THE DÁIL IN COMMITTEE. - RAILWAYS BILL.
FIRST SCHEDULE.
I move:—
To insert in the second column (Absorbed Companies), after line 28, the words "Dublin and Blessington Steam Tramway Company and the Blessington and Poulaphouca Tramway Company."
The amendment is to insert amongst the absorbed companies the Dublin and Blessington Steam Tramway Company and the Blessington and Poulaphouca Tramway Company. I assume this is an omission inasmuch as the Bill generally is to deal with the railways in the southern portions of the Saorstát as a whole, and all other lines of a similar kind to the Blessington line have been included. It has been suggested that objections have been made because of some imagined difference between the Dublin and Blessington Tramway and some of the other railways such as the Cork and Muskerry, the Cork, Blackrock and Passage Railway, and others; but so far as I can see there is no difference, except a difference in name. This is called a tramway company, though as a matter of fact the circumstances connected with the Dublin and Blessington Company, and the powers that have been obtained, are similar to these other companies. The Dublin and Blessington Steam Tramway Company has not been treated by the Government in the same way as other companies have been, and I can see no reason why an exception should be made in this case. Many reasons could be adduced in favour of inserting this amendment, if there was any objection to inserting it, but I am assuming that the omission is quite an unintended one, and that all that is required is to bring it before the notice of the Government to allow this company's name to be inserted in the schedule.
In supporting the amendment I cannot understand why a distinction is made as regards the Dublin and Blessington line out of the other baronial guaranteed lines. If it is excluded on the ground that it is not either physically in connection with or does not run into the stations of main lines or branch line railways the same argument applies to other railways that are proposed to be absorbed. But I want to deal with the special point of view of my own constituency. In 1882 authorisation was given for the construction of this line, and in 1884, when the Grand Jury of Wicklow passed a presentment guaranteeing 5 per cent. on the £20,000 paid up capital on taxing the guaranteeing area, etc., that presentment contained a clause limiting the liability of the ratepayers in the guaranteed area, to an annual sum not exceeding the proceeds of 1s. in the £ assessment upon the valuation of the guaranteeing area of County Wicklow. In November, 1916, it was decided in the Court of Chancery that the bond given by the company to the Wicklow County Council and the limiting clause in the Wicklow County Council presentment were ultra vires and had no force. The result of this was that the two countries were made jointly responsible for all liabilities incurred in the working of the tramway in addition to the guaranteed dividend. Consequently, the unfortunate ratepayers in this portion of County Wicklow have had to pay up to 4s. in the £ to keep up this tramway, and it is calculated that the demand this year will amount to about 5s. 8d. or 5s. 9d. in the £, more than these unfortunate ratepayers are asked to pay for the upkeep of the whole administration of the county. Both Counties Dublin and Wicklow are now held jointly responsible for this tramway, but the tramway runs over 10 miles of County Dublin, and the valuation of that area is £53,353, while it only runs over 4½ miles of County Wicklow and the valuation of that area in County Wicklow is only £14,916. But when we remember that this tramway is practically very little use to a big per cent. of these ratepayers, who live up in the hills, it will be impossible to ask them to continue to pay this huge rate, and if the County Council collect it they will have to do so at the point of the bayonet. In fact, I do not know how they are going to collect it, except they make what I might describe as “another clearance” of this part of the county. Therefore, I will appeal for the acceptance of this amendment, as I believe there is no other way of helping the harassed ratepayers in this area.
The amendment is supported by every shade of opinion in the Dáil, and therefore I take it that the observation made by Deputy Johnson, that it was an omission on the part of the mover of the Bill not to have included the Dublin and Blessington Steam Tramway Company, requires only to have attention drawn to it to have the omission remedied. The case for it is simply that all the baronially guaranteed lines in the Saorstát are being absorbed, and there is no reason why this one should not be absorbed. What we ask for is that this particular company ought not to be asked to pay more than those other absorbed railways will pay. I believe if it was not an omission, that the reason why this line was not absorbed is because it is not supposed to be in physical contact with any of the other big companies. In the Bill there is an instance where a railway not in physical contact with a big company has been absorbed. We have a fair case for the absorption of this line, and we hope now that the Minister has had his attention directed to it that he will allow this amendment to be inserted in the Bill.
I think it must be generally agreed that the amalgamating companies under the new railway scheme will have their work cut out to get along with some of the companies that are to be absorbed into them. It will make it more difficult for them if the Dublin and Blessington Tramway and lines like that——
Will the Deputy say what he means by "lines like that?"
I think there are two in the same amendment.
No; the Dublin and Blessington, and the Blessington and Poulaphouca.
The companies are different.
I thought you were referring to lines like the Dublin and Blessington, and Blessington and Poulaphouca.
Let the Deputy make his meaning clear; we can have no more interruptions.
These lines are unique. Deputy Byrne explained that the lines are paid for practically by County Dublin, and County Wicklow. When the matter was before the local governing bodies of the old days they thought it was a good thing, and they gave the guarantee. When the matter was brought before the Kildare County Council in 1886 they declined to have anything to do with it. They were asked to guarantee the new company who were to run the line between Blessington and Poulaphouca, and they declined to have anything to say to it. As the matter turned out, I think they were very wise. I have a very intimate knowledge of that line, because its terminus was at my gate, and sooner than travel by that line I made it a point of driving three or four miles, and anyone who could did the same thing, the disadvantages of travelling by the line were so great. For one thing, there was the uncertainty of arriving at your destination. I remember one winter's evening having to walk home ten miles from Brittas because the engine driver had forgotten to put in water. The consequence was the fire had to be raked out at Brittas, and all the passengers had to walk home—not at all an unusual occurrence. Anyone who travels on that line may see little tombstones that mark the whole line from end to end, while numbers of animals have been run over, and on occasions have put the tram off the line. I think before a line like that is put on any railway you will want to consider very well, not once or twice, but a good many times, before you put such a handicap on any new system of railway. I think that many lines like that put on under the new railway scheme would dish it.
Would it not be in the interests of the State to prevent those lines continuing in existence any longer? Would it not be more desirable to prevent them running their so-called services? The question would not then arise as to the State stepping in and taking over the liabilities that the unfortunate residents of the districts affected have to bear. It would be a good thing, in my opinion, if you scrap some of those lines and take the debt off the shoulders of the ratepayers. If what Deputy Wolfe has stated is correct, then this particular line at Terenure has killed more people than it has carried all through its existence.
I am sorry that Deputy Johnson worked on the assumption that he did, because, otherwise, he might have put forward an argument for the amendment other than the implied argument that the line was bankrupt. Beyond that I do not see, that there was any other argument. What economies can be effected if this line is brought into the new Amalgamated Company? In the other baronially-guaranteed railways, economies can be effected. I think that Deputy Johnson's chief desire was to bring in this railway because he thought it was out in the cold. How could the Amalgamated Company undertake, with any prospect of making any economies, a company of this kind? It would mean putting on a load in addition to the load that it has already taken. I think that is a very important matter to consider.
If we divide this line into two, although it is run by the one company, there would be altogether four such concerns which we do not bring into the Bill. It was not our original intention to include them. This is called a steam tram, and, as such, it differs very materially from either the Amalgamated Company or the absorbed companies. The only advantage that would be derived by amalgamating this company with the others would be to reduce the liability of the baronies in question. The incidence of the charge in the two counties is to my mind very unfair. Wicklow, with something like a £13,000 valuation, bears one-half the upkeep of the line as against a £50,000 valuation in the County Dublin. Apart from that, I think, speaking relatively, the Dublin portion is much better off than the Wicklow portion, the question of valuation notwithstanding. To that extent, a very unfair burden does fall upon County Wicklow.
This concern differs very much from either the absorbed or the amalgamating companies, not alone in respect of being a steam tramway, but also in the fact that its terminus is very far away from any of the termini of the other companies in Dublin. It is stated that much the same thing is the case with regard to the Blackrock and Passage Railway, but the termini of the Passage and Bandon Railways are closely adjoining one another in Cork, and the terminus of the Muskerry Railway is not so inconvenient to the Cork railway. There is no such difference as between this company's terminus at Terenure and the termini at Harcourt Street, Kingsbridge or any other termini in Dublin. As Deputy O'Sullivan has stated, we have no intimation as to what possible economies can be effected, even if this company were amalgamated with the others. My information, as Minister for Local Government, was that this company arrived at the period of de-control much better circumstanced than it was when control was imposed on it. The imposition of control, I am informed, was effected for political reasons rather than reasons of business. To that extent, the only possible argument that could be urged in favour of including it is because it was controlled. My information is that the reasons for control were political.
I am satisfied this is a problem for the Minister for Local Government; it is more so than it is for the railway concerns. They can get on with their business quite independently of this company. This company is not an offshoot of any of them. It serves a place which is within a few miles of railway stations along its length. I suppose Naas is not more than four miles from Blessington, and there are many parts of the country in which rather important towns are three, four and six miles away from a railway station.
I think there could be opportunities for economies on this line, independent of its being amalgamated with any other company, and some attempt ought to be made to effect those economies. It seems to me, if there were to be any amalgamations, this particular line ought to be amalgamated with the Dublin Tramways Company. I am not disposed to accept the amendment. I would, if Deputies thought it would meet their case, undertake to go into the matter with the Minister for Local Government, but it would be as a Local Government problem rather than as a railway problem that I would go into it.
The Minister is thinking in terms of a railway company as a company, when he makes use of the well-known American slang. "as a business proposition." I would ask him to look at this problem as part of the problem of transportation within the Saorstát. The whole Bill is supposed to have in mind better organisation of transport services. Everything that he has said in regard to the "uneconomy" of the new amalgamated company absorbing this Blessington Company, has been said by the railway companies themselves against the absorption of many of those other baronially-guaranteed companies. You cannot use any argument in favour of the absorption by the amalgamated company of those other baronially-guaranteed lines, or some of them, that will not apply to the Blessington Tramway.
The Company was formed, and the railway built, under Act of Parliament.
Is it a railway or a tramway?
