Dáil Éireann debate -
Friday, 23 May 1924

Vol. 7 No. 13

DAIL IN COMMITTEE. - RAILWAYS BILL, 1924.—THIRD STAGE (RESUMED).

Debate resumed on Amendment 23.

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."—Deputy William Hewat.

Mr. HEWAT

I think this amendment was very fully discussed when we adjourned yesterday. We had come to the point, I think, that having failed to extract agreement from the Minister we were about to take a division. Perhaps he would deal leniently with the amendment now and agree to accept it.

I do not in any way hold out the threat of a division, but at the same time I think our friends on the Labour Benches have indicated that a division is necessary if we cannot come to an agreement. I suggest that if the Minister agreed, the progress of the Bill would be greatly facilitated.

Mr. JOHNSON

I suggest that some of the objections to the amendment would be removed if the last three words were deleted. That would mean that the decision as to whether a particular route was a natural route would be finally decided by the Tribunal. It is suggested that the definition might cause more trouble than it would be worth, and that it is better to leave that definition to the Tribunal. Inasmuch as the Minister has agreed to the previous amendment, minus these three words, he might also agree to this amendment minus the same three words.

Mr. ESMONDE

I would like to point out that this definition is a rather clumsy one. In dealing with this we have to refer to the further amendment 44, in which the natural route is defined as: "the shortest route, unless there is a more expeditious route, when the natural route shall mean the most expeditious route." If that is the case, what is the objection to changing that definition, and saying that the natural route is the most expeditious? In any case, whether the route be the shortest or longest, it must be the most expeditious in order to be the natural route. It strikes me the definition is a clumsy one, and for that reason I think it might lead to all kinds of complications. The first two lines are unnecessary.

Mr. HEWAT

I would be quite prepared to accept that alteration, if the Minister agrees.

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

How would the amendment read:—"Traffic not consigned by any particular route shall be forwarded by the most expeditious route."

Mr. McGILLIGAN

"By the natural route."

Mr. DAVIN

"The natural and most expeditious route."

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

Leave out the definition altogether.

Mr. McGILLIGAN

The remarks that have been passed show the difficulty. Natural route means nothing. If the Deputy wants the phrase defined as "expeditious," I am going to throw another apple of discord into the arena. What about the cheapest route? Is not that better than the most expeditious route or the shortest route? There is no definition to meet the case.

Mr. DAVIN

The cheapest route would be the natural route.

Mr. JOHNSON

Taking into account the value received.

Mr. HEWAT

Some things might be considered cheap but nasty.

Amendment put.

The Committee divided: Tá, 14; Níl, 36.

Tá

• Seán Buitléir.
• John Good.
• William Hewat.
• Tomás Mac Eoin.
• Risteárd Mac Fheorais.
• James Sproule Myles.
• Tomás de Nógla.
• Tomás O Conaill.
• Aodh O Cúlacháin.
• Liam O Daimhín.
• Eamon O Dubhghaill.
• Seán O Laidhin.
• Tadhg O Murchadha.
• Pádraig O hOgáin (An Clár).

Níl

• Pádraig F. Baxter.
• Earnán de Blaghd.
• Séamus Breathnach.
• Seoirse de Bhulbh.
• Louis J. D'Alton.
• Patrick J. Egan.
• Osmond Grattan Esmonde.
• Desmond Fitzgerald.
• John Hennigan.
• Liam T. Mac Cosgair.
• Pádraig Mac Fadáin.
• Pádraig Mac Giollagáin.
• Risteárd Mac Liam.
• Eoin Mac Néill.
• Seoirse Mac Niocaill.
• Liam Mac Sioghaird.
• Liam Mag Aonghusa.
• Patrick McKenna.
• Martin M. Nally.
• John T. Nolan.
• Peadar O hAodha.
• Criostóir O Broin.
• Seán O Bruadair.
• Aodh Ua Cinnéidigh.
• Partholán O Conchubhair.
• Séamus O Dóláin.
• Peadar S. O Dubhghaill.
• Pádraig O Dubhthaigh.
• Eamon O Dúgáin.
• Seán O Duinnín.
• Donchadh O Guaire.
• Aindriú O Láimhín.
• Pádraig O Máille.
• Domhnall O Mocháin.
• Seán Príomhdhail.
• Patrick W. Shaw.

