Dáil Éireann debate -
Friday, 6 Jun 1924

Vol. 7 No. 21

RAILWAYS BILL, 1924 (FOURTH STAGE).

SECTION I.

Mr. DUGGAN

I move:

In page 4, section 1, to delete lines 28 to 33 inclusive and insert in lieu thereof the following words—"the expression ‘the railway tribunal' means the court to be established under that name pursuant to Part II. of this Act."

This amendment is introduced, in accordance with a promise made by the Minister in Committee, to have it made clear that the Tribunal shall remain in existence after the expiration of 5 years from the passing of the Act, and that the obligation to sell shares and stocks in transport undertakings does not apply to panel members of the Tribunal.

Amendment put and agreed to.

SECTION 8.

Mr. JOHNSON

I move:—

In section 8, page 7, to insert after the word "tribunal" in line 17 the words "before confirming, approving or settling any amalgamation, absorption or preliminary scheme."

Since this matter was discussed on the last occasion I have submitted a memorandum to the Minister urging reasons why it is necessary that the Tribunal should consider the terms of any arrangements made between the companies and any schemes that they propose before these schemes become operative. I pointed out that under the provisions of Section 10 the Tribunal has no alternative but to approve of schemes that may be submitted; preliminary schemes particularly. The object of the amendment is to impose upon the Tribunal the obligation of considering the schemes before confirming or approving them. I do not know that I can add very much to the arguments that we put before the Dáil on the last occasion. I am hopeful that the Minister will accept this amendment, and that the Dáil will approve of it, because it will prevent—I was going to use the word manipulation, but I do not want to suggest evil things—possible schemes which will be adverse to the public interest. If these schemes are of a kind which may either immediately benefit existing shareholders at the cost of the future shareholders, or so load the companies with liabilities as to make it appear in a few years' time that the ordinary stockholders are not getting a fair deal, and cannot get a dividend, no matter how carefully and efficiently the undertaking is managed, eventually the result will be that the traders and travelling public will probably be made to pay higher rates and the Tribunal will have less reason for refusing to agree to advance any rates if the company can show that the ordinary stockholders are not able to get a dividend which might be considered reasonable.

I suggested on the last occasion that there had been an illustration under the provisions of the English Act, which this follows, where a company in England has so allocated shares in coming to the preliminary agreement as to call for a much bigger payment in dividend to meet the standard than had been required before; that the re-allocation necessitated a larger revenue. I do not think that there could be any very vital objection to this amendment. I can hardly understand any strong objection to it, inasmuch as when companies make agreements which have to be presented to the Tribunal, it is only reasonable to ask that the Tribunal, considering its duties in a general way, ought to be satisfied that the allocation of shares in any new company should have its approval, and should not be detrimental to the public interest. The amendment seeks to ensure that the Tribunal, before approving of such scheme, shall take into consideration all the circumstances of the case.

There is a further point on this section which I think appertains to this amendment. There is a reference to the scheme referred to in the Third Schedule respecting the commutation of allowances, and I would suggest to the Minister that it is requisite that the tribunal should have the right to take into consideration the circumstances even of such a scheme as that. While it may be obligatory upon the company to prepare a scheme complying with the Schedule, it may be of a kind which will not be satisfactory, and somebody ought to be in a position to see whether a scheme is reasonable, and to hear the representations that may be made on behalf of the people concerned. It should be possible, for instance, for a trade union which may be affected to appear before that tribunal and make any objections or representations as to the particular scheme in question. Otherwise, it is conceivable that some provision of a kind which would be very objectionable might be embodied in the scheme and nobody would have any right to supervise it. The amendment is therefore required, because of the necessity for having consideration given by the tribunal to schemes of various kinds, whether of the nature I have just referred to or of the nature of amalgamation of stocks and shares. The methods of re-allocation should be considered by the tribunal to prevent possible injustice and generally in the public interest.

Mr. DAVIN

I beg to second.

MINISTER for INDUSTRY and COMMERCE (Mr. McGilligan)

This amendment is founded on an apprehension that certain manipulation is possible with regard to share capital. The Deputy has fortified his objection to the section by a memo, which he sent me regarding certain manipulations alleged to have taken place in grouping on the other side. The case of the Great Western Railway of England was quoted and the point was made that although the ordinary capital of the system had been depreciated by the amalgamation the pre-ordinary charges had in fact been increased. That is true and it is not true at the same time. An analysis will show the falsity of the situation presented by Deputy Johnson. The West Somerset Railway was one of the companies absorbed. This company had paid an average of 2¾ per cent. on its ordinary capital. In the process of amalgamation £100 of the stock was exchanged for £55, bearing 5 per cent. interest in the amalgamated company. That left the return of the stockholder exactly what it had been previously. Although there is an apparent increase of the pre-ordinary charges, analysis will show that it is on the same basis and it proceeds on the same lines as that example I have taken.

With regard to the general fear that the companies may indulge in manipulation as regards capital I can simply point to the fact that the amalgamation schemes, preliminary, agreed or final, will be made public, and the particulars will be available to parties interested who will have every right to appear before the tribunal. They will appear with the full knowledge of the facts and they can make whatever case they like in opposition to the scheme.

Mr. JOHNSON

Is there not obligation in this section on the tribunal to approve of any such scheme that does not conflict with specified provisions of the Act regarding procedure?

Mr. McGILLIGAN

With regard to the special point determining the special condition of the compulsory powers of the amalgamation, section 8 specifically refers to that only. Our attitude with regard to that is, that our interest is concerned only with the question of the standard revenue, and the exchange as between the stockholders is a matter for the companies concerned and the stockholders. In everything else, parties interested and desirous of being heard may appear and the public interest is fully protected. In so far as the public is interested, that interest does not lie in the interchange of securities as between the companies. There is further, if I may be allowed to say it, the fact that we have seen the lines in which agreement was likely to be affected regarding exchange of stocks, and it does not result in any appreciation of the share capital of the amalgamated undertaking. I have been asked what is the objection to taking this amendment. The objection can be very simply stated. If the amendment is taken it means that all sorts of roving inquiries can be instituted before the tribunal. The work of the tribunal would be held up, and the completion of the scheme, for the efficient and economical management of the railways, which this Bill seeks to bring about, would be impeded.

Amendment put and declared lost.

SECTION 12.

Mr. DAVIN

I move in section 12 (1), page 9, to delete the word "three" in line 9, and to substitute therefor the word "five." This, or a similar amendment, was moved on the Committee Stage, and it is to be hoped that the Minister during the intervening period will have re-considered it and changed his mind. As the section stands, I hope the Minister has convinced himself of its injustice to the small number of the staff that is likely to be affected. The Minister I hope will meet the amendment now in a more generous spirit than he did on the last occasion. Any staff likely to be affected, or likely to become redundant, as a result of the operations of this Bill are entitled to be treated on the same basis. The section as it stands is much more unfair to the staff in the Irish Railway Clearing House, who are likely to be affected, than it is to the direct employees of the constituent companies that will make up the amalgamated company. If, and when redundancy arises it will have to be proved to be due to the operation of the scheme. Owing to the slow method of bringing the scheme into operation, if redundancy takes place after a period of three years in the Irish Railway Clearing House, I think the staff there are entitled to be protected on the same basis as the direct employees of a railway company. I hope the Minister will see the injustice of the section as it stands, and that he will accept the amendment. The amalgamated company upon whom the liability will be thrown if a redundancy arises can arrange that the scheme of re-organisation will come into operation after three years. The whole matter is in their hands, and for that reason I think the Minister should not have any reluctance in accepting the amendment.

