DAIL IN COMMITTEE. - RAILWAYS BILL, 1924. (COMMITTEE STAGE) RESUMED.
(1) Save as in this Act, expressly provided, nothing in this Act shall prejudice or affect the rights or liabilities of any amalgamating or absorbed company under any Act or agreement or arrangement (whether made under statutory powers or otherwise) in existence at the passing of this Act, but from and after the passing of this Act it shall not be lawful for any amalgamating or absorbed company or for the amalgamated company, without the consent of the Minister, to enter into agreements with any other railway company or other transport undertaking for the allocation or routing of traffic or the pooling of receipts or otherwise for affecting a combination which would contravene the purposes of this Act.
(2) Before giving his consent under this section the Minister shall, unless it appears to him that the matter is one of such small importance that it is unnecessary to do so, refer the matter for consideration and report to the railway tribunal.
(3) Every amalgamating company and every absorbed company, and also every other railway company whose or any part of whose railway lies within Saorstát Eireann shall,
(a) within one month after being required in writing by the Minister so to do, furnish to the Minister a schedule containing written particulars of all agreements and arrangements to which this sub-section applies in existence at the date of such requisition and to which such company is a party, and
(b) within one fortnight after the date of any agreement or arrangement to which this sub-section applies made after the date of the said requisition and to which such company is a party, furnish to the Minister written particulars of such agreement or arrangement, and
(c) within one week after being required in writing by the Minister so to do, furnish to the Minister such further particulars and information as the Minister shall so require in respect of the contents of any agreement or arrangement of which particulars shall have been previously furnished under either of the foregoing paragraphs.
If any company shall fail to furnish any particulars or information in accordance with this section or shall furnish under this section any false or misleading information, such company shall be liable to pay to the Minister for the use of the Exchequer such penalty not exceeding twenty-five pounds together with, in the case of a continuing offence, such further penalty not exceeding five pounds for every day during which the offence is continued, as the railway tribunal shall on the application of the Minister, impose.
This sub-section applies to all agreements and arrangements (whether made under statutory powers or otherwise) whereby provision is made for the allocation or routing of traffic by railway to or from any place in Saorstát Eireann or for the pooling of receipts from such traffic.
(4) After the passing of this Act it shall be lawful for the Postmaster-General or any of the amalgamating or absorbed companies or the amalgamated company to apply to the railway tribunal for a revision of any agreement whether statutory or otherwise, which at the date of the passing of this Act is in existence between the Postmaster-General and any of the amalgamating or absorbed companies.
I move the following amendment:—
To delete sub-sections (1) and (2) and substitute therefor the following three sub-sections:—
(1) From and after the passing of this Act it shall not be lawful for any amalgamating or absorbed company or the amalgamated company to vary or rescind any agreement or arrangement (not being an agreement or arrangement confirmed by or scheduled to a statutory enactment) with any railway company or other transport undertaking for the allocation or routing of traffic, or the pooling of receipts, or for differential rates on traffic passing by sea to or from Saorstát Eireann, or to enter into agreements for any of those purposes, except so far as authorised or required by an order made with due regard to the provisions of this Act by the railway tribunal.
(2) No such order as aforesaid shall be made by the railway tribunal save on the application of
(a)any party to such agreement or arrangement, or
(b)of the amalgamated company, or
(c)of a representative body of traders, or
(d)of a body of persons representative of trade or a locality.
(3) Subject to the foregoing prosions of this section, nothing in this Act shall prejudice or affect the rights or liabilities of any amalgamating or absorbed company under any agreement or arrangement (not being an agreement or arrangement confirmed by or scheduled to a statutory enactment) in existence at the passing of this Act except in so far as such rights or liabilities are inconsistent with the express provisions of this Act.
This amendment is only circulated since 3 o'clock, although we hoped to have it an hour or two before in order to find out what it means so that we might discuss it intelligently. I would like to ask this question before entering on further discussion. What is meant by the exception in line 4—"not being an agreement or arrangement confirmed by or scheduled to a statutory enactment?" I think I understand what the Minister meant when he promised that special provision would be made in the Bill in regard to agreements which were not statutory. This new section, however, seems to suggest that any agreement which is a statutory one or scheduled to an enactment, whatever the terms of the agreement may be—an agreement which may give powers to the companies by common consent to alter the agreement—such agreement may be altered without notification to the Minister and without any control by him. I cannot understand why there should be that exception. Surely if we are going to ask for all agreements which are not statutory to be registered with the Minister, and we make provision that none of them may be altered without his consent, we ought to include in those, agreements, even though they are statutory and even though they are scheduled to enactments, as otherwise we invite the companies which have statutory agreements to make new ones and to vary existing ones without notification.
I may, as an outsider, say that I have listened to most of the debate so far, and I understand the Minister's position here is that those statutory agreements are covered by Clause 29, and are deliberately excluded from this particular section. I think the meaning of the parenthesis which has been put in is to exclude statutory agreements. That is that all statutory agreements are included in Section 29, and I think the Minister says that he excluded from Section 29, and devoted this whole Section to, agreements, but this Section was not to touch statutory agreements. I think that statutory agreements are covered by Clause 29.
Yes, but this amendment says that those statutory agreements shall continue in full force and effect. Supposing these statutory agreements are altered by the consent of both parties—I am not saying that they are empowered to alter, but I think they are—in such a case I want the Minister to have control of such alterations. I imagine that this exception in the new section removes that control from the Minister's hands.
I have explained the meaning of the amendment, as I understand it, but the question raised by Deputy Johnson is another matter.
I was not present during the discussion last evening, but I take it that what Deputy O'Sullivan has stated is the case. There were some objections when we came to Clause 29, that agreements were not the same as statutory enactments. We dealt with statutory enactments in Clause 29, and now we are proceeding to deal with agreements. My interpretation of the amendment is to the effect that any alteration that may be made, or is proposed to be made, by agreement or otherwise, between the absorbed companies on the one hand, and any person on the other hand, must be ratified by the railway tribunal, and that in order to make such alteration legal it must be authorised by the tribunal. I think the statutory enactments are met so far as Clause 29 is concerned, and that other agreements, about which there was much discussion, are dealt with in this amendment more satisfactorily than they were in the original clause of the Bill.
Are we dealing with the whole of this amendment, or are we dividing it?
It is one amendment, in substitution for sub-sections 1 and 2.
In connection with sub-section (2) of the amendment, which reads:—"No such order as aforesaid shall be made by the railway tribunal save on the application of (a), (b), (c) and (d)," I think it would improve the sub-section, in order to safeguard any interest that may be effected, if we added these words: "And after giving all parties interested an opportunity of being heard." That means in other words, that the application, although received by the tribunal from, say, a representative body of traders, should ensure that if the proposals put forward effect some other interest, they should get some due notice of it. One of the companies operating on the other side of the water might, for instance, want to get due notification of demands which might effect them through the operation of any change which might be made. I would like to acknowledge that the Minister has apparently met some of the objections put forward, and that the amendment now is, in my opinion, a distinct improvement on the original clause.
Clause 18, sub-section (d) covers the point made by the Deputy.