Amendment declared lost.

Mr. HEWAT

I propose:—

In sub-section (3) to insert in line 33, after the word "commissions" the words "services preferential treatment."

Of course, the basis of this amendment is to secure in the same way as no rebates or commissions or other allowance shall be given, that there shall also be no special services or preferential treatment, which are things designed to divert traffic from its natural course. I do not think the words will be in any way objectionable to the sense of the amendment, which adds a little more protection and which is, I submit, a reasonable one.

Mr. McGILLIGAN

I should have expected to hear from the Deputy what additional protection is given by the introduction of these words which is not given in sub-section (2), where the words are: "the facilities provided or the accommodation afforded." The whole section aims at protecting ports. and I do not think there is anything special in, or any great addition made by, those words, and I am not disposed to accept them.

Mr. HEWAT

The Minister will remember that I had an amendment to that particular clause 2, in which I suggested the insertion of the words "or by unfair diversion of traffic," but that was not accepted. In the same way I presume the Minister hardens his heart against the alteration in this section, but the fact that he does so does not make the alteration unreasonable. I think it is an improvement. I think the Minister has asked me what is the additional protection that I propose by this amendment. He expected to hear from me what additional protection I expected to secure. I think it is obvious from the amendment what I am attempting to secure. I do not think the Minister ought to turn down the amendment.

Mr. DAVIN

If, as the Minister has assumed, as he assumed before, there is no anxiety in the minds of the people who will control the amalgamated company to give more reasonable facilities by one route than by another, then I do not see why he should object to the insertion of words of this kind which give direction according to law that they cannot or will not be allowed to do these things. If, on the other hand he declines to insert words of this kind or some other words which may more clearly explain the meaning to the average reader of the faultily-worded clause, I cannot see where the objection comes in. If they do not provide the facilities then it will be for some public body or body of traders at considerable expense to come before the Tribunal and plead their case. My idea in supporting this amendment is to save expense to the trading community or public bodies who may have to bring cases before this Tribunal.

Mr. McGILLIGAN

Deputy Davin's argument seems to be that under sub-section (2) somebody would have to object. If those words are taken they add nothing to the force of sub-section (2). Supposing these are given, what is to be the method? There is no difference between the two methods.

Mr. WILSON

In my opinion sub-section (3) deals with money, commissions, rebates, and cash payments, and those words refer more to the subject matter of sub-section (2), and they are protected under sub-section (2). It is a question of no such things as rebates and commissions being allowed. I think it is out of place in that particular part. It is a different matter altogether.

Amendment put, and negatived.

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

Amendment 25 is a consequential amendment.

Amendment 25 not moved.

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

The question is: "That section 29, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

Mr. JOHNSON

I want to raise a question on the first paragraph, and I am quite seriously anxious to know from the Minister what is the reason that he deems it necessary that statutory agreements would be protected by this Bill. An Irish company made an agreement with a company not now under the control of the Irish Government. Is that agreement binding on the company, or is it not binding unless it is brought into this Bill? Is it necessary before it is binding that it should be made so by an Act of the Oireachtas? If it is necessary before such an agreement can be made binding upon the Irish company, what is going to be the position of the other party to the agreement? Both parties to the agreement entered such agreement because of certain reciprocal advantages, and those advantages carried with them corresponding responsibilities and submissions. Presumably by the very fact that this sub-section designs to make all such agreements binding by statute, it is the Minister's mind that they would not be binding without a statute. Then in such a case what is the position of the other party to the agreement? If it is essential to make those agreements binding, that they should be embodied in this Bill and made statutory by the Oireachtas, inasmuch as the Oireachtas has not authority over the other party to the agreement, it follows that the other party to the agreement need not be bound by the agreement. We cannot make it obligatory on them by statute. The Minister may turn to the British Act of which this is somewhat complementary, but that Act does not cover Irish railway companies. When it deals with agreements it quite obviously deals with agreements that are brought within the scope of that British Railways Act. As far as I can understand that, without being a lawyer or having any lawyer's assistance, it seems to me that what we are trying to do in this sub-section is to make it obligatory upon the new Irish amalgamated company to burden itself with obligations which were entered into with one of the constituent companies and were part of an agreement presumably giving reciprocal duties and advantages between two companies, only one of which is subject to the authority of the Oireachtas. As it seems to me, the position we are leading ourselves into is that we are imposing an obligation upon the new company to carry out the terms of an agreement made by one of the constituent elements of that new company, but without ensuring to the new company any of the reciprocal advantages which, it is presumed, the old company obtained.