Mr. P. HOGAN (Clare)

I beg to second.

Mr. McGILLIGAN

I have been asked to realise the injustice perpetuated by keeping the word "three" here instead of "five." I wonder would Deputy Davin agree that the injustice he says there is would be entirely taken away by the acceptance of the word "five"? Would he not rather have "seven" or "nine" or any period?

Mr. DAVIN

Yes. I may say that the injustice is not in my own imagination in this case.

Mr. McGILLIGAN

The whole question is a matter of the balancing of the equities of the situation. It appears to us that any redundancy likely to be caused by re-organisation of the Railway Clearing House must be brought about within a three years' period. We are limiting it to three years as we do not desire to have claims—fantastic claims, probably—put forward as a result of rearrangement not due to amalgamation. If there is redundancy it will have taken place within a three years' period.

Mr. JOHNSON

I think attention should be drawn to this, that redundancy in the case of other employees is not limited, and why the period of three years should be put in the case of the Railway Clearing House employees it is difficult to understand. It may well be that the period of three years is enough if everything goes smoothly, and no increase of work is required, and no new activities are thrown on the Clearing House staff, but it is generally expected that the first year or so will require a great deal of additional work and that it may easily take two or three years before it will be known whether the staff is redundant or not. If it so happens that the period of extra work in the Clearing House is prolonged then the advantage that it is intended this law should give is lost. One can speak of three, five, or ten years. It is quite impossible to estimate the possibilities, I quite agree, and it would be very much preferable if the position of the Railway Clearing House employees were made identical with that of other railway employees. The Minister did not approve of the deletion of the word "three" in the Committee Stage, and this is in fact an attempt to try and secure some greater assurance to the employees of the Railway Clearing House that they will not be damnified by the effect of the Bill, and five years gives a more reasonable period in which to judge of the effects of the Bill. I cannot understand, of course, why any period should be fixed in the Bill at all in the case of one class of employees any more than another, but if a period is to be fixed, then I urge that five years is much more likely to meet the necessities of the case than three years.

Amendment put and declared lost.

Mr. DAVIN

I move:—

In section 12 (1), page 9, to delete the words "after the passing of this Act" in line 9, and to substitute therefor the words "after the first day of January, 1925, or such other later date as may be fixed by the railway tribunal under sub-section (1) of section 9 of this Act.

I notice the Minister has not changed his outlook since the last stage of the Bill, but I hope he will see in this amendment something in the nature of a compromise which might meet the situation, seeing he has turned down all the previous amendments. The Bill provides for the scheme of amalgamation to come into operation on the 1st January, 1925, or such earlier or later date as the Minister in his wisdom may decide. It is quite obvious that no definite attempt to find out, or to wipe out the redundant staff can take place previous to the coming into operation of the scheme, and I think it is only quite fair, rather than have the period laid down for the operation of this clause concerning redundancies as from the date of the passing of the Act, that it should be from the date of the coming into operation of the scheme. There is only an advantage of six months, and I think it is more than a reasonable compromise on my part to put forward this amendment, seeing that the Minister has turned down the previous amendment.

Mr. McGILLIGAN

This is another method of extending the three years period; and the three years' period seemed to us and to the Dáil to be the best period to be fixed. This amendment is only another way of extending it, and it has to be refused on the same grounds as the last amendment we refused.

Amendment put.

The Dáil divided: Tá, 13; Níl, 37.

Tá

• Seán Buitléir.
• David Hall.
• Tomás Mac Eoin.
• Risteárd Mac Fheorais.
• Tomás de Nógla.
• Ailfrid O Broin.
• Aodh O Cúlacháin.
• Liam O Daimhín.
• Eamon O Dubhghaill.
• Seán O Laidhin.
• Domhnall O Muirgheasa.
• Tadhg P. O Murchadha.
• Pádraig O hOgáin (An Clár).

Níl

• Pádraig F. Baxter.
• Seoirse de Bhulbh.
• Próinsias Bulfin.
• John J. Cole.
• John Conlan.
• Louis J. D'Alton.
• Patrick J. Egan.
• John Hennigan.
• Connor Hogan.
• Seosamh Mac Bhrighde.
• P. McGilligan.
• Risteárd Mac Liam.
• Seoirse Mac Niocaill.
• Liam Mac Sioghaird.
• Liam Mag Aonghusa.
• Pádraig S. Mag Ualghairg.
• Patrick J. Mulvany.
• Martin M. Nally.
• John T. Nolan.
• Seán O Bruadair.
• Próinsias O Cathail.
• Conchubhair O Conghaile.
• Eoghan O Dochartaigh.
• Séamus N. O Dóláin.
• Peadar S. O Dubhghaill.
• Pádraig O Dubhthaigh.
• Eamon S. O Dúgáin.
• Seán O Duinnín.
• Donchadh S. O Guaire.
• Mícheál R. O hIfearnáin.
• Aindriú O Láimhín.
• Fionán O Loingsigh.
• Pádraig O Máille.
• Domhnall O Mocháin.
• Seán M. O Súilleabháin.
• Caoimhghín O hUigín.
• Liam Thrift.

Amendment declared lost.

Mr. DUGGAN

I move:—

In page 9, section 13 (1), lines 22 and 23, to delete the words "for a period of five years from the passing of this Act."

The purport of that amendment is similar to that of No. 1.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. DUGGAN

I move:—

In page 9, section 13 (1), line 24, to insert the word "standing" immediately after the word "three."

That is to distinguish the standing members from the panel members.

Amendment agreed to.

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

There are other amendments to the same effect. Will we take them as consequential?

Mr. DUGGAN

Yes. I move:—

In page 9, section 13, to delete sub-section (2) and insert in lieu thereof the following sub-section:—

"(2) Each of the standing members of the railway tribunal shall be appointed and hold office for five years and shall then retire, but shall be eligible for re-appointment."

Amendment agreed to.

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

Amendments 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 and 13 inclusive are of the same character—the deletion of the idea of a temporary tribunal.

Mr. DAVIN

That means that the tribunal is to become a permanent body?

Mr. DUGGAN

I move:—

In page 9, section 13, lines 29 and 31, to insert the word "standing" immediately before the word "member" in each case.

In page 9, section 13 (4), line 32, to delete the words "before the dissolution of the railway tribunal."

In page 9, section 14, lines 57 and 64, to insert the word "standing" immediately before the word "member" in each case.

In page 10, section 15 (2), line 10, to insert the word "standing" immediately before the word "members."

In page 10, section 16, lines 30, 40 and 43, to insert the word "standing" immediately before the word member in each case.