It is a railway, sir, and the other Companies that we are dealing with are all built under the Tramways Act, even though they are called railways. If you prefer to give your dog an Irish name or an English name, it does not make any difference to the dog. The company was formed and the service provided under an Act of Parliament. Obligations were undertaken just in the same way as obligations were undertaken by other counties and other baronies. The service has been rendered, badly if you like, but at any rate a considerable portion of the population believed they were being served, and were to be served by this method of transportation in Dublin and Wicklow just in the same way as they were being served in Clare, Kerry, and other parts of the country. The same procedure has been gone through. The same service has been rendered more or less. You are now engaged on a Bill to consolidate and amalgamate the transport service and the railway service into one amalgamation. And you say that because this one does not run into a terminus associated with, and in direct contact with, one of the larger companies, therefore it must be left out. Now there is no logical justification at all for any such omission. I submit that in dealing with this Bill as a Bill to facilitate and improve the railway service of the country, we have to provide for an improvement of this railway service. And to save the risk of further loss of life for mankind and animals, and to ensure better management, and shall I say, to save public loss, it would be better that this company should be managed by the Board of this amalgamated company rather than by the board which is at present managing it. Deputy Wolfe certainly argued in favour of better management and better construction of the line. That is what we are aiming at— that the amalgamation will lead to better management and better construction of the line. There will be more expenditure, but it will be profitable expenditure, and, in any case, it is bringing the transport service in the Saorstát into some relation, and not leaving out a line which in every other respect, has conformed to the procedure which has been set before the other lines which are being brought into the Bill. I can see no reason why there should be this omission, except the reason that the companies do not like it. The companies do not like having to take over the West Clare Railway; the companies do not like having to take over the Tralee and some other lines. But the Bill is obliging them to do so. Why, then, should we draw the line at the Blessington Tram?
Because it is burdening commerce.
That is what the railway companies say about the other baronially guaranteed lines.
That is why we object to bringing them in, too.
The Deputy can claim consistency in this. He has objected to take in any of the companies to be absorbed in the Bill. He is objecting to the Bill as a whole, and he would prefer if you would strike out any and all of the companies in the schedule.
We are objecting to any uneconomic proposition being put on the Amalgamated Company.
Exactly, and the railway companies say that all these baronial railways are an uneconomic proposition. The fact that they have been a burden on the baronies bears that out. Deputy Good can consistently oppose this amendment, notwithstanding the desire of his constituents. But I cannot understand how the other supporters of the Bill can oppose the amendment. Every supporter of the Bill who really wants to think consistently with regard to the Bill has a right to support this amendment, or certainly to give his reasons for opposing it.
I want to supplement Deputy Johnson's argument in respect of management. Deputy Good is not aware that up to 1914 this particular line balanced its accounts, and that it had not become a charge in regard to its working on the ratepayers. It is quite possible that with superior management which a combination like the Amalgamated Company would be able to give to such a concern it would be brought back to the state in which it happened to be up to 1914; because in the years 1914-15 a contribution had to be made towards its working expenses by the County Councils, and the County Councils were empowered to take it over. I want to impress this upon Deputy Johnson, that here he has an example of what State management or County Council management is, as contrasted with what private management has done on this particular line. Up to 1914-15 under private management this line paid its way. Since the County Councils got it, it has been a burden on the ratepayers, and at the present time it is such an incubus on the ratepayers of Wicklow that the rates cannot, and will not, be paid in that particular area. There are only 1,200 or 1,300 rateable properties in Wicklow contributing to the upkeep of this railway, and if the President has thought fit to subsidise the baronies in the case of all the other railways in Ireland where these baronially guaranteed railways exist, he has not shown any reason why he should not subsidise the baronies through which the Blessington Steam Tram runs. That is an argument that he has not met. If you refuse to place this line on the Amalgamated Company, then I say subsidise it to the extent that you are subsidising the others. Pay off the capital expenditure and levy a rate for ten years on that area, and then we are satisfied.
Why stop at the baronies in that argument? Why not go to the other local authorities?
But you are agreeing to subsidise 13 or 14 other baronies, and I want to know why you are singling out this barony for special neglect?
That is just the proper word to use.
That is the point I want to make clear. A Deputy here representing the very constituency where the people are burdened with this rate has the temerity to stand up and ask that they continue to pay that burden. I hope, at the next election, the ratepayers of the County Dublin will understand that. The deficiency on the Cork, Blackrock and Passage Railway was £4,500 a year and it was amalgamated by the direction of this Government. It was not taken over. What is to prevent the President taking it over? The loss is nothing. It is a loss which eventually will come to nothing if the system is properly managed and the amalgamated company will have at its disposal an opportunity of putting the affairs of this company in proper working order, and there is no reason why it should not be a paying concern.
I am not convinced by the arguments of those supporting this amendment. Looking at it, not as Deputy Johnson wants us to look at it, as a problem between one railway company and another entering into an arrangement for transport as between a narrow strip of land in County Dublin and West Wicklow, but as what it is, namely, the question of transport in the whole of Ireland, this would be putting an additional burden not merely upon the amalgamated company but an additional burden on the whole of Ireland which must affect the rates of the whole country. If you take over this concern it is not, I suggest, quite on the same level as some of the other baronial guaranteed railways taken over. If they are taken over they can form one system with the amalgamated companies, but if you take this over you will have two systems. It is regrettable that here you have a geographical difficulty, the difficulty of connecting up Terenure to Kingsbridge, and unless you absorb the Dublin United Tramway Company you cannot have a unified system out of it. That is the only means by which you could unify the system. Otherwise you would have two systems working and if that is so where will you get the economy? In the case of the other baronially guaranteed railways it is hoped that when they are taken over you will effect economy, but here I do not see where you will have economy. The extra cost which will be involved by taking over this company will react not only upon the other companies but on the whole of Ireland as well.
I would like to congratulate Deputy Wolfe on the fact that his predecessors on the Kildare County Council, and on the Kildare Grand Jury, had sense in their generation, because I understand they refused to have any part in the guarantee in 1886, and I think I am justified in saying that Kildare benefited more than our unfortunate people who have been paying 6s. in the £.
I think that is not correct. The station at Harristown is only three miles away.
That is so, but I know something about Kildare, and I know that Kildare used the line very considerably. I would like to say, in support of Deputy Wilson, that while this line paid for itself up to 1914, the Wicklow County Council never took over the working of the line. There has been a suggestion of a joint board for Wicklow and Dublin, but so far we declined. We have no responsibility whatever for the mismanagement of this line. I would like to meet the President in the suggestion he made of having a conference with the Local Government Department on the matter, and also the suggestion of getting the Dublin Tram Company to take it over. For years we have been hammering away at this question, and waiting to get relief for these people. I see no alternative to supporting this amendment and I ask the President to accept it.
The question arises whether it would not be better economically in these days of modern transport to scrap this line altogether. Modern motor traffic will do away with the usefulness of this line, and will prove it to be an obsolete undertaking altogether. I think it would be much the better way to meet the situation to decide to scrap this whole system and try to relieve the ratepayers of the district of the burden that is on them. The other railway system to which Deputy Good referred in his interruptions serves somebody, but I have yet to learn that this little steam tramway serves anybody. What is the position? How is their balance-sheet made out? What is the profit and loss? I see no reason to hope that this could be a paying proposition at all in the future. The other referred to goes through the same district, and is used by someone. I went out the other evening to see this tram line, and I think it would be a good thing in the public interest to remove it off the face of the earth altogether.
About three years ago we took a plebiscite of the people living in that area using the line, and the overwhelming majority of the people were in favour of scrapping it. We found, if they did scrap it, they would have to pay 1s. 6d. in perpetuity, so that the cure was as bad as the disease. Still, I am afraid, we will have to scrap it, because it would be better to pay 1s. 6d. in the £ than 5s. or 6s. in the £. My position is that I would agree to scrap it for I can see no other hope except indeed to absorb it in the way suggested here.
There are £40,000 sunk in this railway, and a dividend of 5 per cent. has to be paid on that. That represents another sum of £2,000. I understand that last year the loss of the company was something like £7,000. At least that is what I am told. If we are to put that blister on this new company what does it get in return, because that is really what the matter comes to? If we pass that question by for the moment and ask what does anybody else get in return, whom does it serve, and does it serve to the extent of a loss of £7,000? If the rest of the country is prepared to put up £7,000, is this part of the country from Dublin to Blessington and Poulaphouca benefited by reason of good service to the extent of this loss of £7,000? I do not think it is. There is another important question that arises on this. It is in regard to the 5 per cent. baronial stock which apparently is a good investment. I looked up the records of the Stock Exchange some two or three years ago, and I found that the £10 stock in this undertaking was for sale at something like £3. There was very little of the stock offering for sale at the time I made the enquiries. The person who bought that stock within the last few years is certainly not in the position of a person who invested money originally in the undertaking and put down the full par value of the stock. It was from that angle that I was considering that the Minister for Local Government might consider this question rather in the light of a Local Government question than as a railway question, because I have grave doubts that it would pay the new company in any way to undertake the more efficient management of this particular institution. The line, I was informed, was never very well constructed, and did not lend itself to any thing like an efficient cost of running. There were twists, bends and gradients and so on, and I was informed that from Tallaght to Blessington, where the least amount of money came in for transport—the receipts there are mainly derived from passenger traffic — it was utterly and entirely uneconomical, but that from Dublin to Tallaght there were some prospects of making it a line ball.
But as regards the other end—that is, the Wicklow end—I was informed that it was utterly and entirely uneconomical. Somebody mentioned about the line having been well run and that no charge was made on the County Councils up to 1913. That is not my recollection. As well as I remember, I think Dublin was in for about three-pence in the pound of a rate to maintain this line. I know that I saw that on a warrant for rates, although it was not in the total. In any case, somewhere about the years 1914, 1915 or 1916, the company got into such difficulties that the Dublin County Council, I think, went into Court, and it was open, I think, to the other two County Councils to apply for a Board of Management. In any case, Mr. Collen, the late County Surveyor of the Dublin County Council, was appointed manager, and from the examination I made of this company and its misfortunes a couple of years ago, I should say that the management under Mr. Collen was excellent. At any rate, at the period of de-control it was much better off than it was before, and there was no loss to the ratepayers in that particular period. When de-control took place it was much better off, both as regards rolling stock, management and everything else, than it was before it passed under Mr. Collen's management. I think as regards these light railways that high prices would be bound to react, considering the circumstances of the time, more against this particular concern than perhaps against any of the rest. Looking at the thing as a railway problem I do not think there would be any justification for asking the new unified company to take over a liability so large as this one which gives so little return for the money expended on it, and one offering so few advantages to the unified company. It is by itself, as if one drew a circle, and within the circle drew a straight line someway or other which did not reach the end of the circle and remained some distance from it. It is not a feeder, as some of the other baronial lines are. Some of the other light railways are feeders, in the sense that you can connect them up, and I think it will be the policy of the new undertaking so to connect them up. There is no such possibility as regards this line. Once you leave Tallaght it taps a very poor country, and there is really no money to be made on it. From the point of view of business, I do not see that there is any justification for putting it in here, but if you ask me is there a case for giving some relief to the unfortunate ratepayers who have guaranteed this money, I say "Yes, by all means."