I would like the Minister to make that position clear. I may be quite wrong. He may be able to persuade the House that if we passed this Bill in those terms, if we impose upon the new company certain obligations with regard to the carrying out of old agreements, that that necessarily compels the British company to continue to carry out those agreements. I have however, been under the impression up to now that the new constitutional position of Ireland in relation to England, and England in relation to Ireland, meant that the British Parliament had no authority over the Irish railways, and that the Irish Parliament had no authority over the British railways; that agreements entered into years ago by railway companies, which on both sides of the Channel have entered into new combinations, will have to be remade to be re-binding upon the new combination, and that if we impose an obligation upon the new company we are simply imposing an obligation upon the company without any reciprocal advantages, and the other party to the agreement may at any time disclaim those agreements and have no responsibility thereto.

Mr. McGILLIGAN

Deputy Johnson has put to me certain very definite constitutional points, but he proceeds on a false assumption. We are not binding the amalgamated undertaking over its whole extent with regard to these statutory agreements. Sub-section (1) shows that. That narrows the issue. That brings it definitely that we are seeking to bind that portion of the amalgamated undertaking which was previously bound by enactments which were considered to be very much to the advantage of Saorstát Eireann and which, if cancelled, would re-act definitely against Saorstát Eireann. The phrase has been used with regard to burthening the undertaking. So far from doing that we are seeking, and we believe we are securing, for the undertaking certain very definite advantages on foot of these agreements and no disadvantages whatever. It is being put that the other party to the contract may say inasmuch as there is a new body this obligation lapses. If they do so, then a new situation arises and it will have to be taken cognizance of and further action can be taken. At the moment we are anxious to preserve for Saorstát Eireann those particular agreements and to show our willingness and our enthusiasm, almost, for those agreements, we are taking the first step. But we do not preclude ourselves from later action. We are limiting the situation to the area, traffic and lines to which it previously applied, and in our anxiety not to deprive the agricultural community of an alternative route we are proposing to take over this agreement.

Mr. DAVIN

I want first of all to assure one or two Deputies, who apparently insinuate that our criticism and attitude to this clause is in the nature of obstruction, that is definitely not the case. If Deputies belonging to other parties have no reasonable contribution to make on this vital clause that is due to their own failure to appreciate the seriousness of it or to realise the importance of attempting to improve it. The Minister says that he is very anxious to preserve existing agreements. The agreement to which such an amount of exception has been taken from these Benches, was entered into and embodied in the British Act passed in the House of Commons when they were in control of the railways in Ireland and those in England that are parties to the agreement. They cease to have any control over this country and over the railway which is going to become part of the amalgamated company, but they are exercising that control under the Act of 1921 over the Great Western Railway of England, which is party to this particular agreement. You are in a position, perhaps, to a certain extent, to see that the amalgamated undertaking carry out, as far as they can carry out, their portion of the agreement made in the British House of Commons in 1899. Let us assume, and it would not be wrong to assume, that the Great Western Company cancelled their portion of the agreement with the Great Southern and Western Co., and as a result they declined to have any further negotiations with the Great Southern Company on the question of through rates. The people who have unconsigned traffic to the amalgamated company will not get the benefit of through rates, because the Great Western have declined to put through rates in operation or carry out any portion of their bargain with the Great Southern Company. The traders who would have ordinarily the benefit of through rates will have the pleasure of handing over their traffic unconsigned to the Great Southern Co., and will have the pleasure of knowing that it will be booked at local rates and at a greater cost than if the agreement were carried out by the Great Southern under the new circumstances. That is not a reasonable state of affairs to expect, provided the Great Western have the right, and the Minister has no right, to stop that or cancel part of the agreement embodied in the British Act of 1899. These are circumstances which the Minister should consider. These are things which are likely to happen, and, if they do, where is the protection to traders under such circumstances in any sub-section of Clause 29?