In page 11, section 17 (3), line 26, to insert the word "standing" immediately before the word "members," and in line 27 to insert the word "standing" immediately before the word "member."

Amendments agreed to.

Mr. McGILLIGAN

There was a point raised by Deputy Good, and a promise of consideration was given to it. I wonder is it necessary to state the reasons here why it was not accepted?

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

Is there an amendment down?

Mr. McGILLIGAN

There is no amendment down.

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

That will arise on the main question.

Mr. DUGGAN

I move:—

In page 12, section 19 (1) (b), line 46, to delete the words "a local inquiry" and to insert in lieu thereof the words "an inquiry locally."

This is to meet an objection raised by Deputy Johnson in Committee.

Mr. JOHNSON

It must have been a good one.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. DUGGAN

I move:—

In page 13, section 19 (4), line 8, after the word "Act" to insert the words "including reports of such of the cases heard and decided by them as appear to them to be of permanent or special importance."

This amendment is introduced to meet a point raised by Deputy O'Connell in Committee, when he asked for the making of verbatim reports of proceedings before the Tribunal. In view of the expense involved, it is not considered that we would be justified in doing that, but I think that this Amendment pretty fairly meets the point that the Deputy raised.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. DUGGAN

I move:—

In page 14, section 23 (4), line 2, immediately after the figures "1916" to insert the words "or under or by section 8 of the same Act."

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. DUGGAN

I move:—

In page 15, section 30 (1), lines 11 and 12, to delete the words "agreement or," and in line 12 to insert after the word "enactment" the words "or any agreement confirmed by or scheduled to a statutory enactment."

The Minister in Committee promised to introduce an amendment such as this with the object of limiting the application of the clause.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. DUGGAN

I move:—

In page 15, section 30 (1), lines 16 and 17, and also in line 20, to delete the words "agreement or" and to insert after the word "enactment" the words "or agreement."

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. DUGGAN

I move:—

In page 15, section 30 (1), line 19, to delete the word "date" and insert in lieu thereof the word "passing."

This is merely a drafting amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. DUGGAN

I move:—

In page 15, section 30, to insert after sub-section (2) a new sub-section as follows:—

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

That is to carry out the promise given, I think, to Deputy Hewat when the Bill was in Committee.

Mr. DAVIN

I regret the Government have not seen their way to go a little bit further than the particular qualification they have put down. Surely the Government, in a Bill of this kind, are catering for the general body of the community, and they should see whether or not it would be to their advantage to insert a direction without any qualification. "The amalgamated company shall, if required by any person"—that means that a body of traders, or the farmers, who are pratically wiped out as a result of the existing high rates, will have to use a considerable amount of the funds of their very poor organisation in paying briefless or other barristers to come before this tribunal and make out a case for a direction of this kind. That should not be so, and I think the amendment should have omitted the words "if required by any person," so that it might become part of the law of the land through a clause in this Bill. Such things are desirable and are in the interests of the general body of the community. I wonder what would Deputy Gorey think of having to spend £1,000 of the funds of the Farmers Union, in the state in which that fund now is, to have to brief barristers to make a case before the tribunal? All that could be obviated if it were made clear in the Bill that these things were desirable and necessary.

Mr. McGILLIGAN

I found myself on the Committee Stage faced with an amendment in those identical words— the words we are now bringing in as our amendment—with three words added: "as hereinafter defined." I promised to consider that and no point was then made. I do not think that it is reasonable now that this point is made, and I do not think it is a substantial point that the word "required" is going to involve any expense to anybody.

Mr. DAVIN

That point was very definitely made by Deputies here.

Mr. McGILLIGAN

I understand that the Deputy contends that the phrase "if required by any person" is going to mean arguments supported by counsel and involving tremendous expense. I do not think the phrase can be distorted to that extent.

Amendment put and agreed to.

Mr. DUGGAN

I move:—

In page 15, section 31, line 40, after the words "absorbed companies" to insert the words "at the passing of this Act."

I think that amendment explains itself.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. DUGGAN

I move:—

In page 15, section 31, lines 42 and 43, to delete the words "be such as were in operation at the passing of this Act," and substitute therefor the words "remain in force as maximum charges unless and until altered in accordance with this section.

That is introduced as a result of objections made to the clause in its original form when the Bill was in Committee.

Mr. McGILLIGAN

If I may say a word to supplement that, this amendment must be taken in conjunction with amendments 24, 25 and 26. It is intended to meet the very strong objections made from pretty well all parts of the Dáil to the old clause as it stood. When these amendments are considered together in their operation on the clause as now drafted, it means a very different approach to the question. Previously the situation was this: With regard to these railway companies, other than the amalgamated and absorbed companies, they were precluded from making any general reduction of rates unless and until they had made application to the railway tribunal. That was objected to very vehemently by Deputy McKenna, amongst others, and on consideration it was decided to modify the clause. This modification as suggested will leave the position much different. It means the charges in operation on the date of the passing of the Act remain in force as maximum charges. The full force of the word maximum should be attended to. A lowering of the charges is therefore possible. Then, according to the various sub-sections, various people may apply for further reductions and the company may apply for an increase of the charges, and under amendment 26 people may apply to modify any reduction made. It now means that reduction can come about, but if it is thought that the reductions are unfair, application may be made to have them modified. It is the same situation but it is a new approach to it.

Mr. DAVIN

I am sorry that I was absent when this particular clause was discussed, but I read in the Official Report statements made by the Minister and Deputies, who rightly took exception to the vaguely-worded clause as originally drafted. As far as I can gather this clause seeks to control the activities of the non-amalgamated companies and prevent them from diverting traffic out of its natural course and to ports outside the Saorstát by unfair methods such as the quotation of uneconomic rates, and the lack of proper facilities in other directions. I am not satisfied that the amendment put down by the Minister in response to the opposition to the orignal clause will meet the situation. I quite agree it would be very unfair, even in the interests of ports within the Saorstát, to restrict the activities of non-amalgamated companies in the way it was originally intended.

It is still within the power of the non-amalgamated companies to divert traffic to ports outside the Saorstát in a way which would injure the ports which the clause as drafted seeks to protect. I was not aware when I put down another amendment that the Minister had submitted one of this kind. That is the explanation of the amendment that appears in my name. I tried to find suitable language that would give a proper direction and would give facilities to the non-amalgamated companies in any case where they sought, in the interests of the traders or the company, to reduce rates when they were sending the traffic through ports within the Saorstát. It is quite possible that under the Minister's amendment the non-amalgamated companies will still divert traffic to ports outside the Saorstát by the quotation of uneconomic rates. It is to the interest of the company concerned, when they are tendering for or receiving traffic, especially in large quantities, to get as large a haul as possible. Therefore, if any traffic from any point on the Great Northern was being sent by a trader to any point in England, it would be in the interests of the Great Northern Company to send it by a longer haul, say Belfast, than through Drogheda, Dundalk, Greenore or Dublin. I do not see anything in the clause to prevent them doing that. That was in my mind when I put down my amendment to give the non-amalgamated company freedom to reduce rates in the case of traffic being sent from station to station in the Saorstát, or through a port in the Saorstát to a port in England.