If in everything the Minister said he applied the same reasoning to the other railways named in the First Schedule of column 2 as he did to this he would arrive, I think, at the same conclusion. He has not subjected to the same examination at all the Cork and Muskerry line, the South Clare Railways, and the Timo-league and Courtmacsherry extension. If he did so could he show that they were economical and that they were going to be advantageous to the new company? I think he could not. As a matter of fact, the amalgamated company said decidedly he could not. It is quite certain that they will not be economical, and it is perhaps in their case that new methods of traction will supplant the present method of traction on these light railways. It is expected that changes will be made, and so I suppose we may expect that changes will be made here. It is quite probable that this line could be adapted to the proposed changes, and that even a terminus could be made to run into one of the new companies if that were thought desirable.
How would you do it? It is a long way from Terenure to the Kingsbridge.
That is quite true, but if you are going to adopt this line of motor traction one never knows what may happen. I suggest in regard to the burden upon the company that that will very largely depend upon the scheme of amalgamation that is prepared. In the earlier sections of the Bill the companies are asked to prepare schemes, and only in the final stages is the tribunal obliged to prepare a scheme, and that scheme of course will take into account all the financial considerations. I would suggest to the Dáil that if every one of the proposed absorbed companies were to be examined with the same minuteness that the Minister examined this Blessington company, the Dáil would come to the same conclusion that, considered as business propositions, they were uneconomical, and the Dáil would approve and support the view that the companies themselves have taken in regard to them. Notwithstanding that we propose to insist upon amalgamation of these sundry uneconomical companies with the new amalgamated company, the Dáil is asked that that should not be done in connection with this Blessington company. I would suggest that it should be kept in being if only to show how the course of revolution in transport has developed in this country. The Minister for Posts and Telegraphs has invited thousands of people from the ends of the earth to come to Dublin. When they come you will want to show them something. It may be that in six years, eighteen years, or even thirty years it will be thought desirable to repeat the invitation, and that many more thousands of people will come to Ireland. When they come you will want to have something for them to see. I suggest that you should keep this line in being as an example of the locomotion that Ireland has passed through. I think even from that point of view this very small burden on the company should be accepted.
If we are to believe the statement of the directors of the amalgamating companies, the burden of the present absorbed companies on their resources will run to the extent of £90,000 per annum. If you eliminate from the absorbed companies the companies which are paying, and one is the Dublin and Kingstown line, and take those on which there will be a burden, I maintain that there will be less of a burden on this particular line than there will be on many of the other absorbed companies, and a less average burden on the lot taken together.
I am afraid the President does not understand my reasoning. I am assuming that the figures quoted by the directors of the amalgamating companies are correct, and I am taking also the contributions which we are to give over a series of years to this particular undertaking. I am eliminating from the absorbed companies the companies which are properly paying concerns, and then I am taking the remainder and dividing them into this sum of £90,000. In that way I find that this particular railway company is a paying concern in comparison to some of the others. We ask for similar treatment to what the other baronially guaranteed people are receiving. We say that no case has been made as to why we should be left out in the cold; that if the amalgamated company is put in possession of this property it can produce it at the other end and not bring it up from Terenure at all, and that therefore it could become a feeder. How are you going to bring visitors to Poulaphuca if you have not a railway? There are quite a number of considerations in this matter which prove that it is not fair treatment to leave this railway out, and I respectfully submit that we have stated a fair case.
Amendment put. The Committee divided: Tá, 20; Níl, 32.
Tá
|
Pádrig F. Baxter.Seán Buitléir.John Conlan.Connor Hogan.Domhnall Mac Carthaigh.Tomás Mac Eoin.Risteárd Mac Fheorais.Risteárd Mac Liam.Patrick J. Mulvany.Tomás de Nógla.
|
Criostóir O Broin.Tomás O Conaill.Liam O Daimhín.Eamon O Dubhghaill.Seán O Duinnín.Domhnall O Mocháin.Domhnall O Muirgheasa.Tadhg O Murchadha.Pádraig O hOgáin (An Clár).Patrick K. Hogan (Luimneach).
|
Níl
|
Séamus Breathnach.Seoirse de Bhulbh.Próinsias Bulfin.Séamus de Búrca.Louis J. D'Alton.Máighréad Ní Choileáin Bean.Uí Dhrisceóil.Patrick J. Egan.Desmond Fitzgerald.John Hennigan.Liam T. Mac Cosgair.Pádraig Mac Fadáin.Eoin Mac Néill.Seoirse Mac Niocaill.Liam Mac Sioghaird.Pádraig S. Mag Ualghairg.
|
Martin M. Nally.Peadar O hAodha.Seán O Bruadair.Próinsias O Cathail.Aodh Ua Cinnéidigh.Séamus O Dóláin.Peadar S. O Dubhghaill.Eamon S. O Dúgáin.Donchadh S. O Guaire.Aindriú O Láimhín.Fionán O Loingsigh.Pádraig O Máille.Séamus O Murchadha.Seán M. O Súilleabháin.Patrick W. Shaw.Liam Thrift.
|
Amendment declared lost.
Amendment 2 not moved.
I move to insert in the second column (absorbed companies) the following railway companies: — The Fishguard and Rosslare Railway and Harbour Company, and the Cork City Railway Company.
I think there is good reason for moving this amendment inasmuch as there does exist a Fishguard and Rosslare Company and a Cork City Railway Company, and until we have some reason for omitting them from the list, I would say there is every reason for including them. The Cork City Railway Company is one that links up railways, and surely that ought to be included in the absorbed companies. We should not allow that link line to be entirely independent when we are amalgamating companies. For what reason is the Fishguard and Rosslare Railway Company omitted? Is it because it has English capital? If that is the reason the reason will apply to one at least of the other companies. I think it is necessary to know why those two small companies have been omitted.
The Cork City Railway Loop Line is a very valuable line, so valuable that there has been a loss on working for many years which has been borne by the Great Western Railway Company of England, and the Great Western Railway Company of England are so enamoured of it that they are very anxious to get rid of it. We are in a position under clause 57 of the Bill to meet them, when we are in a position or when the undertaking is in a good position to make a bargain. There is no reason why it should be taken over at the moment. It is scarcely possible as it is a British company. The Fishguard and Rosslare Company is also a British company with its head office in London, and again there is a provision made in Section 57 of the Bill for the after acquisition of those railways at a time that is convenient and suitable to the amalgamated undertaking and to the interests of Irish railway users.
I would like the Minister to enlarge a little upon his statement that he cannot take them over because they are British railways. Is that a considered statement or is there any good reason for that statement? Is that the reason why they should not be taken over?
It is a considered view. You cannot take over the company because it is registered as an English company at the moment.
Now we are getting into deep water. The Government of Ireland Act provided for certain things. The Treaty provided for other things, and the Constitution provided for still further things. I have been up till now under the impression that the Oireachtas had authority over everything within the Saorstát. Now it appears, if the Minister is right—which I doubt very much—that we have a say, except in the case of companies which have their headquarters in England. Surely that is not right.
You can do what is the equivalent of confiscation.
We have power to tell the G.S. and W.R. shareholders who live in Ireland that we may confiscate their property, but we have no power to take the property of shareholders in the Great Western Railway Company. The question of the residence of shareholders is the test as to whether it is confiscation or not. Really, this is rather serious. The Government of the Saorstát has not power to legislate regarding the amalgamation or absorption of companies and undertakings operating in the Saorstát, because the shareholders live outside the Saorstát. We are precluded from doing any such thing, because it is alleged to be confiscation. It is not confiscation if the shareholders live in Ireland. Is that the position?
It is wrong to have regard to the residence of shareholders in dealing with companies. The residence of shareholders does not affect the position of the company or the place where the company exists. The company is a person created by law, and the jurisdiction to deal with the company, as a company, depends upon where it is registered. What the Minister meant when he spoke of confiscation was this: you must look at an English company as if it were an English individual, living in England, who has a railway in the Saorstát. You can make a law to take over his permanent way, if you like, and so much of his rolling stock as you can get hold of, but he has been running his company from London with his own capital and his own means, and that you cannot get after. The only thing you can touch is the tangible property that happens to be within your jurisdiction. The assets, the investments and all the rest, of the company, are completely outside the jurisdiction. It is as if a person living in France was running a railway line in Ireland with the resources which he held in France. The only thing your jurisdiction can extend to is the permanent way, and so much of the rolling stock as happens to have rolled into your jurisdiction at the moment.
Again I think the Attorney-General has raised a very serious question. I read in the morning paper that certain persons living in London want to set up a business in Ireland called a Casino. We may not interfere with that, because it is the property of people resident in London.
You can make laws that will regulate the Casino and say how the Casino is to be carried on, but, when it comes to taking the property and amalgamating it with somebody else's Casino, all you can get hold of is the plaster walls and the minarets. The finance and the capital, and the other properties that go to the running of a concern of the kind, happen to be outside your jurisdiction. Last year a Private Bill was promoted in the British Parliament, which acts for the Council of Ireland as regards Northern Ireland, to enable the Lough Swilly Railway to borrow money. The Lough Swilly Railway is registered as a Company. Consequently it is, as it were, an individual living in Northern Ireland. The greater part of its permanent way is in the Saorstát. When the British Parliament, during the Private Bill procedure, came to consider the matter from that point of view, they cried a halt upon the Bill. They had the matter considered and brought officially to our notice. I do not know if, in the end, the Bill did pass into law. But, at the stage at which it was raised, they introduced a clause preventing the legislation affecting the permanent way or any of the assets of the company that lay within the Saorstát, and declaring that they were subject to our laws. The position is that, so far as the person, whether it be a company—that is to say a composite person—or a private person, is outside your jurisdiction, you cannot touch him, but you can regulate the thing within your jurisdiction, that is, the tangible part of it that you can get after and deal with.
I gather the position is that if you take over this Cork railway, you would, as if you were taking over any other railway, naturally compensate the company for it. But what you are buying in the present case is a loss in reality. You cannot get at the capital which is behind the railway, because it is in England. All you can touch is the actual lines and the carriages which are here.
The Deputy is dealing with one point, but the discussion has rather taken another turn. It may be undesirable to take over a losing company. But, to say that we have not the power to deal with the business and material possessions of a company within the Saorstát—which is what I take from the Minister for Industry and Commerce, and what I think, even the Attorney-General has said—fills me with astonishment. I think the difficulty that would be created would be very great if you had not any control over the business side of a company and can only take its possessions. I suggest that the very fact that a person retains possession, while living in another country, means that he has taken the risk of whatever laws will be passed in this country, and he must abide by them.