A good deal of discussion has taken place upon the amendments that have been moved to this section. I hope the discussions will not be lost upon the Minister, and that between now and the Report Stage he will consider everything that has been said in regard to suggestions for improving this section, so far as they would be likely to be a benefit to the trading community. As regards the suggestions and amendments that have been put forward by us I must say that some of them have been received in a very reasonable spirit by the Minister. We can say this of the Minister, that he has treated the discussion on them in a very gentlemanly way. He has not shown any anxiety to score at the expense of some personal remark. Contrasting his attitude with that of other Ministers when dealing with other Bills, I can pay that tribute to the Minister who is in charge of this measure. His patience has perhaps been a little exhausted in dealing with this measure, but yet we have not succeeded in carrying him beyond the stage that he wished to go. He recognised that it was his duty to deal first of all with the arguments put up against the measure and not so much with the individuals who put up these arguments. The Minister did not attempt to score off Deputies at the expense of some personal remarks. That is a new feature that has entered into these discussions which has not been quite the practice here when dealing with the Committee Stage by other Ministers. It is a very welcome change, and I think it is due to the Minister to say that.

Mr. HEWAT

The Committee, I am sure, will recognise the new order of things. We have now entered on a position that I have been advocating for some time: a coalition between the Labour Party and the Cabinet; and I have much pleasure in supporting my colleagues on the Labour benches. Deputy Johnson has asked what is the need for the insertion, in connection with this section, of protection for the Great Western Railway. I hope the Committee will not consider from any of the amendments I have put down, or from anything I have said, that there was any hostility on my part either to the Great Western Railway or to any other railway.

It has been said that there are a great many amendments on Section 29, all tending in the one direction, and that there has been no corresponding amendments on the other side. The absence of amendments on the other side has been criticised. The amendments are only put there with the object of improving the Bill in the light of the advocacy of certain principles. The absence of amendments from the other side has been used to make the claim that there is no reason for amendments, but the section as it stands, is so entirely in favour of the other side that there is no need for amendments at all. These companies are all proposed to be amalgamated under this Bill to form one company. The object of the amalgamation is, as far as I am concerned, of doubtful utility, and is a decided risk to the business community as a whole. In the ordinary business the amalgamation of three or four companies is generally done by uniting their operations together. If there is an obligation on one of the contracting parties there is no need to burden the Bill with a recognition of that obligation, because it stands on its own. The Minister, in connection with a good many of the amendments standing in my name, resisted the addition of words, very few in number generally, on the ground that he did not wish to extend the burden of the Bill with unnecessary words. However, I can now retort that he is burdening this section with an unnecessary provision altogether. There is no need for saying that agreements that are already there have got to be recognised in this Bill. I would say that these are unnecessary words as far as the principle of the Bill is concerned. The principle of the Bill is to amalgamate a number of companies, and, of course, it will be for the Amalgamated Company in the ordinary way to take cognisance of everything that is already there. It is unnecessary to put it into a Bill that there is any such legal obligation at all. I support what Deputy Johnson has said in opposition to this section, and I hold that that part of the provision is quite unnecessary, and has led to all this argument in connection with the different ports.

Mr. BAXTER

In reply to Deputy Davin, who thinks that Deputies on these benches have contributed nothing to the debate on this measure, and that because they did not do so he assumed they were neglecting their public duty, I want to assure him that we are interested in the course of the Bill, particularly from the point of view of that section of the people who send great quantities of produce out of this country, but we are not interested in this section from the point of view of people who prefer one particular port to another. The agreement that has been referred to, and that has been under discussion since yesterday, gives us an alternative to the port of Dublin, an alternative that perhaps we would not have had as an outlet but for the existence of the agreement that has been so much discussed. The Minister stated yesterday that if there was any inclination on the part of the people here to go back on that agreement there might probably be a disposition on the part of people on the other side to go back on the agreement also. If the agreement were not in existence it is questionable whether it would be sufficient that the traffic passing through the port of Rosslare would pay for the keeping open of that port. I did not hear any of the Deputies on the benches near me contradict that statement of the Minister. If that is really the case, and if the keeping open of that port is consequential on the existence of that agreement, it is absolutely essential for the farmers of the country at least that the port at Rosslare should be kept open. It is not very long since we realised how much it meant to the farmers of Ireland that the port at Rosslare was kept open. We do not want to see any change brought about in the section of the Bill that would leave us in the hands of those too much interested in the port of Dublin or of those engaged working at the port of Dublin. We want alternative ports, and the more we have the better it will be for the country.