I am not quite satisfied as to the effect of this amendment. I want to make sure that any changes in agreements we are dealing with appear, whether dealing with ports or with the routing of traffic or any other matter whatsoever between company and company, and that if agreements have to be made, the Minister shall be notified of them. I thought that the revised section was to ensure that all agreements at any time between company and company would be registered with the Minister. Section 29 says that all the terms and conditions of any statutory enactment or schedule shall continue in full force and effect. If that only refers to agreements relating to the forwarding of traffic, I think it is necessary that any other agreements that may be entered into between company and company shall also be notified to the Minister and registered with him, and approved by him—and that is not provided for in this section—more especially when an exception is made in regard to amalgamated companies, that is, statutory agreements. Unless there is some other provision in the Bill which provides that all other agreements of any kind whatsoever, whether dealing with the routing of traffic or traffic at all shall be notified to the Minister, I think that is a provision which ought to be omitted.
Might I point out that "statutory enactment" in Clause 29 applies to the forwarding of traffic, and then it says "for any other purpose." I contend the statutory enactments would have the power of interfering in anything which would be in the nature of agreements between the companies.
It may be part of the agreement that the existing agreement shall be varied. I want any variation to be notified to the Minister. It is quite right to say that Section 29 deals with agreements relating to the forwarding of traffic or any other purpose, but further agreements may provide for alterations in one matter or another to be made all subject to agreement. If any alterations are to be made, then they ought to be registered with the Minister.
I would be prepared to look into the matter between this and the Report Stage, as to whether the Minister should come in, but personally I do not like to bring in the Minister where the railway tribunal is concerned. Sub-section 2 sets out the various persons concerned.
(a) any party to such agreement or arrangement, or
(b) of the amalgamated company, or
(c) of a representative body of traders, or
(d) of a body of persons representative of trade or a locality.
That, to my mind, practically exhausts the subject as far as persons concerned are affected, and obviously it scarcely concerns the Minister. It is a matter for the railway tribunal. If the Minister comes in he ought to have a purpose in coming in. If arrangements of this sort were made without notice to anyone, then there might be some useful purpose served, but here all parties are bound. They should know that they can bring their application before the railway tribunal. To that extent I cannot conceive where the Minister would have any office to perform.
All I want to ensure is that any agreement of any kind that may be made henceforward shall be filed with the Minister, and that it shall be made public.
Amendment put and agreed to.
That disposes of 9 (a), 10, 10 (a), 11, 12.
I beg to move amendment 13 to Section 58 as follows:—In sub-section (3) to delete in line 6, page 28, the words, "date of the said requisition" and substitute therefor the words, "passing of this Act." Clause (a) will cover the new agreement, and Clause (b) will cover the old one.
My opinion of this is that it is unnecessary. It is provided for in sub-sections (a) and (b), and simply duplicates the procedure.
I think the object of the amendment would be better obtained if we went back to paragraph (a) If through some oversight the Minister failed to require this in writing the companies would not be obliged to furnish to the Minister the particulars. If we said one month after the passing of the Act in paragraph (a) then we could amend paragraph (b), saying within one fortnight after the date of any future agreement. I take it that the intention of paragraph (b) is that any agreement that may be made after the requisition referred to in paragraph (a) will have to be filed. If the Minister failed for some reason to require in writing that the companies should furnish these particulars then neither (a) nor (b) would come into operation. We should make it obligatory on the passing of the Act for the particulars to be furnished and not wait for the discretion of the Minister, or the possible lapse of the Minister, in requiring such information.
There is always a danger in applying for everything that one is never able to make up one's mind on a particular point. What is intended in the Bill is that agreements which are relevant should be furnished on requisition. All and every agreement would mean a mass of documents, perhaps, which would have no particular reference to the matter in question, would take a considerable amount of time in filing and so on, and effect no particular purpose which the Minister would have in mind when he would want a particular agreement.
This sub-section applies to all agreements and arrangements made under statutory powers or otherwise, whereby provision is made for the allocation or routing of traffic to or from any place in the Saorstát or the pooling of receipts from such traffic. Any such agreement is of concern to the public, whose interest the Minister is to look after. It should not require that the Minister is to be made aware of such agreement before he requires that he should be informed of it. Supposing it is a private agreement, how is the Minister to require that it should be submitted to him? He does not know anything about it. If they were to wait until he sent in a requisition, then he may never know anything about it. If, on the other hand, we say that on and after a certain date fixed in the Act, the companies shall forward particulars of all such agreements, the public may be safeguarded and the chance of the Minister's lapse is obliterated. At present the section is too loose and too easily evaded, provided there is any omission on the part of the Minister.
Presumably "the said requisition" in paragraph (b) refers to the requisition mentioned in paragraph (a), so that unless paragraph (a) is complied with and the Minister sent in a requisition to the company regarding a set of agreements which he may have known about, any future agreements will not be required to be sent into the Minister. Everything in this matter respecting the agreements, and the notification of companies, will depend on the Minister requiring of the company that he should be acquainted with the particulars. I say that the companies should be obliged to forward the particulars at a date specified in the Act and not to wait until the Minister requires them.
The amendment certainly would not effect that purpose. As I take it, it rather defeats than achieves the purpose of the Deputy's statement. Whatever the agreements may be, the latest date would be the date of the requisition ordering them in writing to be furnished to the Minister. If you put in the date of the passing of the Act, any subsequent agreements after the passing of the Act would not be within the right of the Minister to get.
Will the Minister say what these words in paragraph (b) "of the said requisition" refer to?
The requisition which is made by the Minister under sub-section 3 (a).
Supposing the Minister does not send any such requisition what will happen?
The President appears to assume that these agreements are only of importance when some complaint arises which the tribunal has to consider. Apart altogether from any complaint that may be made by a body of traders or by any company, arising out of the existence of any particular agreement, I think that all these agreements, both private and public, should be filed on the records of the registrar of this tribunal. It is very difficult to say how many agreements are in existence at present or between whom they exist. It is very desirable in the interests of the public that all agreements that do exist should be submitted to the registrar of the tribunal immediately after the passing of the Act, so that it may be discovered how far they are prejudicial to the public interest. This amendment will secure for the Minister the necessary powers, so that the amalgamated company will be compelled by law to send in copies of all existing agreements. As to the sanctity of existing agreements previously referred to by the President, it may be desirable even at a later stage for some or all of these agreements to be amended in the public interest.
The trend of this discussion shows what a helpless position the amalgamated company will be in in connection with competition. We all know that in any ordinarily conducted enterprise a certain amount of latitude must be given to meet emergencies which may arise. I would like the Committee to realise that all this legislation for the amalgamated company is going to make the company itself a very red tape concern. It cannot exercise any initiative and must, in connection with everything it enters into, as far as agreements are concerned, table everything. I do not know whether Deputy Johnson wants to go as far as that, but that will be the effect of the amendment, still further to tighten up and surround with red tape all the operations of the amalgamated company. I do not think that is in the interests of the public generally. It certainly is not in the interests of the amalgamated company to be so powerless in a matter of coming to an arrangement as regards traffic.