I do not know whether the Minister's explanation with regard to the non-paying nature of these two companies is satisfactory. The amendment was put down rather to find out why they were left out. It seems to me that in leaving them out you are placing the owners who happen to live in England in a position perhaps to destroy the efficiency of the new amalgamated company. If they can frustrate your actions or any linking up of one line with another, by retaining complete control over these linked lines, you are leaving very great powers in their hands and confessing that you have no power over them because their ownership is in England.
It is necessary to be quite clear as to what Deputy Johnson wishes to take over by this amendment. Let me confine myself to the first part—the Fishguard and Rosslare Railway Company. You are going to take over what that company owns, portion of a railway in Ireland, a harbour at Rosslare, a harbour at Fishguard, steamers plying between both ports and a line of railway in England. If Deputy Johnson thinks we have power to do that and realises that that is the import of his amendment, he can press it. On the second point, as to how far the efficiency of the amalgamated undertaking will be impaired by leaving what he calls control in the hands of an English company, it may be news to Deputy Johnson to know that their Irish lines are worked by the Great Southern and Western Railway Company. There is an arrangement by which the Great Southern and Western Company works them, so that anything in the way of efficiency or inefficiency depends on how the Great Southern and Western Company, which is to be part of the amalgamated undertaking, runs the lines.
Amendment put and declared lost.
Mr. MURPHY
I beg to move: —
To insert in the second column (absorbed company), after line 29, the words "Listowel and Ballybunion Railway Company."
Most of the Deputies and the public generally know that the Listowel and Ballybunion Railway is a line extending over ten miles, and that it is known as the Lartigue mono-rail system. The cost of acquiring or converting it to the ordinary gauge would not be excessive. The Great Southern and Western Railway Company. I believe, were contemplating, and would not object to acquiring it. The people of the district are anxious that the railway should be taken over under this Bill. It has been suggested that a difficulty arises in applying the terms of the Bill to the Listowel and Ballybunion Railway Company. The people in the district took legal advice recently and were informed that there would be no difficulty whatever in that respect. The entire interests of both companies have been for many years vested in one person, who is the owner of all the debenture stock issued. This debenture holder, it is understood, is ready and willing to treat for the taking over of his company at a very reasonable payment, and this being so, an agreement come to with him would be sanctioned by either the English or Irish courts as a matter of course, on the hearing of an application for the purpose. I believe it is generally felt in Kerry that the interests of every class there would be served by taking over the railway. For that reason I commend the amendment to the Dáil.
The Minister will realise that this is on an entirely different footing from the Blessington Steam Tramway Company. This railway goes through fields and not along the side of the road. It is a unique railway. In another respect it is different to the Blessington Steam Tramway Company inasmuch as it does not really run parallel with the Great Southern and Western Railway Company but serves an isolated district. I understand that there is a tremendous legal difficulty in the way, and that the Minister explained that difficulty to a deputation that interviewed him. If the legal difficulty could be got over I hope the Minister will see his way to meet the wishes of the Deputy. If that difficulty cannot be got over at the moment I would like an assurance that there are powers in the Bill to take over the company when the proper time comes.
The difficulty about this line is a distinctly legal difficulty. It is true that it is not so bankrupt a concern as the Dublin and Blessington Tramway, as the loss on the working of the Dublin and Blessington Tramway, I think, runs into as many thousands per annum as the Listowel and Ballybunion runs into hundreds. There is this difficulty, that while the Dublin and Blessington Tram Company would be glad to get rid of the loss per annum, and not ask any reward, the gentleman who holds control over the Listowel and Ballybunion Railway thinks he is entitled to ask for several thousands of pounds for the purchase of a loss of £700 yearly. I do not think that strikes anybody as a business proposition. The legal difficulty is the big difficulty. Here we have a Bill which provides that if agreement with regard to amalgamation be not reached, the tribunal shall settle the terms. Agreement cannot be reached with regard to the Ballybunion Railway. The only remedy under the Bill is that the tribunal shall settle the terms. There the difficulty arises. The Ballybunion Railway is mixed up with the Lartigue Construction Company, and that is in the English Court of Chancery.
The tribunal could not settle the terms under the present position, and I am informed that one extra peculiarity arises from the position of the Listowel and Ballybunion Railway. It is this: If the Ballybunion undertaking were included in the amalgamated undertaking the receiver and manager of the present Lartigue Railway Company would become automatically manager of the amalgamated undertaking. That is the legal position. These are difficulties, and they cannot be set aside. There is a way out and that way out is provided in the Bill. If the debenture holder can be brought to an agreement which will be sanctioned by the English Court then Clause 57 will operate. There is a post-amalgamation power for this company to be received into the united undertaking. It is not possible to have it received at the moment under the peculiar legal position. Under the terms of the Bill that determination must be made by the tribunal, but that determination is blocked by the Court of Chancery. Provision is made under Clause 57 for a line being taken over afterwards, if agreement be reached. It is now for the Listowel and Ballybunion Railway to see that an agreement will be reached which can be made operative, post-amalgamation, under Clause 57.
Why call this a railway at all? It would be just as sensible to say that a circus or merry-go-round was a railway. This is only a single rail raised about a yard from the ground. It would remind you of a person trying to ride a wheel of a bicycle. I do not think it is a railway at all.
I am still unfortunate in not being able to pick up these points regarding the legal difficulties. I thought we were making laws on these matters. I thought if we decided to make special provisions in this Bill to meet any difficulty, by this amendment and such consequential amendments as will be brought forward on the Report Stage, that that would be the law. However, the point is that we would be making the law regarding this railway as other railways. While it may not be politic to enter into that process, I think it is very undesirable for the Minister to put forward as a reason that because certain Chancery proceedings are taking place we are prevented from legislating here regarding any railway within the country.
Amendment put and declared lost.
The next amendment is 3 (a), marked 4 (b) in type. It deals with railway companies which are party within the Saorstát. I take it the amendment refers to the parts that are in the Saorstát.
I move amendment 3a: —
To insert in the respective columns the names of the following railway companies: —
|
Amalgamating Companies.
|
Absorbed Companies.
|
|
Great Northern Railway (Ireland).
|
The County Donegal Railways Joint Committee of the Great Northern Railway (Ireland) and the London, Midland and Scottish Railway.
|
|
Londonderry and Lough Swilly Railway Company, including the Letterkenny Railway, the Letterkenny and Burtonport Extension, the Carndonagh Railway, and the Strabane and Letterkenny Railway.
|
|
Sligo, Leitrim and Northern Counties Railway Company.
|
|
Dundalk, Newry and Greenore Railway Company.
|
The intention of the Government in introducing this Bill was to provide a scheme for the unification of all the railways within the Free State area. Apparently they have proceeded to assume —I am sure it was wrong for them to assume—that the present artificial boundary was to be the guiding influence in determining what railways were to come within the scheme. One never knows when the Boundary Commission, which was supposed to come into operation as a result of Clause 12 of the Treaty, will set about doing the work it was intended to do. It is reasonable, at any rate, to assume that if the Boundary Commission determines the future boundary of the Free State territory in accordance with the wishes of the inhabitants, that railways such as those now suggested to be brought in with the absorbed companies will be wholly within the Free State area. I think it is only reasonable to assume that that will happen, and in that case it is very desirable that this Bill should make provision for the inclusion of the companies named. The intention of the Bill being the unification of the railways within the Free State area, and assuming that all the mileage of the railways mentioned will come within the Free State area, as a result of the Boundary Commission, I think the Government should also decide and determine that these railways will become part of the new amalgamated company. It is very desirable that in any readjustment of the boundary line any system of railway organisation that may be decided upon should be, so far as it is possible to have it, a self-contained system within the Free State area.
As regards the Great Northern Railway and the present artificial boundary, the Great Northern Railway is cut at 16 or 18 different points. With the readjustment of the boundary in the way one may anticipate, I think that that will disappear and that it will become a clear line. Therefore, it would be very desirable that that section of the Great Northern line which would come into the Free State territory as a result of the readjustment of the boundary should also be included in the amalgamated company. I have never yet heard any reason from the Government as to why they did not anticipate such a state of affairs as a result of the Boundary Commission. I have never heard, either, why they have allowed to remain outside the companies to be amalgamated or absorbed, railway companies the greater portion of whose mileage is at present even inside Free State territory and whose headquarters as a matter of fact are in the Free State area. I would like to hear reasons why the Government have overlooked these things and I would like to know whether it is possible for the reasons I have stated to include these companies in the companies to be amalgamated and absorbed as the result of the operation of this Bill. The Government, of course, are the only people who know the real reason for the delay in bringing about some definite result arising out of clause 12 of the Treaty. I hope it is not unreasonable to assume that the whole question will be settled to the satisfaction of the Free State Government by the 1st January, 1925. If it is ever to be settled it will be settled by that date, and if it is settled by that date in the way that I anticipate it will, then I do not see that there is any great difficulty in the way of the Government accepting the amendment which I desire to move.
I am very much amazed to hear from Deputy Davin that he has not, so far, heard any reason from the Government as to why these railway were not brought in. I think he attended here and spoke on the Second Reading of the Bill, and the President very definitely devoted several paragraphs of his statement on Second Reading to the reasons for leaving out, for the moment, those portions of these railways named, which are inside the Saorstát. The reasons were mainly based on grounds of economy. Is it considered desirable to take the Great Northern Railway, which crosses the boundary at some fourteen or fifteen places, to split it up, to make a new series of small lines, presumably link those up with portions of line running inside the Saorstát boundary, as at present defined, or as may be defined at some time later, revalue all the stocks and shares, rolling stock and permanent way, divide up the value of the rolling stock and everything else between the new Saorstát line of the Great Northern and the Six-County side of the Great Northern? Then at some later date, when we get to a further revision of the boundary line, as Deputy Davin hopes, we will have a new revision, a new handing over of assets, and a new valuation. It is for that reason, and that reason alone, those railways, or those portions of railways, have been excluded—on grounds of economy, and an appreciation of the trouble that would be caused now and at some time hereafter in readjusting the split portions of these railways to meet the altered conditions later.