Mr. JOHNSON

I want to disabuse the minds of Deputies who may have been led to think that I for one had any notion at all of speaking on behalf of any specific port or against any other port. I am just as much interested in the port at Rosslare, if it is going to serve the public interest, as I am in the port of Dublin. I want to draw the attention of the Minister and of the Dáil to the fact that this sub-section does not deal with any agreement between the Great Southern Railway and the Great Western of England. It does not deal with the Port of Rosslare, but if you want to bind the company to that particular agreement then set it out and put it in the Schedule. Refer to it specifically in the section, for that is not what you do here. The section says: "All the terms, conditions and provisions of any agreement or statutory enactment," and so on. Now, we are supposed to go through the British statutes and find out whether there have been any British statutes dealing with the Midland and Great Western Railway, the Dublin and South Eastern, or any other company, and if we cannot find any statutes or any agreement under statute as regards any of these companies which are to become amalgamated, and which we disagree with, then we are supposed to have nothing to say.

We are supposed in passing this Bill to have cognisance of any agrement that may have been entered into and called a statutory agreement. We say we may be aware of it or not; we do not know whether it is of interest to the Irish people or not. We say any such agreement has to be embodied in this enactment whether for the purpose of affecting the forwarding of the traffic or for any other purpose. I say this is asking us to sign a blank cheque or else to look through all the accounts to see whether in some undiscovered bank balance they had still something to draw upon. We do not know what these agreements are. If the Minister wants to appoint a new company with provisions or agreements not specified in the enactment let him state it specifically and refer to it in the Schedule; then we shall know where we are, but do not let him ask us to agree to carrying over any statutory agreements with any of the companies no matter what they may be without knowing what their provisions are and without knowing what they impose upon the new company. It is the general question I am raising, not a question as affecting any specific company or agreement. In this we are practically asked to approve and impose upon the new company, obligations to maintain any and every agreement of a statutory kind that any of these companies bound themselves to in the past. Discussion has centred round very largely an agreement drawn to our attention. There may be others that the Minister may know of but we do not. If he has in mind that particular agreement let him state so, and let him note it in the Schedule, but in the present form I say we are asked to carry over an agreement and to insist that certain agreements or any agreement of a statutory kind, which may have been entered into with any of the companies in the past shall be maintained by enactment in the Saorstát without being able to insist that the other party to the agreement shall conform to it.

Mr. McGILLIGAN

I would like to secure the assistance of the Committee to get this section through before the end of the sitting to-day, and I do not propose to be very long on this point. Deputy Davin has raised a few points; he outlined a state of affairs in which the Great Western of England would break through their agreement, and he held that we would be bound to carry on. He said that this was not an unreasonable state of affairs to expect. It is very unreasonable, and it is not going to be rendered any more reasonable by our action in passing this section and showing our bona fides and goodwill in this matter. He spoke also of through rates. I think we had general agreement yesterday that through rates are a matter of voluntary agreement. If we take the first step, are we not taking a great step to secure the goodwill of the Great Western, so that they will carry out whatever lies in them to do in the matter of through rates? There again the danger is a figment of Deputy Davin's imagination—that the Great Western may break their part of the bargain, and that we are bound to carry on. We are not bound in any such way. Let him read the clause: "All the terms, conditions and provisions of any agreement or statutory enactment," and so on. Now, if the terms of the enactment are broken by the other party to it, the amalgamated company is not bound. It is for the amalgamated company to see that the other party does keep to the terms.

Mr. DAVIN

By what method must it carry out the procedure to compel the other party to carry out the agreement? Is it through the procedure of the British House of Commons, or the British Tribunal, or this Tribunal?

Mr. McGILLIGAN

The method is obvious. If they do not carry out their part we will not carry out ours.