Deputy Hewat appears to ignore the fact that many existing agreements, as well as agreements likely to be entered into in future, are agreements for the purpose of killing competition. In view of that fact I think it is desirable that the Minister should have power to secure copies of these agreements, whether they refer to the past, or are ones that may be made in the future. We know that there are agreements in existence between railway and canal companies, arrived at as a result of cut-throat competition. In order not further to cut rates certain railway and canal companies came to an understanding that one company would pay so much to the other company to stop competition for certain classes of traffic at certain points. That is not in the interests of the trading community. I daresay Deputy Hewat would not support any agreement arrived at for the purpose of killing competition. The public are entitled to know the nature of these agreements, why they were entered into, and especially, if it was for the purpose of killing competition. I suggest that Deputy Hewat should not object to the amalgamated company tabling any agreement entered into if it was for the purpose of killing competition.
I must confess that I am not quite clear, now that I have considered the matter, what the purpose of the amendment is. After reading sub-section 3 (a) I take it that there is a definite date fixed, after which the Minister will make a requisition to the amalgamated company, or absorbed company, as to the agreements then in existence. I presume he will naturally do so to all the railway companies in the ordinary course of business. That is one date fixed. He makes that requisition. Supposing he makes it one month after the passing of the Act to the amalgamated company and to the absorbed companies, he has to get in return from the companies to whom he makes the requisition an account of the agreements. That requisition will deal with all the agreements in existence up to that particular date. Subsequent agreements are dealt with in sub-section 3 (b). As the requisition will be made already, I cannot see the purpose of the amendment. Any subsequent agreement made must be handed in.
The position is very clear, if it is understood as Deputy O'Sullivan has explained it. Provided that within one month, after the passing of the Act, the Minister sends in this requisition everything is plain sailing, and there is no need for any amendment. But supposing the Minister fails to put in that requisition, one month after the passing of the Act, all I desire is to set out in the Bill that on and after a certain date, it will be required of the railway company not to wait for a requisition from the Minister, but by law they should put in the terms of any agreement. I want to avoid the risk that the Minister may fail to send in a requisition.
I think it is very unlikely that the Minister will fail. He is not limited to time, and it need not be within one month.
In the ordinary routine of the office it seems that he will send out a requisition of this kind to the different companies.
Deputy O'Sullivan confirms the necessity for fixing a date. You may make it one year hence, if you like, but do not leave a possibility of the Minister omitting to do so.
Would it not be better to try and amend sub-section 3 (a) than to amend sub-section 3 (b) for that purpose?
If the Minister would agree to put in these words, "one month after the passing of the Act shall be required to furnish a schedule."
I see the Deputy's point and I would like time to consider it. If we put in the words "within a year" the company could take up to the very last day to furnish the agreements. As the Bill stands, unless the Minister absolutely failed in his duty, he can get the information within a month. If we accept Deputy Johnson's suggestion the time might possibly run to a year before the necessary information would be secured. By the Bill the Minister can get particulars of the agreements within a certain date. I would undertake to get the Minister to look into the matter between this and the Report Stage.
I do not want the Minister to insert "a year." I suggested that period merely as an illustration of a definite date. I would prefer if it was a shorter period. All I want is to have a definite date fixed.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move:—In sub-section (3), line 30, after the word "traffic" to insert the following words: "or for differential rates on traffic passing by sea to or from Saorstát Eireann." That amendment is necessary to bring sub-section 3 into line with sub-section 1 in which the same words are used.
Agreed.
I move:—
13b. In sub-section (4), line 34, after the word "tribunal," to insert in brackets the letter "(a)," and line 37 to add after the word "companies" the words "or (b) where no such agreement is so in existence, for the determination of any difference or dispute which may exist or arise between the Postmaster-General and any of the amalgamating or absorbed companies or the amalgamated company as regards the remuneration to be paid for services rendered by such company to the Postmaster - General, such services (notwithstanding any statutory or other provision to the contrary) to continue to be rendered by such company pending the decision of the railway tribunal."
This amendment has been asked for by the Postmaster - General. This amendment is necessary owing to the fact that with some of the smaller lines there is no agreement between the Postmaster-General and the companies as to the conveyance of mails, and there is no statutory obligation on the company to carry them.
Amendment agreed to.
Question—"That Section 58, as amended, stand part of the Bill"—put and agreed to.
PART VI.
SECTION 59.
In this Part of this Act,
the expression "baronially guaranteed dividends" means the dividends on the paid-up share capital of included baronial railways which at the passing of this Act are guaranteed by certain baronies or parts of baronies in Saorstát Eireann under guarantees given under the Tramways and Public Companies (Ireland) Act, 1883, or any other Act or any Order in Council made under any such Act;
the expression "guaranteeing barony" means a barony or part of a barony by which baronially guaranteed dividends are guaranteed under any guarantee given under any such Act or Order in Council as aforesaid;
the expression "included baronial railway" means a railway or section of a railway the dividends on any part of the paid-up capital of which are baronially guaranteed dividends and which is to be included (whether by amalgamation or absorption) under the provisions of this Act in the undertaking of the amalgamated company.
In the absence of Deputy Cooper, I beg to move this amendment:—
Before Section 59 to insert a new section as follows:—
"The loans to the amalgamating and absorbed companies set out in the Eleventh Schedule hereto shall be taken over by the amalgamated company when formed in accordance with the provisions of Part 1 of this Act; but the capital of such loans shall not be called in until the expiration of ten years from the date of amalgamation and interest shall henceforth be payable on the said loans at the rate of four pounds per cent. per annum."
My special purpose is to get information as to what the proposed position of these lines is to be. I do not see that they are referred to in the Bill sufficiently explicitly, and I would like to have it made clear what is proposed to be done. It seems, in view of the extra liabilities proposed to be put on the principal railways, that they should receive fair and generous treatment in respect of the loans and it might be urged, in addition, as regards some of the loans, that their position might be difficult in view of the extra security the Government may think they are getting in this amalgamated company, if it is all they claim it is going to be in the future. I may say the amendment does actually propose in a definite way that the loan should be transferred to the amalgamated company, and that an undertaking should be given that the capital would not be called in for ten years, and that they should be liable at the rate of four per cent.
Does not this come within the statutory obligations of the Companies Act? Section 29 is supposed to deal with the obligations, and is it not a fact that all statutory enactments and agreements are protected by Section 29?
I think I must ask that this amendment be left over, or not pressed just now, as I understand it raises two questions; one is the period of repayment of the loan, and the other is the different rates of interest to be charged under the amendment. The rate is set out in the Schedule. It appears at the end of the page in an amendment by Deputy Bryan Cooper, to add a new Schedule. The rate of interest is six per cent. in respect of £197,400 for the Dublin and South-Eastern Railway Company; four per cent. in respect of £65,000 for the Cork, Blackrock and Passage Railway Company, and four per cent. in respect of £54,694 for the Great Southern and Western Railway Company. Now it is proposed that there should be a flat rate of four per cent. in respect of these, and I am not in the position at present to agree to this. I would rather that some time were given to consider it.
I am prepared not to press this if the President will make a clear statement about the matter.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 59 agreed to.