If that amendment were accepted as an alternative to the Minister's, I think it would control the activities of the non-amalgamated companies, and prevent them sending traffic in another direction when it would not be the natural route. It is well known that in the areas served by the non-amalgamated companies, and along the Border line, railway competition is up against a serious proposition in the carrying of traffic by motor transport. If there was not room to reduce rates in order to meet with that competition, these road transport companies could carry traffic over the Border without any control by this tribunal. All these things should be taken into consideration. They are reasonable arguments why some limited form of freedom should be given to non-amalgamated companies to reduce the rates. Reduction of rates is in the interest of all who use the railways.

I am not quite keen in pressing my amendment against the good judgment and the expert advice that the Minister has had at his disposal. If he can tell me that his amendment will serve the purpose that I have in mind, I am quite willing to withdraw and let his amendment go. As the whole purport of the Bill is to protect the ports in the Saorstát, I contend that my amendment will serve that purpose to better advantage than the vague language in the Minister's amendment. However, I will let the Minister take the responsibility of showing that his would be more useful for serving the purpose, and let time tell the result of the operation of his own amendment, if he does not see his way to accept mine.

Mr. McGILLIGAN

If Deputy Davin has read the Official Report he must have seen that I was seriously perturbed at his absence. I feel quite sure that he would have been on the side of the clause as it was originally drafted.

Mr. DAVIN

Certainly not.

Mr. McGILLIGAN

His argument would indicate that he was more on the side of the clause as drafted than in favour of the amendment. He has put forward two desires. One is that there should be liberty to reduce rates given to the non-amalgamated railways or non-absorbed railways, and secondly, that there should be protection for the ports. There is liberty given for a reduction of rates. "Charges in force at the date of the passing of the Act shall remain in force as maximum charges." That is all that is required by the new clause. Maximum charges, therefore, can be reduced. That allows liberty to reduce them. With regard to the second point made by the Deputy, about preventing undue diversion of traffic that is what amendment 26 seeks to do, There may be reductions, and if it appears to the parties here mentioned that the reduction is unfair and is going to bring about an undue diversion of traffic, then they may appeal to the tribunal. As regards the other point made by Deputy Davin, it seems to me as if he ventured on a statement that we should seek to control what the Great Northern Railway at the moment intend to do inside the Six County area. Of course, the only answer is that, though we might like to do that, we have no power to interfere with their charges. I contend that amendments 22 to 26 meet the points raised by the Deputy.

Amendment put and agreed to.

Amendment:—

In page 15, section 31, after the word "Act," line 44, and before paragraph (i) to insert a new paragraph as follows:—

"Any such company may, without application to the railway tribunal grant reduced rates in respect of traffic booked to any station in Saorstát Eireann or through any port in Saorstát Eireann."—(Liam O Daimhin) not moved.

Mr. DUGGAN

I move:—

In page 15, section 31 (i), line 45, to delete the word "traders" and insert in lieu thereof the words "railway users."

That amendment was promised when the Bill was in Committee.

Amendment put and agreed to.

Mr. DUGGAN

I beg to move:—

In page 15, section 31, line 51, to delete the word "modify" and substitute the word "increase."

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. DUGGAN

I move:—

In page 15, section 31, after line 51 to insert the following:—

"(iv.) any amalgamating or absorbed company or the amalgamated company or any representative body of traders or a body of persons representative of trade or a locality may apply to the railway tribunal to modify any reduction made by any such company in the aforesaid charges or any of them otherwise than under an order of the railway tribunal.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. DAVIN

I move the following:—

Before section 52, page 23, to insert a new section as follows:—

"On and after the first day of January, 1925, or such later date as may be fixed by the Minister, the settlement of the accounts of the receipts for all through traffic originating in or terminating in places in Saorstát Eireann in which two or more companies are interested shall be effected by and through the Irish Railway Clearing House."

I would like to point out to the Minister that at the present time all through rail, steam and canal traffic, originating in or terminating in Saorstát Eireann, is cleared by the Irish Railway Clearing House, with the following exceptions:—

Goods and Miscellaneous—G.S. and W. Company's traffic via Fishguard Port, whether via Cork, Rosslare; or Waterford.

Miscellaneous Traffic—D. and S.E. and L.M. and S., via Fishguard.

Goods and Miscellaneous Traffic— North of Ireland Traffic, via Larne and Stranraer.

Belfast, Derry and Drogheda Port Traffic.

Cork Port, via Fishguard.

Dublin Port (except Scotch traffic.)

Passenger Traffic—From G.W. and beyond to G.S. and W., via Rosslare and via Waterford.

M.G.W. Ry. with English Stations, via Holyhead (with minor exceptions).

There is no hard and fast law or rule defining whether traffic shall be cleared in the Irish House or the English House. It is largely a matter of arrangement. However, the Clearing Act (Ireland), 1860, empowers the Irish Railway Clearing House to deal with all railway, canal, and steam-packet traffic, while the English Clearing Act, 1850, only empowers the English Clearing House to deal with rail traffic.

The result is that shipping companies who desire to have their receipts out of through rail and sea traffic properly apportioned by the English House, can only have this done through a railway company. For instance, no payments out of through receipts are made direct to a shipping company by the English House. They are made to one of the railway companies interested in the division, and paid over by them to the shipping company. This is a device which has been resorted to in order to nominally comply with the Act.

It is alleged that the railway traffic mentioned above, which is at present dealt with by the English House, was lost to the Irish House through the carelessness of a previous secretary, who was actually offered the traffic, but let it go by default to the English House. As the Acts now stand, the Irish Railway Clearing House is the proper channel for the clearance of all Irish traffic, whether by rail or steamer. Above all, it is desirable that any through traffic dealt with by the new amalgamated company should be cleared in the Irish Clearing House. At present about ninety per cent. of the total Irish railway traffic, whether to or from Ireland, is thus dealt with.

It is also urged that the Irish Port Traffic should be similarly dealt with, seeing that the Irish House has statutory authority to deal with this sort of traffic, while the English House has no such right except by the artifice referred to above. From a statistical point of view it is desirable that the Irish House should clear the traffic, as there would thus be placed at the disposal of the Government statistical material regarding trade that would not otherwise be available.

The additional work given to the Clearing House would help very largely to absorb the redundant staff created by the reduction in the number of Irish railway companies, and thus effect a considerable saving by way of compensation. It would be probably thrown on the amalgamated company in other circumstances.

Mr. McGILLIGAN

I may say immediately that there is a certain amount of sympathy with this amendment, but it is not considered a possible amendment. There are two Railway Clearing Houses, the Dublin and the London, and the majority of the through rates originating in the way the amendment speaks of are cleared at the Dublin house. The tendency on the part of the companies has been to press that all the receipts of this type should be cleared through the Dublin house, and the tendency also has been that these receipts are being cleared more and more through the Dublin house. This amendment, however, would seek to put the thing on a compulsory basis, that "all traffic originating in or terminating in places in Saorstát Eireann in which two or more companies are interested shall be effected by and through the Irish Railway Clearing House." Deputy Davin may well argue that we have such control over through receipts of this type that we can compel. We can possibly compel, but at a price, and the question is, is it worth while for those advantages that Deputy Davin holds out to risk the through rates? You have to consider simply which party benefits most by the through rates; is it the Irish systems or the English systems?

