of Dublin. It should not be left to some person, or to some organisation, like the Farmers' Union, or the Chamber of Commerce, with money to spend, to employ lawyers to go before the tribunal to prove that the forwarding of the traffic in that way was unnecessary and unjustifiable. Something in the nature of a direction should be available, so that, if the company did not carry out the instructions they got in the way of legislation framed by the Dáil, then as a last resort the Chamber of Commerce or any other body or individual could go to the Railway Tribunal and appeal to it to compel the company to send the traffic handed to them under such circumstances by the natural and most expeditious route. In the interests of the development of the trade of the country the Government should give this very necessary direction to the amalgamated company.

Mr. McGILLIGAN

Deputy Davin has a very weak case if he has to get back to his old argument about traffic from Dublin being forwarded to Birmingham via Rosslare.

Mr. DAVIN

Does the Minister deny that such could not be the case?

Mr. McGILLIGAN

I do not deny that such a thing happened, but if traders had been diligent in making complaints, and taken such cases before the proper authority, such practices could have been stopped.

Mr. DAVIN

I suggest that it is the duty of the Government to protect the public under such circumstances.

Mr. McGILLIGAN

I suggest that the Government have definitely succeeded in this Bill in protecting the public. This is the 1905 Act, I presume, that we are back to again, about traffic being diverted from Dublin via Rosslare to places in England.

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

at this stage resumed the Chair.

Mr. McGILLIGAN

If that happened, and if it is supposed to have been protected by the 1905 Act, then it was a wrong assumption. It was not protected, and it is not protected. Such a malpractice is not protected, and is not sanctioned by anything we have done in this Bill.

Mr. DAVIN

It was, certainly, in the agreement that I read.

Mr. McGILLIGAN

The agreement that was read is subsidiary to the other Act, and the other Act, with its overriding clauses, governs anything that is in the 1905 Act. It is impossible to deal with every case, and to put down in black and white safeguards against every possible malpractice that a railway company might be guilty of. We are told here one thing, but there might be other things. I do not know if Deputy Davin could get all his bogeys translated to paper and put in a schedule to the Bill, so that the Railway Tribunal would take cognisance of all these horrible imaginings of the Deputy's.

Mr. HEWAT

You could not be up to him at all.

Mr. McGILLIGAN

I do not think any railway company could outrun Deputy Davin's imagination of what it might do. It is impossible positively. by legislation, to compel a railway company if it is going to be dishonest, to remain honest.

Mr. DAVIN

I do not think the Minister should suggest that I made any allegation that the railway company is dishonest. I say it is quite within its rights to do these things if it is given the power to do them under this Act.

Mr. McGILLIGAN

I was not referring to the Deputy, in fact I was speaking away altogether from the Deputy's imaginings which, apparently, do not run to dishonesty on the part of a railway company. But supposing a railway company wishes to be dishonest, I do not believe it is possible by setting down all the acts of dishonesty that it might perpetrate to guard against them or to do anything more than you can do by saying that you will punish certain things and set up a tribunal for the punishment.

Mr. JOHNSON

We are refusing to tell the tribunal what they are expected to judge upon. You are refusing to tell the tribunal that it is the duty of the railway company to send traffic, not consigned by a particular route, by the natural route.

Mr. McGILLIGAN

Here is a Bill, the whole purpose, aim and object of which is the more efficient and more economical working of the railways in the Saorstát.

Mr. JOHNSON

The railway company may be just as good a judge of that as the public.

Mr. McGILLIGAN

Yes, but their good judgment comes finally for further judgment before the tribunal. If Deputies are going to go on with this kind of imagining we will get nowhere. If we define here "expeditious route," and we have a tribunal of such a type as appears possible to Deputy Johnson, the Railway Tribunal may distort this definition of "expeditious and natural route."

A tribunal such as the Deputy imagines can do anything; no paper safeguards will guard against it. We have done all that is reasonable and possible in the proposals that we are putting before the Dáil. As I have stated, I do not think it is possible to set out in detail all the things that a railway company might do. We are giving a general direction as regards certain things, and we are leaving it to the Railway Tribunal to decide what is the best thing to be done.