SECTION 60.
(1) The Minister shall during each of the ten years mentioned in Part I of the Ninth Schedule to this Act pay to the amalgamated company by equal half-yearly instalments the sum specified in the said Part I. of the said schedule as payable in each of such years respectively.
(2) The councils of the several counties mentioned in Part II. of the Ninth Schedule to this Act shall, during each of the years specified in the said Part II. in respect of the said counties respectively, pay to the Minister by equal half-yearly instalments the sums specified in the said Part II. in respect of the said counties respectively, such sums being the amounts raised and paid by the said councils respectively for the period of account ended next before the 1st day of January, 1914, in respect of the liability of guaranteeing baronies in the county for baronially guaranteed dividends.
(3) The several sums to be paid to the Minister by the council of a county under the foregoing sub-section shall be raised by such council off the same areas and in the same proportions and manner as the sum paid by such council for the period of account ended next before the 1st day of January, 1914, in respect of the liability of guaranteeing baronies in the county for baronially guaranteed dividends was raised:
Provided that the Minister may, on the application of any such council and with the concurrence of the Minister for Local Government, by order authorise such council to enlarge the area off which or to vary the proportions or manner in which the sums so to be paid by such council to the Minister shall be raised.
(4) The liability (whether present, future, or contingent) of the several councils of counties in which guaranteeing baronies are situate in respect of baronially guaranteed dividends or the completion, working or maintenance of included baronial railways under any guarantee given under the Tramways and Public Companies (Ireland) Act, 1883, or any other Act or any Order in Council made under any such Act shall cease as from the 31st day of December, 1924, but such cesser shall not prejudice or affect any such liability as aforesaid of any such council in respect of any period previous to the 1st day of January, 1925.
(5) The liability (whether present, future, or contingent) of the several included baronial railways to the Minister for Finance or the councils of counties in which guaranteeing baronies are situate under the Tramways and Public Companies (Ireland) Act, 1883, or under any other Act under the authority of which the dividends, completion, working, or maintenance of an included baronial railway are guaranteed, or under any Order in Council made under any such Act, shall cease as from the 31st day of December, 1924.
(6) No moneys shall be payable out of the Local Taxation Account under sub-section (4) of section 58 of the Local Government (Ireland) Act, 1898, to the council of any county for any period after the 31st day of December, 1924, in respect of any included baronial railway, and in lieu of such payments there shall be paid to the Minister out of the Local Taxation Account during each of the ten years mentioned in Part III. of the Ninth Schedule to this Act, the sum specified in the said Part III. of the said Schedule as payable in each of such years, respectively. The provisions of sub-section (5) of section 58 of the Local Government (Ireland) Act, 1898, shall not apply to any sum paid to the Minister under this sub-section.
I move:—
In sub-section (1) to add immediately after the word "instalments" in line 60, page 28, the following words, "out of monies to be provided by the Oireachtas."
This is a drafting amendment.
Amendment put and agreed to.
I move:—
In sub-section (2), line , after the word "instalments" to insert "on such dates as may be fixed by the Minister."
Amendment put and agreed to.
In the absence of Deputy Good, I move the amendment in his name:—
"In sub-section (2) to add in line 6, after the word "being" the words "fifty per cent. over and above."
I am not quite clear as to what it means.
I suppose the meaning of this amendment would be that inasmuch as the payments by councils are to be limited by a term of years the annual payment for that term should be appreciably increased. The amendment would appear to me to be that for that period of ten years, for instance, the payments would be appreciably increased.
I think the amendment aims at making the counties pay less, while it was in the Deputy's mind they should pay more, 50 per cent. over and above what they paid in 1913. Speaking from memory, I should say the amount they paid in 1913 was substantially less than the amount they are to be called on to pay for ten years. This amount we are calling on them to pay makes their contributions to end absolutely at the end of ten years. One may say it is a question of a bargain, and that they will be in for a considerable amount for ten years. We are limiting it so that after ten years no further sum will be payable by these counties. I think Deputy Good had it in his mind that they paid this maximum contribution in 1913 or 1914. That is not the case, and the acceptance of the amendment would complicate the matter and would not achieve the purpose he has in mind, that is that we should call on the counties to pay a little more in order that the equities of the case might be discharged by these counties.
Would this amendment require an amendment to the Schedule in order to make it intelligible?
Yes, it would require to be set out in a further amendment later.
It appears the President's explanation is the right one, and the object of the amendment is that there should be an increased contribution.
It does not effect the purpose.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move:—
Before sub-section 4 to insert a new sub-section:
"At any time after the expiration of three years from the 1st day of January, 1925, the council of any of the several counties mentioned in Part II of the Ninth Schedule to this Act may apply to the railway tribunal for a reduction or cancellation of the payments required to be made by it to the Minister in accordance with this section, and if the tribunal is satisfied that the revenue earning capacity of the included baronial railway in respect of which the payments are made, as a constituent of the amalgamated company, is such as to render an alteration of the payment to be made to the amalgamated company, is such as to render an alteration of the payments to be made to the amalgamated company equitable, it may make an order specifying the amount by which the payments shall be reduced, and the date from which the reduction shall take effect, and the amounts to be paid by the council to the Minister shall be reduced accordingly and the payments to be made by the Minister to the amalgamated company shall be reduced by the same amount and from the same date."
The objection against the clause governing the baronially guaranteed lines is the case for this amendment— the case against the imposition for 10 years on these counties through which the baronially guaranteed lines pass. First of all we must take into account the non-representative character of the bodies that imposed these guarantees. Whether these people wished to get a guaranteed dividend for those of their friends who had money or not it is not my province to try and discover, but anyway the fact is that for 40 or 50 years the ratepayers of these districts have been paying the deficiency on the working of the lines, and four per cent. dividend. There is a further point as to whether the guaranteeing of dividends makes for efficiency in the management of these lines, because if the managing directors, or the people responsible, know that the shareholders will get four per cent. out of the pockets of the ratepayers, and that any deficiency that may occur in the management or mismanagement of the lines would be made good, then they are not interested in managing the lines for the benefit of the shareholders. I dare say when the President said that we should take over the responsibility he was saying what is legally correct, but the object of the amendment, as may be seen, is to give an opportunity of seeing that these lines pay, so that the ratepayers may be relieved of the liabilities put on them by non-representative bodies.
Surely, at the end of three years, it would be quite possible to say whether under the efficiency we are promised by the new management, under the unification system, these lines will pay or not. It is only right that those ratepayers who have been paying dividends, and the loss on the working of the lines, should ask that the railway tribunal should be put in the position of deciding whether they should not be relieved of their responsibilities at the end of three years. Regarding the perpetual succession of responsibilities, while we accept it as a legal matter it would be well, I think, that we should take into consideration that the bodies that are representative in these areas are entirely against the continuance of this burden on the ratepayers. I have in my hand a statement to that effect from a representative body one hundred per cent. more representative than the body that imposed the liability upon the ratepayers of the district. I think the amendment is reasonable and practicable, and I hope the President will give it the consideration it deserves.