The Minister's explanation is rather bewildering. The Great Northern Railway Company has been cited. It is a company having its headquarters in Dublin. It has part of its business concern outside the present jurisdiction of the Saorstát. But it may not be amalgamated with another public company in the Saorstát, because to do so would necessitate splitting up this undertaking. There is never happened with hundreds of other concerns which have branches in Belfast. They have not necessarily had to split up their undertakings. There is no reason that I can see why the line should be broken and new lines built because the company is amalgamated. After all, what is proposed to be done but amalgamate the stocks in some way? Some financial changes are to take place and a new control is to be exercised. That is the change proposed in this Bill. Does that necessitate the cutting of the railways at the boundary? I cannot understand that. The legal position would be exactly the same as it is to-day. The only difference would be that the directorship would be changed and the holdings of the shares would be changed. A new name would be attached to the company. If the Minister had said that, with the coming of the Saorstát into existence, it had been necessary to split up the Great Northern Railway already, because of the boundary, then he would be right in regard to this proposal. But it has not yet been necessary to do that. Therefore, it will not be necessary under the amendment. Whatever other reasons there may be, surely this is not a good reason.
I looked on this amendment as having imported into it something of Deputy Davin's root and branch methods, and that in order to arrive at a correct estimate of what were the receipts flowing from the amalgamated company or that portion of the line of the Great Northern Company which was inside the Saorstát, he would come to the point ultimately of saying: "In order to know where we are, it is better to make this a complete Saorstát line." That is not now the proposal. The proposal is, apparently, to let the actual permanent way run in and out across the boundary, and to make a division of receipts. I suggest that you are not lessening your difficulties very much by that. The difficulties will remain—the difficulties of finding what proportion of traffic which runs in and out on this line should be credited to the amalgamated undertaking and what portion of it should be credited to the portion of the great Northern line which is outside the Saorstát.
Why would that be necessary? What happens to-day? What happens is, that the takings or revenue come into Amiens Street. That would happen in the future. There need not be any division of any kind, so far as the Great Northern Railway is concerned. The legislative or administrative jurisdiction would be under two authorities, but the finances would be exactly as they are to-day until the amalgamated company would get the benefit of the Northern traffic. That, I think, should entice the Minister to agree to this proposal. If the Northern end of the line is to be detached by the action of whatever is the legislative authority or administrative authority which exercises jurisdiction over the Six-County area—and I am doubtful as to what is that authority—the onus of cutting the line will be upon them, and inasmuch as the company has its headquarters in Dublin the finances and takings will simply follow the usual course. If there is any demur from people in the Six Counties against that course, the onus of splitting the line will be upon them, and if there is any loss it will be theirs. I suggest, for the consideration of the Dáil, that that is one good reason why we should accept this amendment. It will be a more effective method of bringing the people interested in Great Northern Railway stock to appreciate the advantages of unified control of the railways than any other method I can suggest. It will be an advantage to the amalgamated company inasmuch as the authority exercising administrative and legislative control over the Northern part of the railway will be slow to make that physical division. But if they dare to do it, the chief loss will be upon the Great Northern Railway Company and the Northern traders. I do not think they would do any such thing or attempt any such thing. I suggest that if there is no other reason for advocating unification of all the railways in the Saorstát and amalgamating them into one company, that is a very good reason, and it is a very good reason why we should legislate in this direction at this stage, and bring the Great Northern and those other companies which run through Saorstát territory within the scope of this Bill.
There is a word or two I wish to say on this amendment. First of all, the Great Northern Railway is the railway more particularly subject to the provisions of the Government of Ireland Act, 1920, and these were kept alive as regards the Council of Ireland. It is a railway which covers ground both in the Six Counties and in the Twenty-six Counties, and so much of that railway as operates in the Six Counties is under the jurisdiction that was substituted for the Council of Ireland in Northern Ireland. The operations of the Council of Ireland provisions were by agreement postponed for a period of five years.
By agreement between whom?
The two Governments, the Provisional Government and the Northern Government.
Was that authorised by the Act itself?
It was given effect to in a statute I will mention in a moment. The entire of the jurisdiction of the Council of Ireland so far as the Free State was concerned was transferred by the Treaty to the Free State Government. The entire of it was transferred. We have absolute control, and I do not think that Deputy Johnson is quite serious when he says that the Minister conveyed that we had not full legislative authority in the Free State in dealing with the railways. We have, absolutely. But so far as the Six Counties were concerned the setting up of the Council of Ireland was postponed for five years, and the jurisdiction was to be exercised by the British Government. That has been given effect to in an Act that was passed by the British Parliament at the same time that it gave statutory recognition to the Constitution that we had passed here. It is an Act called the Irish Free State (Consequential Provisions) Act.
What was the Irish Act approximating to that?
On what powers was the agreement made?
No powers were necessary. The entire functions of the Council of Ireland are vested in the Free State Government so far as we are concerned. It only needed the Northern Government to assent to the powers of the Council of Ireland being exercised by the British Government, and in so far as joint action would be taken with reference to a railway affecting both parts of the country, it would be a matter for agreement between the British Government and our own Government. That is the position as regards the Great Northern Railway. We have absolute jurisdiction to legislate for the Great Northern Railway in so far as it is within the Twenty-Six Counties. The British Government has power to legislate for so much of it as is within the jurisdiction of the Six Counties. The other railways proposed to be absorbed in this amendment, or a couple of them, are much in the same position as was mentioned on another amendment. That is to say, they are run by companies registered in Northern Ireland, as in the case of the Lough Swilly Railway, or in England, as in the case of the Dundalk, Newry and Greenore Railway. I refer to them specially in order to repudiate any suggestion that we cannot legislate for railways so far as they are in the Saorstát. We can. The running of the railways, their permanent way, rolling stock, everything connected with their traffic, are absolutely within the jurisdiction of the Oireachtas. The owner of the concern may be outside the jurisdiction. He may be an American. We cannot legislate for him. We cannot compel him to part with the assets he holds, say, in New York. The true way of looking at this is by taking any other country. There is no peculiar position as between an English company and the Free State. The position is exactly the same as if, say, a French company, or an American company, owned, we will say, the Londonderry and Lough Swilly Railway. You have complete jurisdiction over their permanent way, their rolling stock, their management, everything connected with their traffic, regulations of their tariffs and everything like that. But you have no jurisdiction to get hold of the French owner or the American owner and compel him to deal with the property that he holds outside the Free State, in the same particular way as, for instance, by blending it into an Irish company, and transferring the shares of his French or American company and amalgamating them with the stock of an Irish company.
If the Government decided to nationalise the railways inside the Free State on a revised boundary, do I take it then that they would not have power to include in the scheme of nationalisation railways with their offices registered outside the Free State area?
The easier way to get the thing clear is to regard it not as a company but as a private person who is the owner. You can nationalise the entire of their permament way, the rolling stock, everything that is within your territory, but you cannot nationalise the individual who is in Paris and compel him to part with the assets and investments by which perhaps he finances that railway.
Then the answer is that you cannot nationalise these railways?
Yes, you can nationalise the property in so far as it is within your jurisdiction, but you cannot nationalise the individual owner, who is a foreigner. That is to say, you cannot touch the company as such; you may strip it of its railway. It would be purely a matter of international impossibility. It does not depend upon the relations between England and Ireland at all. It is identically the same if you take an American, French or any other company.
I do not think there is any need to tell us that if a man has scrip in Adelaide or San Francisco he can keep it there; it is no use until it comes here in some way or other. But the thing behind the scrip is surely within our control. The thing the scrip represents is surely within our control? If that represents tangible assets in this country, surely that is a railway and the railway company in fact. I would like if the Attorney-General would explain the procedure whereby the powers of the Council of Ireland were exercised by the Provisional Government. As far as I can read it was the Parliament that gave powers to the Council and not the Executive. And if there had been any transfer or any agreements regarding the transfer of power, or postponing action for five years, these agreements and decisions should have been made by the Parliament, and not by the Executive. Perhaps the Attorney-General might be allowed to give us a little explanation on that point?
I do not know if the Ceann Comhairle will allow this subject to be discussed. I am afraid I have either misled the Deputy or else he has misunderstood me. The Provisional Government gave nothing away; they could not. The entire functions of the Council of Ireland, so far as that element that was to have been set up in respect to the Twenty-six Counties was concerned, are vested in this Parliament. That was not affected or modified in any way whatever. The Northern people, who were entitled under the Act of 1920 to appoint certain persons to constitute a Council of Ireland from their own end, preferred to let the British Government exercise the powers sooner than nominate those individuals. It seemed a more feasible scheme, and for five years they have elected to let the British Government act in the position of a Council of Ireland for them, but nothing else has been touched. It is their business, not ours.
Had not the Free State some right to speak in that matter? The Council of Ireland was a unity when it was set up and the Free State are had, by means of that, a joint control. At least no other authority, even the British authority, had any more control over railways in Northern Ireland than the Free State had, except in so far as the construction or extension of existing lines was concerned. It seems to me that if the Ministry have agreed to allow the British Parliament and Government to act for the Northern Parliament in respect to the Council of Ireland, they have agreed to something they had no right to agree to.
I do not wish to convey that they agreed. I have tried to convey that the Northern people preferred to be represented for that purpose by the British Government for a temporary period until other matters might work themselves out. I do not want to commit myself to any statement that might seem an agreement with the suggestion that the Council of Ireland remained a unity after the Treaty.
If it remained anything at all it was a unity surely?
Deputy Johnson must remember that the Council of Ireland was the creation of the Government of Ireland Act, 1920, which we have always refused to recognise.
No. We have only agreed to recognise the Government of Ireland Act of 1920 in so far as it is concerned with Northern Ireland——
It has been repealed as regards the Free State, and under the Treaty it was specifically provided that all the powers that were reserved from the projected Government of Southern Ireland, under the Government of Ireland Act, 1920, and given to the Council of Ireland, were taken from that Council and given to the Government of the Free State. I do not want to assent to the proposition that the Council of Ireland, as a unity, continued to exist after that, and I will point out to Deputy Johnson the very grave result that that would have: it would give the Northern Government representatives a voice in ruling our railways, our fisheries, our Diseases of Animals Act, and the other matters that were reserved for the Council of Ireland. I would ask Deputy Johnson, before he commits himself to the preservation of the unity of that body, that he would weigh carefully the effect it might have.
I think we have gone far enough from the amendment. This whole question of constitutional interpretation of Acts and Treaties should arise in a different way. We have travelled a certain distance from the railways.
But it all affects this amendment.
If the Attorney-General's interpretation is correct, it certainly does not. We are getting into a deeper question than the railways, even. The subject is quite worthy of discussion, but not exactly at this stage.