Mr. DAVIN

Both benefit.

Mr. McGILLIGAN

Which has the the greater benefit? I think there is no doubt about the answer to that. Are you going to compel upon the other of the two parties an arrangement as a result of which you might lose a very definite advantage, an advantage which is greater to the Irish systems than to the British? That is really the point on which this whole things turns. As opposed to the making of it compulsory, I set this other statement, that the railway companies have been pressing for years that the receipts should be increasingly cleared through the Dublin House, and in fact, they are being increasingly cleared through this House and the mere putting forward of this amendment and what has been said upon it in my answer, ought to be a sufficient stimulus to the directors of the new amalgamated undertaking to persevere in their efforts to reach the situation which Deputy Davin would seek to have established compulsorily. Compulsion is possible, but it is at a risk that I do not care to take.

Mr. DAVIN

How does the Minister justify his statement that the managers of the Irish companies have been pressing for this work to be done in the Irish Clearing House, seeing that the managers, generally speaking, control the activities of the Clearing House secretary, who previously has refused to accept certain work that could be done here to the advantage of the Irish companies and to the advantage certainly of his own staff?

Mr. McGILLIGAN

Of that I know nothing. All I state are the facts as put to me, put with good evidence and with certain proofs, that the companies have been anxious and are pressing to have the work done on this side.

Mr. DAVIN

Would the Minister consider the possibility of turning this thing over in his mind to consider how, from his own point of view, the suggestion might be met by putting up an amendment in another place, if there is no opportunity of going into the matter here again?

Mr. McGILLIGAN

My difficulty is this: it can be stated quite simply. There are only two ways of obtaining this. You can plead with the directors that they should try to bring this about or you can make it a compulsory thing. We do not want to make it compulsory. I do not think it would be advisable to put it on a compulsory footing. Is there any intermediate stage?

Mr. JOHNSON

I have in mind possible development in transport circles, what would amount to the amalgamation and the unification of companies, railway companies with steamship companies and the like, and I can imagine the possibility, that if big English companies buy up, as they may well do, the coastwise shipping companies, it may act detrimentally, and that the Irish company will not then be in a position to use its influence to the extent that it would if this were an obligation in the Bill.

Amendment put and negatived.

Mr. DUGGAN

I move:—

In page 27 to insert before section 56 a new section in Part IV. as follows:—

"(1) Save as is hereinafter in this section provided, all appointments to any office or situation in the clerical grades of the service of the amalgamated company shall be made by means of open competitive examination in accordance with regulations made by the amalgamated company.

"(2) Every such open competitive examination shall be open to all persons desiring to attend the same who are ordinarily resident in Ireland and pay the fees and possess the qualifications as to age, health and character prescribed by the regulations relating to the examination.

"(3) The amalgamated company may by special regulation provide that such proportion as may be approved by the Minister of the vacancies in the clerical grades of its service shall be filled by means of limited competitive examinations, and where an examination is so limited only persons in the employment of the amalgamated company or the children of such persons shall be admitted thereto."

This amendment is introduced in pursuance of a promise given by the Minister when the Bill was in committee. I think it was Deputy O'Connell who proposed an amendment on somewhat similar lines, and it is considered that this substituted amendment fairly meets the views that he expressed when the Bill was in Committee.

Mr. DAVIN

I am sorry that it was not possible for the Ministry in this new clause to try to secure some control over the activities of the non-amalgamated companies in this respect. Railway Bills promoted in the British Parliament were many times held up or blocked by the Irish members with the object of securing that the company should be compelled to recruit its clerical staff by means of open competitive examination. In one particular case that condition was made in a Bill promoted by the Great Northern Company of Ireland. I have here on a previous occasion drawn attention to the fact that the conditions that were laid down and accepted by the Great Northern Company have not, and are not, being carried out at present. The reply given to me was that the people filling the vacancies in the Great Northern Company were not recruited by means of open competitive examination, because of the desire of the company to fill such vacancies by men who had returned from the European War. It is a most extraordinary thing that when these vacancies occur the vacancies are only made known to a certain type of individuals, that only the sons of a specially privileged class of men in the Great Northern Company's employment are acquainted with the fact that vacancies exist and the examination is limited, certainly not competitive, for filling such vacancies. I think it is very undesirable that any condition laid down in a British Act of Parliament should be allowed to be manipulated in that way, and the Minister should make representations to the Great Northern Company in regard to the manner in which it is carrying out this condition. He should make serious representation to the company that they are bound in honour to put this condition into operation, give fair and square treatment to the sons of all employees, and make it generally known when these examinations are being held, so that everybody, regardless of the privileged people I have referred to, may be in a position to fight their corner at the examinations. I have received letters from employees in the Great Northern Railway Company, and that is the reason why I take this opportunity of drawing the attention of the Minister to the fact that this condition is not being carried out, and that some means should be adopted by the Minister to see that this honourable undertaking, embodied in an Act of Parliament, should be carried out in fairness to everybody concerned.

Mr. McGILLIGAN

All I can say to that is that if Deputy Davin could supply me with more detailed particulars regarding these things alleged by him we will have representations made to the Great Northern Railway Company.

Mr. DAVIN

I told the Minister that I had put down a question, which was answered by his predecessor, in regard to this matter, and I find that there has been no improvement since.

Mr. McGILLIGAN

I wonder if the Deputy gave the detailed cases—the actual cases?

Mr. DAVIN

I will send particulars to the Minister.

Mr. McGOLDRICK

I feel there is a serious principle involved in this, and I think we should hold punctiliously to the principle that those who are best qualified in competitive examinations should have these positions. It has been whittled down in such a way that there is a certain section of people who will get certain privileges, of which others will not have a chance of getting advantage. I think that is a wrong principle. It should be clear that no special privileges should be assigned to any particular class of individual. I think we should hold to the principle of competitive examinations. It may be that some in the employment of the railways would be assumed to have special rights or privileges, but those are entitled to be compensated in some other way. They are not entitled to go and make a claim to evade competitive tests that will have to be enforced in other departments in future. We should see that we are going to have tests imposed for certain positions, and we should not allow those, positions to be given away as a perquisite. I think that should be made clear. This amendment is a compromise on that question. I do not want any compromise. I think we should start on a clear foundation and we should get without reservations the best possible employees in the country, and so support the establishment of competitive examinations, where everyone will be free to enter the service.

Mr. HEWAT

I take no exception to the amendment as put down here, but I would like to point out that Deputy McGoldrick, in connection with his exposition of what should be, emphasises what is being done. In other words, his whole argument is on the lines that the directors of the amalgamated company are even going to be told what they should do, down to the minutest particulars. I would impress on the Dáil that the very discussion on these amendments has shown that so far as the directorate is concerned in managing the new railways, it is inclined to be a farce. The directors have no latitude, even to the extent of saying whether any of their servants should be privileged in connection with examinations or not. That, I think, is one of the serious phases that arise out of this Bill. I support the amendment as a reasonable compromise.