I think very few people will deny that these baronially guaranteed companies we have included in this Schedule are capable of being managed so well as to relieve the ratepayers of the district in question from any liability. I mentioned here, I think on the Second Stage, that the loss in respect of 1921-22 was something like £107,000, and that last year the loss on working was something like £30,000. A circular issued on behalf of the companies in the proposed amalgamation states that the loss would be something like £90,000. I mention those facts to show that there is very little ground for assuming that the Deputy's intentions in the first part of this amendment are likely to be realised; in other words, that after a year, or two, or three years' experience of the unified undertakings there is a probability that the loss in connection with the baronial lines will be reduced to such an extent as to qualify the guaranteed areas for a remission of this particular debt.
The only objection I could urge to this amendment is what I have stated. Many years' experience has shown us that these lines are uneconomic, and that the amendment if it were passed would mean that very elaborate accounts, balance sheets, and so on, would have to be kept in respect of those lines. It may seem a very small objection. But it may be that the cost of that, if it were to be put against these baronial lines, would still further increase the loss. We have considered these baronial lines. In fact, they were one of the problems in connection with this whole business of railways. But apparently we have not satisfied anybody neither the new unified company nor the guaranteed areas, nor the county councils, and I think that is fairly safe. The new unified company, or the principal persons concerned in it, are not at all satisfied with the taking over of the companies even with the amounts that we have specified. On the whole I am not disposed to favour this amendment. It is not an amendment on which the Government would resign if it were beaten on it. I would say, if we consider the real economy of the situation, while it would afford some satisfaction to the guaranteed area to know how the lines were going, other than that satisfaction, I do not believe any useful purpose would be effected. I certainly congratulate the Deputy on his ingenuity in producing such an amendment as this in regard to which it is rather difficult either to make a case for or against.
I suggest that it is quite easy to make a case for it. It is not so easy to make a case against it.
Make a case against it then after what I have said.
Therefore it might be passed unanimously. I think the Minister would be one of those who would think it would be very desirable to hold out an inducement to the people of the locality to encourage a railway company in such a way as to make it economically managed and profitable. This is one way of holding out that inducement. The President spoke yesterday, I think, of the twenty per cent. inducement to the railway company as something, at least, to look forward to, and a stimulus to economical working. Here you have the possibility that if the people of the locality encourage the baronially guaranteed railway and assist in its working, and generally add to its earning power, they may be, as ratepayers, relieved of something of the present charges. That is one of the inducements. After all, this amendment simply requests that the locality and the county shall have an opportunity to make its case before the tribunal, and if it is proved that the earning capacity of one railway—not the whole of the baronially guaranteed railways—is increased, they should get the advantage of it. Here is where I want to point out the difference between the President's argument and ours. He is thinking of them all as if they were managed by some one concern working under the same conditions. One or other of these railways may be able to show a better return, in three, five or seven years' time than another, and surely it would be reasonable to say to any of these baronies that are guaranteeing railway companies, that if they can improve conditions of working and improve the revenue and earning capacity of the railways for which they are partly responsible, there is some chance of their being relieved of their present liability. They should have that opportunity, and this would be accomplished by this amendment. That would enable the country, or the barony, through the county, to look forward to a period when the current charges would be reduced by virtue of the encouragement that they have given to their own railway to be a better revenue earning property. I thought that this amendment would surely be accepted by the Minister as one encouraging that sense of local responsibility which he, at least, has so often proclaimed as desirable, notwithstanding what his fellow-Ministers are apt to do.
Most of the arguments used in favour of this amendment are rather far-fetched. Those baronially-guaranteed railways have been largely managed in the past, or controlled, by the very bodies who have been called upon to pay.
Mr. HOGAN
I have never observed any very great enthusiasm on any of those lines, either in regard to improving them or working them, and I have never seen any very active steps taken to reduce the deficit. Is it not rather much to expect a new order of things, when they are already being relieved— totally relieved—of a considerable amount of the burden after a period of some years? Does it not seem that that is a very good bargain for them without asking any more, on the assumption that the railways have been so uneconomically managed in the past that it will be all wiped out by proper management in the future? As regards the amalgamated company, I am afraid they are more sanguine than they have any right to be in connection with the savings that are to be effected. The President said that the amalgamated company will not be very pleased with the bargain, and I think he said that nobody was pleased with it. One begins to wonder why the Bill is before us at all.
The Bill is one thing and this particular part of it is another. There are fourteen concerns here in respect of which payments will have to be met from the county. This means practically 14 new officers appointed to do this particular class of work, keeping accounts and other matters for each one of those lines. That is one of the things it was hoped this unified company would effect some economies in—that is, a multiplicity of officers doing the same amount of work. I have had experience during my period as Local Government representative of running a particular establishment after the manner and style suggested in Deputy Hogan's amendment; that is, costings on each article—what each article cost—and I found that the overhead charges in respect of such costings, and the officials employed in order to keep an exact account of every article, were responsible for a good deal of the non-success of the particular establishment in question.
If we are going to overload those establishments right off with extra officials, in order to be able to see at the end of six, seven or eight years whether or not any liability should be removed from the local authorities, it would probably mean at the end of the seventh or eighth year, supposing we were to anticipate the very best results possible, that they were getting near having no liability to meet. I am anticipating that. Having met liabilities for the seven years, it would be a great satisfaction to people to know then that it was getting good, just as their liabilities were also getting less and disappearing altogether. There would be the usual complaints that "now that the level was being reached, what about all the money they had paid out?" On the other hand supposing the railway companies were to show at the end of seven, eight or ten years that they were still meeting with a deficit, we would have them coming along asking what the Government was to do to make that up. So far as this proposal of ours is concerned, it is a bad dream for about ten years, but at the end of that time everybody will waken up to realise that it was a wise and a sound bargain.
Amendment put.
The Committee divided: Tá, 16; Níl, 30.
Tá
- Pádraig F. Baxter.
- Seán Buitléir.
- John J. Cole.
- Seán de Faoite.
- John Good.
- Tomás Mac Eoin.
- Risteárd Mac Fheorais.
- Tomás de Nógla.
- Tomás O Conaill.
- Aodh O Cúlacháin.
- Liam O Daimhín.
- Eamon O Dubhghaill.
- Seán O Laidhin.
- Domhnall O Muirgheasa.
- Tadhg O Murchadha.
- Pádraig O hOgáin (An Clár).
Níl
- Earnán de Blaghd.
- Seoirse de Bhulbh.
- Próinsias Bulfin.
- Louis J. D'Alton.
- Máighréad Ní Choileáin Bean Uí Dhrisceóil.
- Patrick J. Egan.
- Osmond Grattan Esmonde.
- Desmond Fitzgerald.
- John Hennigan.
- Pádraigh Mac Fadáin.
- Eoin Mac Néil.
- Seoirse Mac Niocaill.
- Liam Mac Sioghaird.
- Liam Mag Aonghusa.
- Pádraig S. Mag Ualghairg.
- Martin M. Nally.
- Peadar O hAodha.
- Mícheál O hAonghusa.
- Criostóir O Broin.
- Aodh Ua Cinnéidigh. Partholán O Conchubhair.