My complaint is that the Attorney-General, like the Minister, is looking at a scheme for the unification of the railways with the present arrangement of the boundary. He is taking the Twenty-Six Counties as a unit to be dealt with separately. I put it to him that if, as we all hope, in the very near future—before the 31st July next perhaps, and certainly before the 1st January, 1925—there is a revision of the boundary, which will bring into the Free State territory the railways mentioned as additional railways for the absorbed companies, then I contend that the Government are not treating this scheme of unification in the way that it should be treated, if they leave out companies which, as a result of the boundary revision, will come wholly into the Free State. It is news to discover from the Attorney-General—although I know we have— that we have power to legislate on all matters dealing with the railways; but simply because a railway company has its registered office outside the jurisdiction of the Saorstát, we cannot deal with it in a scheme for nationalisation or unification.
That has not been said, Deputy Davin. The Minister and Attorney-General have been weary explaining that that is not the case. If we get on to that again we will go round in a circle. If the Deputy does not understand the legal difficulty in the matter he should make an endeavour to understand it, somehow.
I certainly admit that I have not got the legal mind. I am only trying to look at it from the practical point of view and to get the Minister to explain why, under certain circumstances that it is possible to anticipate, he will not make provision for the unification of railways mentioned in the list of companies to be absorbed. I have been fully alive to the fact all along that the Belfast Parliament has not the power to deal with the scheme of railway unification so far as it affected railways or railway mileage in its area in the same way as we are dealing with the scheme here. As a matter of fact, if the statement made by the President on a recent occasion, that as a result of the refusal of the Northern people to appoint a commissioner on the Boundary Commission, we have reverted to the position the Free State occupied previous to the Six Counties being voted out of it, is correct, then I contend that we should be dealing with all the railways and the railway mileage in the 32 counties. If that is the position we occupy to-day, then the question of splitting the Great Northern line on its present temporary boundary does not arise and should not arise. The main point is this: if the scheme is a scheme for the unification of all the railways in the Free State territory, not the territory with its present artificial boundary but with a boundary we may anticipate as a result of clause 12 of the Treaty, then I say a case has been made for the inclusion of the railways mentioned in the list to be absorbed, and also so far as it affects the Great Northern line up to the new boundary line that we may anticipate will arise out of the decision of the Boundary Commission. I think the Minister should look at it from the point of view of what may happen as a result of boundary revision, and seeing that the Bill provides for a unification scheme, he should include the railways which are suggested in the amendment. He should give some answer as to what is to happen if the total mileage of the Great Northern line comes into the Free State territory as a result of the boundary revision, and I ask him to give some indication as to whether these lines should be included in a new amalgamated company.
In the event of what is mentioned by Deputy Davin occurring, I promise to introduce a new amending Bill.
That is my contention. It means a new Bill.
We prefer to do it at once.
AN LEAS-CHEANN COMHAIRLE at this stage took the Chair.
Amendment put.
The Committee divided: Tá, 10; Níl, 31.
Tá
- John Conlan.
- Connor Hogan.
- Tomás Mac Eoin.
- Tomás de Nógla.
- Ailfrid O Broin.
- Tomás O Conaill.
- Liam O Daimhín.
- Eamon O Dubhghaill.
- Tadhg O Murchadha.
- Pádraig O hOgáin (An Clár).
Níl
- Séamus Breathnach.
- Seoirse de Bhulbh.
- Séamus de Búrca.
- Máighréad Ní Choileáin Bean Uí
- Dhrisceóil.
- Patrick J. Egan.
- Seán de Faoite.
- Desmond Fitzgerald.
- John Hennigan.
- Liam T. Mac Cosgair.
- Maolmhuire Mac Eochadha.
- Pádraig Mac Fadáin.
- Pádraig Mac Giollagáin.
- Seoirse Mac Niocaill.
- Liam Mag Aonghusa.
- Pádraig S. Mag Ualghairg.
- Martin M. Nally.
- Peadar O hAodha.
- 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.
- Fionán O Loingsigh.
- James O'Mara.
- Séamus O Murchadha.
- Seán M. O Súilleabháin.
- Liam Thrift.
Amendment declared lost.
Question: "That the Schedule be the First Schedule of the Bill"—put and agreed to.
SECOND SCHEDULE.
BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF AMALGAMATED COMPANY.
PART I.
FIRST YEAR.
1. For the period commencing on the date when the amalgamation scheme comes into operation and ending on the date of the general meeting of the amalgamated company in the following year, the company shall be directed by a board consisting of such number of persons as may be fixed by the amalgamation scheme or schemes, and not exceeding fifteen or less than twelve.
2. Before the date when the amalgamation scheme comes into operation the proprietors of each amalgamating company shall elect from amongst the directors of such company holding office at the time such number as may be fixed by the scheme to serve as a director or directors of the amalgamated company as aforesaid.
3. The directors so elected shall hold office until the date of the said general meeting and shall then retire, but any director so retiring may, if otherwise qualified, be elected as a director of the company under the provisions hereinafter contained.
4. In the event of a casual vacancy occurring during the said period amongst the directors, the vacancy shall be filled by a person co-opted by the directors, being a person who was a director of the amalgamating company by the proprietors of which the vacating director was elected.
PART II.
AFTER THE FIRST YEAR.
1. As from the date of the general meeting of the amalgamated company in the year following that in which the amalgamation scheme comes into operation, the company shall be directed by a board of directors consisting of such number of members elected by the proprietors of the company as may be specified in the scheme not exceeding fifteen or less than twelve.
2. The qualification of a director shall be the holding in his own right of such amount of the share capital of the amalgamated company as may be specified in the scheme, and, subject as hereinafter provided, the term of office of such a director shall be three years, but on retirement he may, if otherwise qualified, be reelected.
3. Any casual vacancy occurring amongst the directors shall be filled by a person co-opted by the other directors, and any director co-opted to fill a casual vacancy shall hold office for the same period as that for which his predecessor would have held office.
4. On the first election of directors, one-third of the total number of directors or if their number is not a multiple of three, then the number nearest but not exceeding one-third (failing agreement to be selected by lot) shall be deemed to have been elected for one year, and one-third or such nearest number as aforesaid (failing agreement to be selected by lot) for two years.
5. Subject to the foregoing provisions of this Schedule, the provisions of the Companies Clauses Consolidation Act, 1845, with respect to the appointment and rotation of directors shall apply.
Amendments 4, 5, 6 and 7 to this Schedule, standing in my name, have reference to the claim of the London, Midland and Scottish Railway Company to a Director on the Dublin and South-Eastern Company in accordance with an agreement which was conferred by statutory enactment. This is a matter I raised a few weeks ago on an amendment to an early section in the Bill. The President then promised the House that he would have the matter considered on Report Stage, and pending that I ask leave to withdraw these amendments.
Amendments, by leave, withdrawn.
The Second Schedule was agreed to and added to the Bill.
THIRD SCHEDULE.
EXISTING OFFICERS AND SERVANTS.
The following provisions shall apply in respect to persons who at the date of the passing of this Act are, and for a period of not less than five years have been, officers or servants of any amalgamating company or absorbed company, and who shall not, prior to the amalgamating or absorption of such amalgamating or absorbed company, have become pensioners or annuitants in accordance with the rules of any railway pension or superannuation fund of which they may be members, or have voluntarily retired, or have been removed from the service of any such amalgamating or absorbed company by reason of misconduct or incapacity (all of which officers and servants are in this Schedule hereinafter referred to as "existing officers and servants"): —
(1) Every existing officer and servant shall, as from the date of amalgamation or absorption, become an officer or servant of the amalgamated company.
(2) The amalgamated company may abolish the office or situation of any existing officer or servant which they may deem unnecessary, and any existing officer or servant required to perform duties such as are not analogous or which are an unreasonable addition to those which as an officer or servant of the company from which he was transferred he was required to perform may relinquish his office or situation.
(3) No existing officer or servant so transferred shall without his consent be by reason of such transfer in any worse position in respect to the conditions of his service as a whole (including tenure of office, remuneration, gratuities, pension, superannuation, sick fund or any benefits or allowances, whether obtaining legally or by customary practice of the amalgamating or absorbed company) as compared with the conditions of service formerly obtaining with respect to him.
(4) If any existing officer or servant so transferred is, without his consent, in any such worse position as aforesaid by reason of such transfer and has thereby suffered any loss or injury, he shall be entitled to be paid by the amalgamated company such lump sum as would reasonably compensate him for such loss or injury, the amount of such lump sum to be determined by the amalgamated company (subject to appeal as hereinafter provided).
(5) Every existing officer or servant whose office or situation is so abolished, or who so relinquishes his office or service, or whose services are dispensed with on the ground that they are not required or for any other reason not being on account of any misconduct or incapacity, or whose remuneration or emoluments are reduced on the ground that his duties have been diminished, or who otherwise suffers any direct pecuniary loss by reason of the amalgamation or absorption (including any loss of prospective superannuation or other retiring or death allowances and allowances to his widow or orphan children, whether obtaining legally or by customary practice of the amalgamating or absorbed company), shall be entitled to be paid compensation by the amalgamated company, the amount of such compensation to be determined by the amalgamated company (subject to appeal as hereinafter provided) in accordance with the following rules, that is to say:—
(a) the compensation shall be an annual allowance to be paid to the existing officer or servant during his life and to be calculated at the rate of one-sixtieth of his remuneration and emoluments for every completed year of his service, with an addition thereto based on the number of completed years of his service and calculated according to the following scale: — if he has twenty or more completed years of service, an addition of ten-sixtieths of his remuneration and emoluments, if he has fifteen or more completed years of service and less than twenty such years, an addition of seven-sixtieths of his remuneration and emoluments, if he has ten or more completed years of service and less than fifteen such years, an addition of five-sixtieths of his remuneration and emoluments, if he has five or more completed years of service and less than ten such years, an addition of three-sixtieths of his remuneration and emoluments:
(b) in the case of an existing officer or servant who was appointed to his office as a specially qualified person at an age exceeding that at which railway service usually begins, his actual period of service with an amalgamating or absorbed company may be increased by the addition of such number of years as may seem just, having regard to the particular circumstances of the case, and thereupon his compensation shall be calculated on such increased period of service;
(c) In the case of an existing officer or servant who suffers any such loss of prospective superannuation or other retiring or death allowance as aforesaid, such addition as may seem just, having regard to all the circumstances of the case, may be made to the compensation otherwise authorised by this Schedule to be awarded to him:
(d) for the purpose of the calculation of the compensation under this Schedule, the remuneration and emoluments of an existing officer or servant shall be taken to be the average amount of remuneration and emoluments received by him from an amalgamating or absorbed company during the three years next before the third day of April 1924.
(6) For the purpose of this Schedule, any solicitor who for the period of five years next before the date of the passing of this Act has acted solely for an amalgamating or absorbed company as their chief or assistant legal adviser on a salary shall be deemed to be an existing officer of that company.