Mr. JOHNSON

I think the point that was raised by Deputy Davin is that this new section, which has not been discussed in Committee, is too limited in its scope, only applies to the amalgamated company, and should be made to apply both to the amalgamated and the non-amalgamated companies. There are companies outside the Great Northern which, of course, would be non-amalgamated, but the Great Northern is one of great importance, and the general statements Deputy Davin made in regard to the Great Northern Company were of such a nature as to warrant the inclusion in this new section of the term, "non-amalgamated companies," so that the new conditions would apply to all companies over whom the Oireachtas has authority. Apparently, it is accepted by the Minister that whatever law may have been passed by the British Parliament, under whom the Great Northern is acting in this matter, they have evaded it. It would be an advantage to have the law relating to those examinations applied to all companies operating within the Saorstát and over whose working the Oireachtas has authority. The law should be standardised and the same conditions should apply to every company. I hope the Minister will, between now and the discussion in Committee in the Seanad, consider the advisability of allowing this sub-section to be amended by including the non-amalgamated companies.

Professor MAGENNIS

Deputy Davin gave a slight but incomplete history of how this rule came to be applicable to the Great Northern Railway Company, He will, no doubt, recall, when I jog his memory, that for quite a long time, many years ago, an agitation was carried on by Mr. Sullivan, a shareholder of the Great Southern and Western Railway Company, to secure that appointments on that railway system should be given irrespective of political and religious prejudices, and eventually a rule was made—the late Mr. Ormsby was secretary of the company at the time—to appoint two examiners, one representing the Catholics and the other non-Catholics, to conduct competitive examinations. At a later stage that principle was adopted by the Midland Great Western, and then by the D. and S.E. Railway, but the Great Northern, true to its long-established traditions, refused to give that opening through competitive examination to minorities, and has utilised popular sentiment, arising out of the conditions of the late war, to evade that rule. I think Deputy Johnson is quite right in this matter, that the rules that are applicable to the amalgamated company should likewise be made applicable to all the railway companies through the length and breadth of our State. At the same time, I do not attach the same value to competitive tests as Deputy McGoldrick seems to attach. I have been too long an examiner—all my life an examiner in competitive examinations—not to know precisely what they are worth. I am an examiner where the railway employees are given a certain privilege, and I am in a position to say that it has not worked out to the disadvantage of the railway company in the recruiting of its clerks. The provision works to this limited extent, that in respect of certain optional subjects, attainments in which would give advantage to competitors, it is not necessary for the sons of railway employees to sit in those subjects.

Deputy Hewat pleads for liberty with regard to the directors' exercise of discretion in those matters. Here is play legitimate for their discretion, because experience shows that the sons of railway employees, if I may use the phrase, grow up in a railway atmosphere. They are acquainted with railway affairs and take an interest in railway administration, and they are already, so to speak, bred to the business before they come into the employment of the railway company. It seems to me natural that the directors should prefer to have in their employment the sons of those who are already in their service and who have given good service to the railway company in question. It seems to me that nothing but good would come from extending the application of the amendment to all the railways.

Amendment put, and agreed to.

Mr. P.S. DOYLE

I beg to move Amendment 29: "In page 27 to insert before Section 56 and in Part IV. a new section as follows:—

"(1) The amalgamated company shall, within one year after the 1st day of January, 1925, or such other period as may be fixed by the Minister, prepare for discussion with the trade unions representing the employees of the amalgamated company a scheme for providing on a contributory basis a superannuation fund for such of the employees of the amalgamated company as can, with due regard to actuarial considerations, be provided for out of such a fund.

"(2) The scheme so to be prepared by the amalgamated company shall provide for representatives of the employees being associated in the management of the superannuation fund."

The object of this amendment is to make provision in the Bill for the employees of the railway company to set about the preparation of a scheme for a superannuation fund. I think it will be generally agreed that in a large industrial concern it is to the advantage both of the employees and of the company that such a fund should be in existence. Some years ago several of the railways had such a fund, but it was dissolved on the coming into operation of the Insurance Act. I understand that in the last few years some new schemes were in the course of preparation, but that owing to the unsettled conditions in the country they did not materialise. However, I commend this amendment to the Dáil, and I ask the Minister to accept it.

Mr. DAVIN

This amendment is certainly a desirable one, and in the ordinary course of events it is one that I would expect would come from the Minister. An amendment of a practically similar nature was put up by our side on the Committee Stage of the Bill, the Stage at which an amendment of this kind should be properly considered. I find that the Minister, speaking towards the end of the debate on an amendment of ours on the Committee Stage said: "What I intend to bring in on the Report Stage will be limited to producing a scheme." I find it very difficult to make out how it is that the amendment that the Minister promised to bring in as a result of the amendment put up on the Committee Stage from this side, comes in now in the name of Deputy Doyle. I had been expecting, during the Committee Stage of the Bill, that Deputy Doyle as an ex-railway man would be more or less in sympathy with the amendments that were put up from this side, especially in matters that concerned the improvement and the conditions of railway employees and their protection from any unfair treatment as a result of the coming into operation of this scheme. During the Committee Stage I discovered that Deputy Doyle was very consistent in his opposition to any amendments we put up in regard to the matter of the Compensation Clauses. I do not like to use unparliamentary language with regard to the method adopted in this case, but I can only attribute Deputy Doyle's action to something in the nature of excessive political acumen in endeavouring to take credit for something that was put up by somebody else and which the Minister promised to consider and bring in in his own name. I think that should not be allowed to pass without some notice, especially the manner in which this has been dealt with.

Mr. JOHNSON

Does the Minister accept this amendment?

Mr. McGILLIGAN

Yes.

Amendment put and agreed to.

Mr. DUGGAN

I beg to move Amendment 30. In page 29, section 59 (4), line 8, after the words "to do" to insert the words "or in the absence of such requisition, not later than the 31st day of January, 1925."

This amendment, and the two following amendments which are consequential on it, are introduced in pursuance of an undertaking given to Deputy Johnson when the Bill was in Committee. The object of the amendment is to ensure that all agreements will be within the cognizance of the Minister whether a requisition is furnished or not.

Amendment put and agreed to.

Mr. DUGGAN

I now move Amendments 31 and 32, which are consequential on the last amendment.

Amendment 31:—"In page 29, Section 59 (4), line 11, after the word "requisition" to insert the words "or in the absence thereof, on the 31st day of December, 1924."

Amendment 32:—"In page 29, Section 59 (4), line 15, after the word "requisition" to insert the words "or the 31st day of December, 1924 (as the case may be)."

Amendments put, and agreed to.

Mr. DUGGAN

I beg to move Amendment 33:—"In page 31, Section 63 (1), line 44, to delete the word "or"; and after the word "freighters" to insert the words "or passengers."