- Séamus O Dóláin.
- Peadar S. O Dubhghaill.
- Pádraig O Dubhthaigh.
- Eamon S. O Dúgáin.
- Aindrú O Láimhín.
- Fionán O Loingsigh.
- Pádraig O Máille.
- Séamus O Murchadha.
- Seán M. O Súilleabháin.
Amendment declared lost.
I move amendment 16 to add after sub-section (5) a new sub-section as follows:—
"The contingent liability (if any) of any amalgamating or absorbed company to the Minister for Finance or the Council of any county under the Tramways and Public Companies (Ireland) Act, 1883, or under any other Act under the authority of which the dividends, completion, working or maintenance of the railway or any section thereof of such company are or were guaranteed or under any Order in Council made under any such Act, or under any judgment, decree or order founded on any such Act or Order shall cease as from the 31st day of December, 1924."
This amendment is complementary to sub-section (4), which deals with liability in connection with railways where a baronial liability now exists. The amendment deals with a particular liability which may arise in connection with railways that had a baronial guarantee but which is now lapsed.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 60, as amended, agreed to and added to the Bill.
SECTION 61.
Where the undertaking of any included baronial railway and the property of any company connected with it have become the property of a grand jury or county council under provisions contained in an Order in Council purusuant to sub-section (2) of section 10 of the Tramways and Public Companies (Ireland) Act, 1883, then for the purpose of the application of Part I. of this Act to that included baronial railway,
(a)the shareholders for the time being of the company to which the said undertaking and property belonged immediately before the same became the property of the grand jury or county council, shall be deemed to be the proprietors of the said railway, and
(b)the consent of the county council shall not be necessary to any scheme for the absorption of the undertaking of the said railway by the amalgamated company.
The section was agreed to, and added to the Bill.
PART VII.
GENERAL.
SECTION 62.
(1) Where under this Act an application may be made by a representative body of traders or by a body of persons representative of trade or a locality, the application may be made by any of the following authorities or bodies:—
(a) any harbour board, or the council of any county or borough or district; or
(b) any chamber of commerce or association representative of shipping, agriculture, traders or freighters which may obtain a certificate from the Minister that it is a proper body to make such an application.
(2) Subject as in this section provided, no company, body, or person not directly interested in the subject-matter of any application shall be entitled to make such application.
(3) Any authority or body as aforesaid may appear in opposition to any application, representation, or submission in any case where such authority, or the persons represented by them, appear to the Minister to be likely to be affected by the decision on any such application, representation, or submission.
(4) The Minister may, if he thinks fit, require as a condition of giving a certificate under this section, that security be given in such manner and to such amount as he thinks necessary, for costs which may be incurred.
(5) Any certificate granted under this section shall, unless withdrawn, be in force for twelve months from the date on which it was given.
(6) Any expenses incurred by any such authority in or incidental to any such application or opposition shall be defrayed out of the rate or fund out of which the expenses of the authority in the execution of their ordinary duties are defrayed.
I beg to move Amendment 17. In sub-section (1) after the word "application" in line 9, to insert the words "to the railway tribunal." The intention, of course, in this matter is to make clear that the application must be made to somebody. I was hoping that it would be to the railway rates tribunal, but in any case I think it is necessary to say to the railway tribunal. It is only a verbal amendment, but I suggest it is important.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 62, as amended, agreed to and added to the Bill.
SECTION 63.
Any notice, application, request or other document authorised or required by this Act to be sent to a railway company may, unless some other manner is prescribed by the railway tribunal, be sent by post in a prepaid letter addressed to the secretary of the company at the principal office of the company.
Amendment 18 not moved.
On behalf of Deputy Heffernan I beg to move amendment 19:—In line 41, after the word "prepaid" to insert the word "register."
The amendment is merely verbal, but I think it is an amendment that might be accepted, and if it is accepted it might improve the section. The fact that a letter is registered will be a guarantee that the letter was received, as a receipt will have to be given for it.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 63, as amended, agreed to and added to the Bill.
SECTION 64.
Any document required by or authorised by law other than this Act to be served on the amalgamated company may be so served by
(a)handing it to the secretary of the amalgamated company at the principal office in Saorstát Eireann of the amalgamated company, or
(b)leaving it at the principal office aforesaid in an envelope addressed to the Secretary of the amalgamated company, or
(c)sending it by post in a prepaid letter addressed to the secretary of the amalgamated company at the principal office aforesaid.
I beg to move amendment 20:—In line 52, after the word "prepaid" to insert the word "register."
Amendment agreed to.
Section 64, as amended, agreed to and added to the Bill.
SECTION 65.
(1) The accounts to be rendered by the amalgamated company under the Railway Companies (Accounts and Returns) Act, 1911, shall be compiled in such manner as may be prescribed by the Minister after consultation with the amalgamated company.
(2) It shall be the duty of the amalgamated company to compile and render to the Minister in such manner and form as he may direct such statistics and returns as he may require.
(3) For the purpose of this Act the Minister or any officer duly authorised by him shall have power to make such investigations into the affairs of the amalgamated company as he may deem necessary, and shall have access to the books, accounts, and returns of the amalgamated company, and the officers and servants of the company shall afford to the Minister or any such duly authorised officer such facilities as he may require.
(4) The powers of the Minister under this section shall be in addition to and not in derogation of any powers of holding enquiries conferred on him under this or any other Act.
(5) In the event of non-compliance on the part of the amalgamated company with any requirements of this section, the requirements shall be enforceable by order of the railway tribunal on the application of the Minister.
(6) Nothing in this section shall be interpreted to authorise any limitation of or interference with the control of the proprietors of any undertaking over the purposes to which its expenditure is to be applied.
Amendment 21 not moved.
Section agreed to, and added to the Bill.
SECTION 66.
As from the appointed day the enactments specified in the Tenth Schedule to this Act to the extent mentioned in the third column of that Schedule shall not apply to the amalgamated company.
Amendment 22 stands in my name as follows:—Before Section 66 to insert a new section as follows:—
"Nothing in this Act contained or in any bye-laws or regulations to be made thereunder shall in any way extend or be construed to extend to repeal, transfer, alter, affect or interfere with the rights, interests, powers, privileges, lands, property, buildings, other than dwellings, works, authorities, jurisdictions or duties of the Dublin Port and Docks Board or shall be applicable thereto anything hereinbefore contained to the contrary thereof in anywise notwithstanding."
This is obviously a Port and Docks amendment, and after what the Minister said the other evening I am afraid I am not likely to persuade the President, who is in charge of the Bill this evening, to do anything for me. I am not moving the amendment.
Amendment not moved.
On behalf of Deputy Nagle I beg to move Amendment 23: —
Before Section 66 to insert a new section as follows: —
"(1) With a view to promoting the extension of the use of electric power and facilitating its distribution the Minister may apply to the railway tribunal to make an order requiring the amalgamated company to permit electric power transmission lines to be erected on, under or over its lands or works, at such places and in such manner as may be specified in the application, and to grant such rights of way and access and other easements or facilities in connection therewith as may be necessary and reasonable.