Mr. JOHNSON

The Minister has referred to a promise on the last amendment. That only deals with through bookings. This amendment does not deal with through bookings, but with traffic not consigned by any particular route. It has no reference whatever to through bookings.

Mr. McGILLIGAN

I only referred to the question of through bookings because the matter was brought in by Deputy Davin on this question of the 1905 Act.

Mr. JOHNSON

The effect of this amendment is to ensure that what you have promised on the previous amendment will also apply to goods which are not booked through. This will apply to all traffic whether they are through bookings or not, and it will ensure that the companies shall consign all such traffic by the natural route. But if you shut out a direction of that kind the companies will still be free to send non-through bookings by any route they please.

Mr. McGILLIGAN

I should say that the use of the word "free" there is not a proper statement of fact. They may do it, but while they are free to do it they will be liable to be hauled up for it.

Mr. JOHNSON

Yes, of course, until they are caught. The Minister for Home Affairs might well expatiate on the principle that people are free to do things, but that they are not free because they might be caught and brought before the tribunal.

Mr. McGILLIGAN

Let us pass this amendment, and what happens? Somebody has to go counter to it and be caught in going counter to it before he can be brought up.

Mr. JOHNSON

But you impose an obligation on the company if you pass it. If you do not pass it there is no obligation. Therefore, it is only the tribunal that is making a decision so far as the company is concerned. In the meantime, we desire to impose an obligation on the company.

Mr. McGILLIGAN

I hold that the obligation is imposed on the company by the very purpose of the Bill. The whole tenor of the Bill is against such malpractices as this seeks to guard against specifically. I am only answering the point, and it seems to be a great point against the Bill, that somebody has to be caught doing something wrong and be brought before the tribunal before rectification follows. What else must happen if this amendment is passed? You are giving a specific direction to the company, and if that is not carried out there has to be an appeal to the Railway Tribunal before there is any chance of amendment.

Mr. JOHNSON

It will be quite clear in that case, but the Minister is assuming that the railway companies will not obey the law until they are brought before the tribunal.

Mr. McGILLIGAN

You are assuming it!

Mr. JOHNSON

No. I am assuming that if you impose an obligation on the company by the Act which sets up the company, the company's servants, until the directors tell them to do otherwise, will proceed to carry out the Act. The Minister's view is: "No, let the company go on following its own bent, because it has no obligation such as is provided for by this amendment." Then the public come along and say: "We have a complaint to make; the company is doing what we thought it should not do, we will bring you before the tribunal, we will bring our lawyers, and they will bring their lawyers, and we will have the matter threshed out fully." Witnesses will be brought here from all parts of England and Scotland, and immense expenditure will be piled up against the trading public. We could avoid all that by putting a section in the Bill; we could avoid that, assuming that all the companies are fairly law-abiding; we could avoid that provided that the companies will obey the law, and we have a right to assume that this new company will, as the child of the Minister, obey the law.

Mr. HEWAT

May I say that this little ewe lamb of mine only takes up two lines, and even if it is a superfluity it will not be very expensive to have it added to the Bill.

Mr. McGILLIGAN

The objection to the amendment is that it will add very much to the expense of the unfortunate people who are obliged to fight actions under such a definition as this here of "natural route." I cannot see myself any great array of counsel brought in on the question of the economical working of the railways in the Saorstát, but I can very well see the great array of counsel that might be brought forward to fight and argue about this question of natural route, and on the definition to be given to that term. We are giving a definite direction to the railway companies that they must have economical working, and complaints can be taken on that. This amendment seeks to give a direction with regard to traffic not consigned by a particular route. It says that the traffic shall be forwarded by the natural route hereinafter defined.

Mr. DAVIN

Do the railway companies understand what is in your mind as to the term "economical working"?

Mr. McGILLIGAN

Again, I say, my mind does not enter into this at all. The direction in the Bill is that they are to have economical working, and it is for the tribunal to determine whether or not that direction is being carried out, just as it will be for the tribunal to determine whether or not the natural route hereinafter defined has been followed.

Mr. GOOD

There is no connection between economical working and the route by which traffic is to be consigned.

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

It is now 7 o'clock, and there is to be an adjournment as arranged.

Mr. McGILLIGAN

I move to report progress.