This amendment is also introduced in pursuance of a promise given by the Minister on the Committee Stage of the Bill.

Amendment put, and agreed to.

Mr. JOHNSON

On behalf of Deputy O'Connell I beg to move Amendment 34:—"In page 34, Third Schedule, line 36, to delete the words "five years" and to substitute therefore the words "one year."

We endeavoured on the Committee Stage to get the number of years deleted entirely, but recognising that in another part of the Bill there would need to be one year's service, the effect of the amendment, as it is now proposed, is to put in the word "one year" instead of "five years." That will mean that all but very casual or temporary or recently appointed employees will come under the provisions of the Schedule. Persons who joined the service a year ago had prepared for railway service and took up railway service in preference possibly to going into other occupations. They prejudiced their future by entering the railway service, except on the assumption, and they had the right to understand this, that they would be regularly and permanently employed, given, of course, good conduct. That applies to a person who was in the service for twelve months just as it might apply to a person who was in the service for years. The object of the amendment is to ensure that all who went into the railway service twelve months prior to the introduction of this Bill shall be brought within the provisions of the Bill. I therefore move the amendment in the name of Deputy O'Connell.

Mr. McGILLIGAN

This amendment was really twice defeated in the Committee Stage, and has been in effect defeated once more this morning. I can only repeat now what I said on previous occasions, that if you had a man who entered the railway service with a certain belief that he was going to be retained, that man entered the service with the knowledge that he was not pensionable. These people were not pensionable, and the proposition is that they should be made pensionable. The term of five years was taken as a compromise as compared with the ordinary civil servant, who is not pensionable until after 10 years. We have put this proposal down, and it means that they would receive a pension after five years' service.

Mr. DAVIN

This is compulsory retirement.

Mr. McGILLIGAN

Exactly, and that was the consideration that operated to get these terms agreed to. If you bring the period down to one year you give a person who has served 12 months, probably on a probationary basis, the right to receive a pension if this amalgamation scheme is passed and he loses his post. Five years seems a reasonable compromise between the Civil Service 10, and the fact that previously no officer was pensionable at all.

Mr. DAVIN

The Minister has persistently pointed out that this is a compromise with the Civil Service conditions. Is he aware of the fact that the Superannuation Act of 1909, Section 6, provides that although there may be no definite scheme for pensions under a period of 10 years there is a provision—and the provision has been actually applied—for a lump sum to be given to those who do not come within the limits of the pension scheme. We ask that some provision of that kind should be made here. Take the case of young men, the sons, for example, of Deputy Gorey and Deputy Wilson, who two or three years ago went to Skerry's College. Their fathers, though very badly able to do so, had to pay for their education and to provide them with such training as would enable them to pass an examination for the Railway Clearing House or some of those other examinations with which Deputy Professor Magennis is so thoroughly acquainted.

Now certain age limits are laid down. The individuals concerned pass the examinations. The rates of salary are rather low simply because the positions are regarded as good, and those who entered the service through passing these examinations are guaranteed permanent employment unless they are guilty of some conduct that will justify their removal from their position. They entered the service three or four years ago at an age when it would be possible for them to compete for other examinations. They could not go forward for such examinations now if they are deprived of their employment as a result of the operation of this Bill. Those people who were induced into the employment of the Railway Companies under false pretences, in these circumstances, are now likely to be turned out of their employment as a result of the operations of this scheme which has the backing of the Government. I think that some provision should be made that reasonable compensation would be paid to those people on their removal from office. They are cut out from competitive examinations to-day or from the opportunity of finding equally suitable employment. They cannot go into the Government Civil Service because they are now over the age at which it would be possible to compete in a Civil Service examination. The Minister has been niggardly in the way he has met the proposals we put forward, and, as I have pointed out, he has overlooked the fact that the Civil Service Superannuation Act makes it possible to put into operation the policy of gratuities and that such gratuities have actually been given to people with less than 10 years' service. I think the Minister might have reasonably met the situation with which these people will be confronted in the same way. And as the Minister is responsible and the Government is responsible, including the Minister for Justice, for the operation of this scheme and for the removal of young men from positions at a period in their career when they cannot get other employment, some more generous proposal than that in the Bill should be brought forward.

Professor MAGENNIS

Deputy Davin is a tenacious and a pertinacious pleader. I listened to this contest of wit and argument between the Minister and Deputy Davin on three occasions; a good deal of what Deputy Davin has said has my heartiest sympathy, but not my support. I should like very much, if somebody introduced a Bill to give everybody everything, to vote for it, but I do not quite see the feasibility of it. One of Deputy Davin's facts is not quite accurately stated. Perhaps in the main it is accurate enough. He says those who compete in examinations, with which I am so familiar, go into the railway service in the expectation of having a permanent position. That is perfectly true. All who are well behaved and well conducted are permanent, and as permanent as if they had got a contract in express terms.

Mr. DAVIN

For the information of the Deputy I might tell him there is a written contract, as a matter of fact.

Professor MAGENNIS

In what terms is that contract?

Mr. DAVIN

A signed contract to the effect that he enters the service; that he gets or gives a month's notice. And he enters the superannuation fund after the probationary period of one year, and receives terms of superannuation, even when retired by the company.

Professor MAGENNIS

The Deputy knows more of the details now than he gave formerly. That is one of the points I was about to make against him. I happen to know that many leave the service after the probationary period, and go into other pursuits. In fact these examinations are frequently utilised, as the Intermediate Examinations are utilised in the field of secondary education, as a sort of training ground or testing ground to enable the candidate, if he has a liking for something better, to pass on to it, and to try his maiden sword, as was said long ago in mediæval romance. If he passes out from this service the essential point that Deputy Davin overlooks is, that this pension is deferred pay. It is recognised everywhere as deferred pay, and when the office is expressly to be a non-pensionable one, it is a notification to the man explicitly.

Mr. DAVIN

Pension is not deferred pay where there is a contributory scheme, and all Railway Superannuation Funds are on a contributory basis.

Professor MAGENNIS

The fact that it is contributory really means this, that portion of what would otherwise have been paid under the head of salary or wages is paid by the company, in conjunction with a contribution from the recipient, so as to secure a better form of insurance from the company whose business it is to insure. So that the essential character that pension is deferred pay remains unaffected. Those who enter into the service are well aware that they are receiving the fullest remuneration that they are entitled to expect. When their employment comes to an end, from no fault of their own, owing to changes such as this promoted in the public interest, they are entitled to compensation, but that compensation they are entitled to is not the compensation the civil servant is entitled to on the abolition of his office, because he is clearly having not merely his position taken from him but also the remuneration and rewards to which he had not merely an equitable and sentimental right, but a legal right to look forward to enjoy at a later day. That is the essential point in this argument, which, I suggest, Deputy Davin, in his zeal for those whose cause he so ably and so ineffectually pleads, is inclined to ignore.

Amendment put.

The Dáil divided: Tá, 14; Níl, 46.