(2) The railway tribunal shall consider and hear any objections made by the amalgamated company against the making of an order under this section and may make an order in accordance with the application or in such other terms as it may think proper, and may determine the compensation (if any) to be paid to the amalgamated company in respect of its compliance with the order, and by whom such compensation shall be paid so however that no compensation shall be payable except in respect of expenditure rendered necessary or actual loss incurred as a result of compliance with the order."
The proposal of the new section is to compel railway companies to permit electrical power transmission lines to be laid over their systems, to provide for certain compensation to be paid, such compensation to be in respect of actual loss or expenditure rendered necessary. I would imagine that this amendment would be quite generally acceptable, because if we are looking forward to the development of electrical power schemes this is clearly the simplest and best way to provide for the transmission lines, that is to say, that the permanent way on the railways should be accessible if required. Even from the point of view of the railways it would be an advantage to have the transmission lines laid upon the railway track, and I think in every other respect it is the most obvious course to arrange for beforehand. I think we should insert in this Bill a section which will make provision for that, if it be required at a later stage. The new section provides that the railway tribunal shall hear the companies and all concerned in this matter, and that it shall determine the compensation. I hope it is not necessary to make any strong plea for the principle of this amendment inasmuch as the railway system seems so well fitted for utilisation for this purpose, and I therefore beg to move.
This amendment appears to me to fall under two heads —one, in its effect on the railway tribunal, and, secondly, in its effect on the railway company. It seems to me that in the event of any electricity extension, such as is contemplated by this amendment, that such a work ought to be the subject of consideration by a Bill itself, and that to put in this amendment here would be simply staking a claim in respect of any rights or privileges that it might be sought to get from a railway company in the future. I do not think it would be fair to the railway company. After all, although a railway company is, so to speak, a public utility, it must be remembered that they pay for the land they have got, and they have to earn a certain amount of money and to provide a service. Now, to enter into possession of a right, and to run electrical cables or anything of that sort over their lines appears to me to be scarcely fair, because while I have already admitted that the development of electrical power in the country is most desirable, it is at the same time a matter for consideration for the whole country. If lines are to be laid, the persons affected, or the persons whose property is affected, such as the public company in question, ought to have their rights maintained just the same as the holders of the land had their rights acknowledged when the railway company got possession of that particular land. If this amendment were accepted it would look as if whoever had rights had got them to give them away now for any improvement that would be made. On the face of it I would not be prepared to say offhand that we are entitled to entertain an amendment of this sort.
The railway company would have a right to make its case for a certain charge, and it ought not be a matter for the railway tribunal to fix what that charge should be. The other question as to whether it is a most suitable place is really of some importance. I think it all comes to this, that an electricity Bill ought to consider that question which is in a compartment of its own, and ought not to be brought in on this question of a unified railway scheme.
I am surprised at the line taken by the President. After all, the State has already used its power to require the railway companies to do certain things, and I would remind the Minister that I think that the Electricity Supply Act of 1919 has been adapted by the Saorstát, and under that the Electricity Commissioners have power to command way-leaves for transmission lines over ordinary private property, and fix the amount thereof. So there is nothing unprecedented. We are saying beforehand in a Bill in respect to railway property that if it is found desirable, as it seems so obviously desirable, that the railway tracks should be used for this purpose, provision should be made for it, and for the method by which the railway companies shall be recouped for any loss. The President seems to be making way for the possibility. If, at any future time, the State undertakes electricity supply and power, and wants to use the railway tracks, he is now inviting the amalgamated company to put in big claims for compensation and charges beyond actual costs. The amendment quite clearly provides for recompensing the company for any actual loss on cost incurred. It endeavours to guard against that new amalgamated company charging a profit for the use of its tracks for electrical transmission purposes, but the President unfortunately is telling the companies in advance, "When the time comes I think you are entitled to make the State or the Electrical Supply Company pay a rent over and above costs for the use of this track."
I am almost certain if there is to be a Shannon Electrical scheme the rails will be used for the purpose of transmission of power, and in advance the President has told the company that they can get what they can from the Electrical Supply Company. They may have to go to the Oireachtas for powers, but in the meantime he is warning them to charge these people, and to make a profit out of it. That may be satisfactory for the users of the railways because they may make the point that the more profit the companies make out of the electrical supply scheme the better chance there will be for reducing railway charges. I suggest that the better course is to make provision beforehand that the railway track shall be available on payment of costs and recompense for damage, but that for the purposes of any electrical supply company or State organisation the track should be available for the laying of transmission lines. Inasmuch as this amendment does not introduce any new principle, inasmuch as the railway service should be considered as a public service, even as in this case, farmed out to a company, and as electrical power supply ought equally to be a public service even though it may be farmed out to the company—those two services should be co-ordinated in some degree, and this is the least degree to which one might expect the President to agree. Surely when you have railway tracks over which the only traffic is a railway train, room can be found without inconvenience, and with the least possible expense, for the laying of electrical power lines. One would think that it was only taking time by the forelock to have a little provision in having a clause of this kind in a Bill of this kind. I ask the President to accept the amendment, and make sure that the future electrical supply in this country is going to be facilitated in every possible way.
AN LEAS CHEANN COMHAIRLE, at this stage, took the Chair.
I think that Deputy Johnson has fallen into the very obvious error of dealing with this Bill as one for the nationalisation of railways. It is not quite that; at least, we understand that it is not. The proposal here is that an entirely outside company, assuming it is a private enterprise, or even a public enterprise, should have the right to go in and deal with other people's property. In legislation in the past it has always been the practice to let everything stand on its own bottom, but to mix up electrical propositions with this Bill might lead to complications much greater than you can anticipate at present. The amendment again makes the great triumvirate the judge. In this case you make them judge and jury, because they are going to have control of the railways, and you are putting them in the position of deciding on what terms another company should have power to operate along their lines, possibly to the detriment of the whole railway organisation. So far as electricity legislation is concerned, I do not think that Deputy Johnson is right in saying that we have adapted the 1919 Act, nor have we, as I understand, taken over the legislation that provides for Electricity Commissioners. There is, I understand, in the pigeon holes of the Ministry of Industry and Commerce a Bill dealing with the whole electricity problem of the Free State, and I suppose we will have it at a later stage. I would suggest to Deputy Johnson and to the House that if any provision of this sort were to be made it would be more fitting that it would be provided through the procedure laid down in the Act, providing for the electricity supply as a whole within the area of the Free State. I think that this amendment is really not necessary, because assuming that the Shannon power scheme for electrical supply developed on the lines on which we are led to believe it can be developed, the transmission lines would, I think, naturally run along the railways, and possibly it would supply the motive power for running the trains on the railways. In that way this whole question would arise when the Shannon scheme or any other scheme follows the usual order of procedure and gets its authority. If any scheme for an electrical undertaking or for any other purpose comes before this House, I take it that the House will lay down the lines within which the company, or whatever it may be, will operate, and the House will then have power to deal with the question of transmission lines. I am voting against this because, in the first place, I think that it is unnecessary, and, in the second place, I think it is dangerous.