(7) Any person who is in receipt of an annual allowance by way of compensation under this Schedule may, within one year from the date on which the amount of such allowance is fixed, apply to the amalgamated company to commute not more than one-fourth of such annual allowance by payment of a capital sum of money to be calculated by the amalgamated company in accordance with the provision in that behalf contained in the amalgamation scheme, and no such application for commutation shall be unreasonably refused by the amalgamated company.
(8) If any existing officer or servant shall feel aggrieved by the decision of the amalgamated company on any matter to be determined by it under the foregoing rules, or if any dispute or question shall arise between any existing officer or servant and the amalgamated company on any matter arising under this Schedule, such existing officer or servant may appeal to a standing arbitrator or board of arbitrators appointed by the Chief Justice, who shall hear and determine such appeal and whose decision thereon shall be final. The amount of the fee payable to such standing arbitrator or to each member of such Loard of arbitrators on any such appeal shall be fixed by the Chief Justice and shall be paid by the amalgamated company.
I beg to move amendment No. 8: —
To delete in lines 34 and 35, page 33, the words "at the date of the passing of this Act are" and substitute therefor the words "on the 3rd day of April, 1924, were."
This amendment is designed to make provision for compensation as laid down in the Bill for those who are in the service of the companies themselves or in the Irish Railway Clearing House at the date of the introduction of the Bill. It is to be hoped that the companies who are to form the amalgamated group, or, on the other hand, the Railway Clearing House, will not take advantage of the introduction of this Bill, or the time between the introduction and the passing of the Bill as an Act, to get rid of any of their servants, and in that way escape the liability for compensation terms as laid down in the Bill. At any rate, the amendment is designed to protect them in that respect by inserting the date of the 3rd April, and I hope the Minister will see his way to accept the amendment for the reason I have given. It is a very necessary protection, and I think anyone in the employment of the companies concerned on the date of the introduction of the measure is entitled to the protection which the amendment seeks to give them.
As far as this amendment is a mere substitution of the words "3rd April, 1924," for the date of the passing of the Act, I have no objection to it. I might point out to the Deputy that it antedates the period of qualification for existing officers or servants by a few months and it may shut out a few men. However, I am quite agreeable.
Amendment agreed to.
I move to delete in lines 35 and 36, page 33, the words "and for a period of not less than five years have been." This amendment seeks to give the benefit of the Compensation Clauses to servants of the amalgamated company or clearing house who may be in the employment of the company or clearing house for a period less than five years at the date of the passing of the Bill. I hope that the Minister can see his way to accept it.
The effect of accepting this would be, of course, very much greater than in the case of the acceptance of amendment No. 8. This would be to cut out the period of five years. It would then read that the provisions should apply in respect of persons who, on the 3rd April, 1924, were officers and servants of any amalgamating or absorbed company; that is to say, a person with even a month's employment would become pensionable. There is no limit at all; a period of a month would suffice to get a man a pension. That, of course, is too wide altogether. The provision in the Bill is that five years is a necessary minimum period before a pension will be granted. The terms are better than would be given under the Civil Service regulations, because ten years is the minimum period before a pension is paid in that case, and when you take into consideration the further fact that very few railway officials at the moment are pensionable it will be realised how generous are the terms proposed. The amendment cannot be accepted.
The scale of compensation only begins after one year's service, so that even though these words were deleted it could not apply to a person who had only one month's service. In any event if we begin with the one year's service the cost would be very small indeed. There is an amendment in the name of Deputy William A. Redmond to substitute "three" for "five," and perhaps the Minister would be prepared to accept that. There seems to me very good reason why that figure should be adopted if the Minister cannot accept the amendment of Deputy Davin, inasmuch as three years is the accepted period under the Insurance Act. Under that Act, after three years a man is exempt from payment into the Insurance Fund. Three years is looked upon as the period of permanent service, and certificates of exemption under that Act are given in cases of three years' service. Three years is therefore a much more obvious period than five.
The position I start off from is as I have already explained. Very few railway employees are at present pensionable. It is proposed to put them into a position to receive a pension if they have had five years' service. Five years, taken into consideration with the ten years' period for civil servants, is considered reasonable.
The Minister must take note of the fact that the legislation which he proposes to put into operation will be the cause of the redundancy of these people, who otherwise would not have anticipated being fired out on the street, so to speak. The young men who, three years ago, had reason to look forward to a railway career in the clearing house or in any of the companies that will now form part of the amalgamated company, will have to look out for some other employment if they are found to be redundant. That will have a serious effect upon their future careers. They have to look for other employment at a time when they are over age for alternative work that would be considered equally suitable to that which they are leaving. I think that they are entitled to some consideration because the operations of the Act will have placed them in a position that they did not anticipate three or four years ago when they entered the service. I think the case Deputy Johnson has referred to, in connection with the operations of the British Unemployment Insurance Act of 1920, should carry some weight with the Minister in getting him to compromise on the three years' period in this particular case. I hope that he will see his way to do it for the reasons I have given.
I would like to point out to Deputy Davin that at present the wastage in the services necessitates recruitment yearly to a considerable degree. If you stop recruitment you can very readily find employment for those who would be redundant, if there would be any redundant, and therefore I do not think that anything can be said against the terms in the Bill.
Mr. O'CONNELL
Of course, Deputy Wilson is arguing in favour of the amendment. If there will only be so very few to compensate then that is all the more reason why the Minister should agree to give compensation to the few who will be knocked out.
I cannot follow the logic of that. There is a wastage in the service which has to be filled by recruitment yearly. I presume that that would not be less than 100. I have no idea as to how much it is, but I am aware that examinations are held at various intervals in the year. If by reason of the Bill there is a surplus of men, what would be wrong with the idea of not having any examinations, but to employ again these men who have been displaced? Is not that a very reasonable proposal? You would not have to pension them.
Mr. O'CONNELL
And then, of course, as I may point out again to Deputy Wilson, if no men are to be dispensed with this amendment will not come into operation, and the Minister will lose nothing.
Amendment put.
The Committee divided: Tá, 9; Níl, 35.
Tá
- Seán de Faoite.
- Séamus Mac Cosgair.
- Tomás Mac Eoin.
- Tomás de Nógla.
- Tomás O Conaill.
- Liam O Daimhín.
- Eamon O Dubhghaill.
- Tadhg O Murchadha.
- Pádraig O hOgáin (An Clár).
Níl
- Seoirse de Bhulbh.
- Próinsias Bulfin.
- Séamus de Búrca.
- John Conlan.
- Máighréad Ní Choileáin Bean Uí
- Dhrisceóil.
- Patrick J. Egan.
- Osmond Grattan Esmonde.
- Desmond Fitzgerald.
- John Hennigan.
- Connor Hogan.
- Liam T. Mac Cosgair.
- Pádraig Mac Fadáin.
- Pádraig Mac Giollagáin.
- Risteárd Mac Liam.
- 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.
- Seán O Bruadair.
- Aodh Ua Cinnéidigh.
- Partholán O Conchubhair.
- Séamus N. O Dóláin.
- Peadar S. O Dubhghaill.
- Pádraig O Dubhthaigh.
- Eamon S. O Dúgáin.
- Fionán O Loingsigh.
- James O'Mara.
- Domhnall O Mocháin.
- Patrick K. Hogan (Luimneach).
- Seán M. O Súilleabháin.
- Liam Thrift.
Amendment declared lost.
I beg to move the following amendment, which stands in the name of Deputy Redmond:—
To delete in line 36, page 33, the word "five" and to substitute therefor the word "three."
As I have already explained, the provisions of the Unemployment Insurance Act assume that service over three years implies permanent service. It seems to be much more reasonable to fix three years, if any limit of this kind is to be fixed, than five.
The same objections will apply to this. I need not restate them. People are at present without pension; they are not on a pensionable basis, and we propose to put them on a pensionable basis when they have served a certain period. Five years seems to us, on the balance of things, to be the most reasonable period that could be set before pensions rights accrue.
The Minister should not overlook the fact that when individuals who are likely to come into this particular class entered the railway service they did so on the distinct understanding that they were entering a service where they were likely to find permanent employment. In the case of the clerical staff they have to serve a probationery period of twelve months, after which they enter into a superannuation fund. In the case of redundancy arising out of the British Railway Act it is found in practice that it is always cheaper for the railway company to declare the younger men redundant rather than the older men. I think that young men who have short service, and whose careers have been upset, owing to something which was not foreseen at the time they entered the service, should have some such consideration as is asked for them in the amendment. I think the Minister should endeavour to meet the situation in the compromising way it has been put up in the amendment. He has made no advance at all in regard to the circumstances, and I think he would be well advised to do so and get a favourable passage for the remainder of the Bill.
The Deputy seems to forget that this is a compromise. The basis that appealed to the framers of the Bill first, was a ten years' basis, founded on the Civil Service regulation, so that five years really represents a compromise.
Amendment put.
The Committee divided: Tá, 7; Níl, 31.
Tá
- Tomás Mac Eoin.
- Tomás de Nógla.
- Tomás O Conaill.
- Liam O Daimhín.
- Eamon O Dubhghaill.
- Tadhg O Murchadha.
- Pádraig O hOgáin (An Clár).
Níl
- Séamus Breathnach.
- Seoirse de Bhulbh.
- Próinsias Bulfin.
- Séamus de Búrca.
- Máighréad Ní Choileáin Bean Uí
- Dhrisceóil.
- Patrick J. Egan.
- Osmond Grattan Esmonde.
- Desmond Fitzgerald.
- John Hennigan.
- Liam T. Mac Cosgair.
- Pádraig Mac Fadáin.
- Pádraig Mac Giollagáin.
- Seoirse Mac Niocaill.
- Liam Mac Sioghaird.
- Liam Mag Aonghusa.
- Pádraig S. Mag Ualghairg.
- Martin M. Nally.
- Peadar O hAodha.
- Mícheál O hAonghusa.
- Seán O Bruadair.
- Aodh Ua Cinnéidigh.
- Partholán O Conchubhair.
- Séamus N. O Dóláin.
- Peadar S. O Dubhghaill.
- Pádraig O Dubhthaigh.
- Eamon S. O Dúgáin.
- Fionán O Loingsigh.
- James O'Mara.
- Seán M. O Súilleabháin.
- Liam Thrift.
- Criostóir O Broin.
Amendment declared lost.
I beg to move:—
After the word "Perform," line 55, to insert the words "or who at the date of the passing of this Act has attained the age of 65 years."