Mr. DAVIN

You do not force them?

Mr. McGILLIGAN

No, we have no authority in this Bill to bind any English company to do anything, but we say we would like to secure their goodwill towards this voluntary bargain. We take a first step here. We have ourselves protected, and if they break any of the terms or conditions then we are absolved from abiding by them. Deputy Hewat raised objection to this section, because he says the object of the Bill was only to amalgamate and all this could be left out. The object of the Bill is not merely to amalgamate, but it is for the purpose of better organisation and more efficient and economical working of the undertaking and bound up with that and part and parcel of it, as Deputy Davin would acknowledge, is the question of through rates. And through rates mean the question of ports, and when you bring in ports the main thing is not to give undue preference to one port over another, and the Act of 1899 does not give any undue preference, and therefore we take that over. Deputy Johnson raised a point of greater substance, that this not only confirms the 1899 Act and others, but that it is in effect signing a blank cheque. The discussion turned to the 1899 Act, with its attachment, the 1905 Act, and that was brought before the House as the worst one from the point of view of the promoters of this Bill, and the best one from the point of view of those who objected to the Bill. We may be sure that all the advisers of the various parties proposing amendments to this Bill had these arguments scanned, and if they had them scanned their views coincide with my own that the Rosslare agreement was the best the objectors to the Bill could have taken.

Mr. DAVIN

We did not scan these cases. We do not know how many there are.

Mr. McGILLIGAN

It was an easy matter to discover. It would not be easy with Clause 29 as framed, but now it is possible to discover all of them; and they have been examined, and Rosslare is the worst from the point of view of my opponents, and we have discussed that in detail. It is not a question of signing a blank cheque. The other main point dealt with statutory enactments, which are really protection clauses for different ports of the Saorstát. The main point that was raised in the debate on this section, was the fear that we might be entering into what was, in effect, a unilateral compact, and were binding ourselves without having any hold upon other people; that we were putting it beyond the possibility of our taking contrarient action if the other people did not carry out their part of the bargain. We cannot compel, but we have our ordinary remedy. If they do not carry out the terms of this bargain, we do not carry them out on our side.

AN LEAS-CHEANN COMHAIRLE took the Chair.

Question put—"That Section 29, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

The Committee divided: Tá, 37; Níl, 16.

Tá

• Pádraig F. Baxter.
• Earnán de Blaghd.
• Seoirse de Bhulbh.
• John Conlan.
• Louis J. D'Alton.
• Máighréad Ní Choileáin Bean
• Uí Dhrisceóil.
• Patrick J. Egan.
• Osmond Grattan Esmonde.
• Desmond Fitzgerald.
• John Hennigan.
• Liam T. Mac Cosgair.
• Risteárd Mac Fheorais.
• Pádraig Mac Giollagáin.
• Risteárd Mac Liam.
• Eoin Mac Neill.
• Seoirse Mac Niocaill.
• Liam Mag Aonghusa.
• Patrick McKenna.
• Martin M. Nally.
• John T. Nolan.
• Peadar O hAodha.
• Mícheál O hAonghusa.
• Criostóir O Broin.
• Seán O Bruadair.
• Aodh Ua Cinnéidigh.
• Séamus N. O Dóláin.
• Tadhg S. O Donnabháin.
• Peadar S. O Dubhghaill.
• Pádraig O Dubhthaigh.
• Eamon S. O Dúgáin.
• Seán O Duinnin.
• Donchadh S. O Guaire.
• Seán M. O Súilleabháin.
• Caoimhghín O hUigín.
• Seán Príomhdhail.
• Liam Thrift.
• Domhnall O Mocháin.

Níl

• Seán Buitléir.
• John Daly.
• John Good.
• David Hall.
• William Hewat.
• Séamus Mac Cosgair.
• Tomás Mac Eoin.
• Pádraig Mac Fhlannchadha.
• Tomás de Nógla.
• Aodh O Cúlacháin.
• Liam O Daimhín.
• Eamon O Dubhghaill.
• Seán O Laidhin.
• Tadhg P. O Murchadha.
• Pádraig O hOgáin (An Clár).
• William A. Redmond.

Motion declared carried.

Mr. McGILLIGAN

I move to report progress.

Agreed.