In the last few sentences which Deputy Johnson uttered in connection with this amendment he really gave expression to what was in my mind in regard to it, and that is that the railway users are a very important element in this matter and it is their interests, as well as those of the railway companies, which are affected by this particular amendment. The Railway Company, as such, granted there is efficient management —and I am sure Deputy Hogan agrees with that—has a chance of running its line in such a way as to earn dividends laid down in the Bill and, if other advantages accrue, it is hoped that the railway users will get the maximum benefit out of that and consequently any rights which the railway company have over their track or premises ought to be conserved in the interests of these railway users. Looking at the railways as a problem by themselves, I think it will be admitted that if they come up against other methods of locomotion that will seriously reduce their probable receipts, certainly the receipts which they were almost bound to make some years ago. Motor traffic both for goods and for passengers must have had a very serious effect on railway receipts. Now, here is a new thing coming along—electricity—and if it is sound it has a right to exist by itself. Surely if it requires way-leave or anything of that sort, we cannot expect this particular company, the unified company, to give all facilities and to get none. Whatever rights it has ought to be made the subject of consideration by each service. That is my only objection to it. If a new electricity concern is entitled to way-leave for anything, I have no objection, but I am not satisfied that this is the place to raise questions of that sort, nor is it proper that we should give such a right as this without hearing what the new unified company would have to say on the subject.
I think there is a good deal to be said in favour of the idea in the amendment provided that the two parts of the amendment are taken together.
I am moving them both together.
I think it is important that due consideration should be given to this suggestion, which might prove in the future to be a most useful one. The reason that I urge that it should be considered is that it might turn out to be the case that the railway tribunal would not have power to permit a railway company to make such arrangements with a new electricity company as would be advantageous to both.
Mr. O'CONNELL
Is the President in the position to say what arrangements exist between the Post Office and the railway company for the use of facilities which railway companies give to the post office to put up telegraph posts along their lines?
I could not say. I am sure I do not know.
I think it is a question of way-leave.
Amendment put.
The Committee divided: Tá, 12; Níl, 37.
Tá
- Sean Buitléir.
- Tomás Mac Eoin.
- Risteárd Mac Fheorais.
- Ailfrid O Broin.
- Tomás O Conaill.
- Aodh O Cúlacháin.
- Liam O Daimhín.
- Eamon O Dubhghaill.
- Domhnall O Muirgheasa.
- Tadhg P. O Murchadha.
- Pádraig O hOgáin (An Clár).
- Liam Thrift.
Níl
- Pádraig F. Baxter.
- Earnán de Blaghd.
- Séamus Breathnach.
- Seoirse de Bhulbh.
- Próinsias Bulfin.
- John J. Cole.
- John Conlan.
- Louis J. D'Alton.
- Máighréad Ní Choileáin Bean
- Uí Dhrisceóil.
- Patrick J. Egan.
- Henry J. Finlay.
- Desmond Fitzgerald.
- John Hennigan.
- Connor Hogan.
- Tomás Mac Artúir.
- Liam T. Mac Cosgair.
- Pádraig Mac Fadáin.
- Risteárd Mac Liam.
- Eoin Mac Néill.
- Seoirse Mac Niocaill.
- Liam Mac Sioghaird.
- Pádraig S. Mag Ualghairg.
- Patrick J. Mulvany.
- Martin M. Nally.
- Mícheál O hAonghusa.
- Criostóir O Broin.
- Seán O Bruadair.
- Aodh Ua Cinnéidigh.
- Partholán O Conchubhair.
- Séamus N. O Dóláin.
- Peadar S. O Dubhghaill.
- Pádraig O Dubhthaigh.
- Eamon S. O Dúgáin.
- Aindriú O Láimhín.
- Fionán O Loingsigh.
- Séamus O Murchadha.
- Seán M. O Súilleabháin.
Amendment declared lost.
Question: "That Section 66 stand part of the Bill"—put and agreed to.
I beg to move:—
Before Section 67 to insert a new section as follows:—
"Nothing in this Act shall authorise the amalgamated company or any other body at any time to acquire by compulsory powers any part of the lands, premises, works, or undertakings in possession or occupation of the London Midland and Scottish Railway Company or of the Dundalk, Newry and Greenore Railway Company, or either of them, or of which they are respectively the owners, or any rights or powers over or in regard to the same."
My reason for moving this new section is because under the Bill the London, Midland, and Scottish Railway is a foreign company, and as such I think it only reasonable and fair to ask that some measure of protection should be afforded to their property.
I cannot accept this amendment in the circumstances.
Mr. BYRNE
Is there any reason why it cannot be accepted?
I would like to hear some reason why I should.
resumed the Chair at this stage.
I think the Deputy should give some reason why this amendment is required and why special provision should be made for either of these companies. Does he think it is necessary that these companies, because they are wholly owned by a British company, require special protection in this Bill, and from whom? Who are they to be protected against, and what are his reasons for thinking that there is any risk for these companies, over and above the risk to any other person who owns an industrial undertaking or any other property? It may be, if the Deputy had good reasons, that one could support the amendment, but without the reasons I do not know whether it is desirable to support it or not.
Mr. BYRNE
Under the Bill they are described as a foreign company, and as such it is not unreasonable to ask that some protection for their property should be given. If there is any reason why it cannot be accepted I should be told so.
I have asked a prominent official of this company what protection they wanted, and I got no reply. Perhaps the Deputy is in their confidence. If he is he ought to tell us what is required.
Mr. BYRNE
I am not. I might be able to tell you if I was.
Amendment put and declared lost.
Amendment 24a is to insert a new part. The amendment must be taken in conjunction with the proposed new schedule, called the Eleventh Schedule, and I think is therefore out of order.
I am sorry to hear that you ruled this out of order. I do not want to ask you to give your reasons but I assume it is because it seeks to bring within the Bill certain companies outside the present exclusive jurisdiction of the Government and Parliament of Saorstát Eireann. I think it is a fact that the powers of the Saorstát do apply in some limited and peculiar measure to railways outside the Saorstát, inasmuch as the Northern Government has not such powers. The object of this new part was to ensure that as the area of jurisdiction shall extend, and as one would hope in a very short time cover the whole country, there would be no need for fresh legislation of a railway kind, and that all that would be required would be for the Parliament and Government of Saorstát Eireann to appoint dates for the extension of the powers under the Act.
The amendment, I think, is framed to do more than that.
The amendment is framed so that the Executive Council of Saorstát Eireann may, by order, appoint a day on which this Act shall apply to other companies outside the present jurisdiction. Of course, the Council of the Saorstát as an Executive Council, is precluded from so acting until the powers of the Government of the Saorstát are clearly extended over the whole country. I am differentiating between what the Executive Council may do and what the Oireachtas may do.
I think the amendment in its present form is out of order. It could not be proposed in its present form.
I suppose the matter of the powers under the Railways Bill and the extension of the number of companies affected will come forward on a later amendment, and that the whole question can then be discussed.
I am not prepared to agree in advance to the definition of the "whole matter." A certain part will arise in amendment 4 (b) to the First Schedule.
Question—"That Section 67 stand part of the Bill"—put and agreed to.
I move to report progress.