This amendment is intended to facilitate the retirement of men who cannot retire at present owing to the absence or inadequacy of pension provisions, who are kept on as a kind of charity, blocking promotion, and who are not able to discharge their duties efficiently. The number of cases in which this amendment could be availed of is very small. It applies to a few people at present employed in the Irish Railway Clearing House. I hope the Minister will see his way to accept the amendment.
The effect of this amendment would be to change the existing conditions to a large extent. Whether it would be availed of to a large extent is another matter. The effect of the amendment would be, that every employee aged 65 years, at the date of the passing of the Act, could opt to leave the service on pension, where at present he has no right to a pension, and irrespective of whether or not his post disappeared as a result of the amalgamation. It would give pensionable rights to employees not now entitled to a pension whether or not they suffered loss of office arising out of amalgamation.
The intention of the amendment is not to bring in people such as the Minister has referred to. It is really only intended to cover the case of a few men who are employed at present in the Irish Railway Clearing House. It would not cost very much to put it into operation. That is what is in the mind, at any rate, of the people who have put forward this amendment.
I think Deputy Davin has fallen into a mistake that many members who move amendments make. They intend one thing, but do not put it down.
I am quite prepared to leave it to the Minister to bring in a suitable form of words to cover the small number of cases affected.
If Deputy Davin means to include people who, being sixty-five years of age and having served for more than a five-year period, suffer loss by reason of amalgamation, then they are already protected.
There is an advantage, of course, even in putting forward amendments of the nature that Deputy O'Sullivan shies at, inasmuch as it allows the Minister to explain what is in the Bill. If no amendments were put forward, if we all followed Deputy O'Sullivan's example, we would not know what the Bill meant. It would go through the procedure of the Dáil and it would be imposed upon the public. There would be no explanation and no understanding of it. It would simply be imposed. Deputy O'Sullivan has avoided the necessity of eliciting explanations from the Minister, but I think he might agree that even amendments put down in the way that Deputy Davin's amendment has been put down has at least brought forward an explanation that Deputy O'Sullivan's failure to suggest any amendments could not have done. The Bill, of course, according to the members on the Government benches, is word perfect; it could not be amended. As produced from the Ministerial Bill factory, it is absolutely perfect in the minds of the members of the Government party and no amendment or explanation is required.
Deputy Johnson must speak to this particular amendment.
I should like to say that what struck me was to find a member of the Front Labour Bench falling into the mistake that Deputy Johnson taunted the Minister with having fallen into the other day, of having one intention but suggesting a form of words contrary to that——
That does not arise in this amendment.
Deputy O'Sullivan seems to be quite pleased that a member of the Front Labour Bench should have fallen into a mistake. The person who does not make a mistake can never make anything. Deputy O'Sullivan is to be complimented on the fact that he is a very able second to the Minister in smashing up anything that the Minister cannot see in a favourable light. As a matter of fact the amendment was only put into my hands to-day. I was not even honoured with a copy of the amendment until I got up to move it. I thought it was sufficiently explained in the few short words I said when moving it, and as it would not have the effect of rushing the amalgamated company into bankruptcy, I thought the Minister would have accepted it.
Amendment put and declared lost.
I move Amendment 11:—
In provision 5, line 74, page 33, to delete the word "service" and to substitute therefor the word "situation."
I am sure this amendment will be accepted. It expresses what I intend at any rate. It is a mere attempt to preserve identity in phraseology, if I may say so, and there is no reason why it should not be accepted.
Amendment put, and agreed to.
Amendment 12 not moved.
I move Amendment 13:—
In provision 5 (a), page 34, to delete the word "and" in line 12, and insert in lieu thereof the words "not exceeding in any case two-thirds of his remuneration and emoluments, and, subject to that intimation."
The effect of the amendment is to provide for the maximum pension of two-thirds of salary and emoluments.
Amendment put, and agreed to.
Amendment 14 not moved.
Amendment 15 not moved.
Amendment 16. "To add at the end of provision 5 (a) the following proviso:—
"Provided that in computing the period of service of any existing officer or servant, service under any railway company, railway joint committee, or railway conference which has carried on business or discharged functions in Ireland (including companies or committees whose undertakings form part of the undertakings of the amalgamating or absorbed companies) shall be reckoned as service under the amalgamating or absorbed or amalgamated company in whose employment he was at the time of the happening of the event which gives rise to the claim for compensation, and if any existing officer or servant was temporarily absent from his employment whilst engaged in military service or any other employment of national importance such service shall be reckoned as service under the railway undertaking on which he was employed immediately before such temporary absence."
Mr. O'CONNELL
There are two propositions in this amendment. In the first place, it makes provision whereby all the years of service which a railway servant has given will be taken into account for the purpose of calculating the compensation which he is entitled to under this particular Schedule. It may happen that a man transferred during the course of his railway career from one company to another, and the amendment provides that all his years of railway service will count. As the matter stands now, only the years he has served with a particular company where he happens to be at the moment would, so far as I can understand the matter, in any case, be taken into account. I think the claim which is made, that all the years he has served should count, is quite a fair one. In the second portion of the amendment, it is provided that an officer or servant who has been temporarily absent from his employment and has been engaged in military service or other employment of national importance should have these years counted for the purpose of this compensation or superannuation. That is a principle which has already been admitted in at least some cases. I think it ought to be taken into account in this case also. I move the amendment.
Perhaps I might deal with the amendment in the two parts into which Deputy O'Connell has himself divided it. The first portion is too wide. It deals with service in any railway company. I am informed that there are railway servants at present employed by an amalgamating company who had previous service in an American company. Service in that American company would count under this amendment.
The amendment deals only with railway companies which have carried on business or discharged functions in Ireland.
Even limiting it to that, what is intended to have in the Bill is service limited to companies whose undertakings form part of the amalgamated or absorbed companies. Why should a Bill grouping certain railways in Ireland deal with officers or servants or periods of service not with the undertakings affected by the Bill itself? The amendment, as it is drafted, in that respect is too wide, even though it does not go so far as I thought it did in bringing in service with companies outside the Saorstát. Still it does bring in service with railways or with undertakings not included or to be included in the amalgamated concern. The second point is one that can be reserved for consideration. The words as here could not, of course, stand—"whilst engaged in military service." There have been many types of military service in this country in the last few years. I do not know if it is intended to bring in everybody who being a railway servant at one time engaged in military service. I have not yet got any definition of "other employment of national importance." If that could be made plain, then I could see how far it could also be reserved for consideration.
As a matter of fact, there were men taken out of the railway service and put into the National Army. There have been men engaged in railway service who have been taken out of railway service and put to other works, and I have no doubt their case would not be beyond consideration, at any rate, nor would the case of railway servants who might have been sent to France to do public works during the last few years. I think there were quite a number of men taken from railway service to do Government work other than railway work. If the Minister wants to make this reference to military service clear, I am sure it would not be beyond the capacity of his legal adviser to put a new definition in the Bill. I do not think the difficulty is insuperable.
If our amendment bringing in the Great Northern Railway, for instance, had been accepted, many of these people who are considered in the drafting of this amendment would have been automatically brought in. If you take the Great Northern Railway servants who transferred to the Midland Great Western, the Midland Great Western service is to be counted, but the previous Great Northern service is not to be counted. That, I think, is quite unjust. The provision of the amendment regarding military service or other employment of national importance will be simply a matter, if the principle is accepted, of having definitions framed to satisfy the Minister's scruples.
I did ask a question to discover "if other employment of national importance" meant anything else than service with the Military Forces recently, in the way in which we want them defined. I find it is limited to that. The suggestion has been made that this phrase "military service or other employment of national importance" should be amended to read "absent from his employment whilst in service with the military forces under the first, second or third Dáil or under the Oireachtas"—some such phrase. I do not at all say the terms are now fixed. If that meets Deputy Davin on this portion of the amendment, I am prepared to accept that portion.
Of course, that would exclude service under the British Government and before the first Dáil existed. I do not know whether the Minister desires to exclude that kind of service.
I understand that railway servants who left for service in the British Military Forces left on agreement and were received back and that their period of service was supposed to run continuously.
Of course, from that explanation of the Minister—if it is quite certain to cover everybody— there might be no need to include them, but there is always the possibility that some would be excluded who were not lent, shall I say, by agreement and retained in the service. Men may have left the service without the consent of the railway company or without agreement, and yet they can prove that there was continuous service except for that intervening period.
What Deputy Johnson has said can be taken into consideration when considering the amendment to the second portion of Deputy O'Connell's amendment. The first portion, of course, is not being accepted.
Is this amendment to be put?
I think it is not reasonable for the Minister to take the line that he is not going to consider railway services. As has been pointed out, there are some, perhaps not many, people who enter railway service and go from one company to another. I can imagine, for instance, an employee of the G.N.R. who transfers and leaves that service and goes into the Railway Clearing House. Under this Bill he loses the advantage of any service he has had with the G.N.R., and only his service in the Clearing House will count. I do not think that is fair. I think you ought to reckon railway service as a continuous service; at any rate, railway service within the companies operating in Ireland.
Amendment put.
The Committee divided: Tá, 8; Níl, 32.
Tá
- Tomás Mac Eoin.
- Tomás O Conaill.
- Liam O Daimhín.
- Eamon O Dubhghaill.
- Tadhg O Murchadha.
- Pádraig O hOgáin (An Clár).
- Tomás de Nógla.
- Seán O Laidhin.
Níl
- Seoirse de Bhulbh.
- Próinsias Bulfin.
- John Conlan.
- Máighréad Ní Choileáin Bean Uí
- Dhrisceóil.
- Patrick J. Egan.
- Osmond G. Esmonde.
- John Hennigan.
- Desmond Fitzgerald.
- Connor Hogan.
- Liam T. Mac Cosgair.
- Pádraig Mac Fadáin.
- Pádraig Mac Giollagáin.
- Risteárd Mac Liam.
- Seoirse Mac Niocaill.
- Liam Mag Aonghusa.
- Pádraig S. Mag Ualghairg.
- Martin M. Nally.
- Peadar O hAodha.
- Mícheál O hAonghusa.
- Criostóir O Broin.
- Seán O Bruadair.
- Aodh O Cinnéidigh.
- Partholán O Conchubhair.
- Séamus N. O Dóláin.
- Peadar S. O Dubhghaill.
- Pádraig O Dubhthaigh.
- Eamon S. O Dúgáin.
- Fionán O Loingsigh.
- Pádraig O Maille.
- James O'Mara.
- Seán M. O Súilleabháin.
- Liam Thrift.
Amendment declared lost.
I move to report progress.
Agreed.