Tá

• Seán Buitléir.
• David Hall.
• Maolmhuire Mac Eochadha.
• Tomás Mac Eoin.
• Risteárd Mac Fheorais.
• Tomás de Nógla.
• Ailfrid O Broin.
• Aodh O Cúlacháin.
• Liam O Daimhín.
• Eamon O Dubhghaill.
• Seán O Laidhin.
• Domhnall O Muirgheasa.
• Tadhg P. O Murchadha.
• Pádraig O hOgáin (An Clár).

Níl

• Earnán de Blaghd.
• Séamus Breathnach.
• Seoirse de Bhulbh.
• Próinsias Bulfin.
• Séamus de Búrca.
• John J. Cole.
• John Conlan.
• Major Bryan Cooper.
• Louis J. D'Alton.
• Máighréad Ní Choileáin Bean Uí Dhrisceóil.
• Patrick J. Egan.
• Osmond Grattan Esmonde.
• Darrell Figgis.
• Henry J. Finlay.
• Desmond Fitzgerald.
• John Good.
• John Hennigan.
• Wm. Hewat.
• Connor Hogan.
• Seosamh Mac Bhrighde.
• Alasdair Mac Cába.
• Liam T. Mac Cosgair.
• Patrick McGilligan.
• Seoirse Mac Niocaill.
• Liam Mac Sioghaird.
• Liam Mag Aonghusa.
• Pádraig S. Mag Ualghairg.
• Patrick J. Mulvany.
• Martin M. Nally.
• John T. Nolan.
• Peadar O hAodha.
• Criostóir O Broin.
• Seán O Bruadair. Próinsias O Cathail.
• Partholán O Conchubhair.
• Séamus N. O Dóláin.
• Tadhg S. O Donnabháin.
• Pádraig O Dubhthaigh.
• Eanaon S. O Dúgáin.
• Mícheál R. O hIfearnáin.
• Domhnall O Mocháin.
• Aindriú O Láimbín.
• Seán M. O Súilleabháin.
• Caoimhghín O hUigín.
• Liam Thrift.
• Nicholas Wall.

Amendment declared lost.

Mr. JOHNSON

I move:

In page, 34, Third Schedule, paragraph (3), line 62, after the word "company" to insert the words "and removal in the course of his employment from one district to another in circumstances which by reason of his age, domestic or other circumstances cause unreasonable hardship or inconvenience.

The object of the amendment is to protect a certain class of railway employees that might be hurt by the operation of the Bill, but are not covered by this Schedule. Paragraph 3 states:—

"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.")

I want to insert words which would prevent his being removed from one part of the country to another, from one district to another, in the course of his employment, in such conditions that by reason of his age or domestic circumstances unreasonable hardship or inconvenience would be caused. I have in mind chiefly the class of persons whom Deputy P. Doyle would be be pleased to speak for if he were here. Railway shopmen, for instance, might well be removed from one railway shop to another because of the amalgamation of railway shops, and a man might have to leave one part of the country for another in such a way that his circumstances would be greatly worsened. The object of the amendment is to secure some protection for that class of workman or any other officer who would be removed from one part of the country to another in circumstances which would be liable to cause hurt to the general condition of that workman.

Mr. DAVIN

One would naturally expect, as a result of the coming into operation of this scheme, that there will be centralised administration and that the headquarters of the new company will be at Kingsbridge, Westland Row, or perhaps Cork. If the headquarters of the new company is to be in a certain place it may mean that certain members of the staff of the constituent bodies of the amalgamated company will have to be removed from their present place of work. In England the experience has been that hundreds of men had to be transferred from one place to another as a result of the reorganisation. We contend that in such circumstances a married man with domestic responsibilities who, for instance, had been in occupation of a house for years in a particular area, should not be compelled, by reason of the coming into operation of the scheme, to remove out of his home area if there are other people working in the same place who would not be affected in the same way.

I have read the correspondence in connection with, and I had some association with the operation of the British Act; and an agreement has been come to by the British railway companies, who form the four groups in England, that in cases of that kind the younger men without responsibilities should be first removed from the home station. It is very difficult, for instance, for a man who might be removed from any of the provincial towns to Dublin, in connection with the working out of this scheme, to find a house in Dublin. That would mean, as far as a married man is concerned, that he would be practically keeping two homes. And if an injustice of that kind can be avoided by a direction of this kind, it should have the approval of the Minister. And assuming that there would not be fair consideration given to such claims by the amalgamated company, I doubt if any good reason can be given by the Minister for refusing to insert a direction of this kind.

Mr. McGILLIGAN

I objected to a previous amendment on the grounds that it sought to give pensions to those not previously pensionable. I have a similar type of objection to this amendment. You have employees, a condition of whose service is that they shall go wherever they are sent. This amendment seeks to better their position in this respect. By this Bill they are going to be put on a totally different footing to that on which they previously were—a footing that they never expected to be put on when they entered the railway service. And this amendment, if accepted, would tie the hands of the amalgamated company to a serious extent. There is bound to be a certain interchange of employees as the result of the amalgamation; and the amalgamated company must be given a fair amount of liberty to change the employees about. It is quite likely that the change of employees will prevent a tremendous number of men being removed from employment on the ground of redundancy; and it is better to have them transferred and shifted about than to have them removed from the service. Deputy Davin has, I think, spoken four times since Deputy Doyle had the temerity to encroach on certain of his preserves.

Mr. DAVIN

No.

Mr. McGILLIGAN

Several times. I hope that he will consider now that he has satisfied all his obligations to his constituents, even if Deputy Doyle forestalled him on one point.

Mr. DAVIN

Excuse me. I referred to Deputy Doyle's attitude on one occasion only, and it is not fair to say that I spoke four times. I only referred to him on one occasion, and I think it was enough, as a matter of fact.

Amendment put.

The Dáil divided: Tá, 17; Níl, 30.

Tá

• Seán Buitléir.
• John Daly.
• David Hall.
• Connor Hogan.
• Maolmhuire Mac Eochadha.
• Tomás Mac Eoin.
• Risteárd Mac Fheorais.
• Tomás de Nógla.
• Ailfrid O Broin.
• Aodh O Cúlacháin.
• Liam O Daimhín.
• Eamon O Dubhghaill.
• Peadar S. O Dubhghaill.
• Seán O Laidhin.
• Domhnall O Muirgheasa.
• Tadhg P. O Murchadha.
• Pádraig O hOgáin (An Clár).

Níl

• Earnán de Blaghd.
• Seoirse de Bhulbh.
• Próinsias Bulfin.
• Bryan R. Cooper.
• Louis J. D'Alton.
• Máighréad Ní Choileáin Bean Uí
• Dhrisceóil.
• Patrick J. Egan.
• Osmond Grattan Esmonde.
• Desmond Fitzgerald.
• John Good.
• William Hewat.
• P. McGilligan.
• Seoirse Mac Niocaill.
• Liam Mag Aonghusa.
• Pádraig S. Mag Ualghairg.
• Martin M. Nally.
• John T. Nolan.
• Peadar O hAodha.
• Criostóir O Broin.
• Seán O Bruadair.
• Conchubhair O Conghaile.
• Eoghan O Dochartaigh.
• Séamus N. O Dóláin.
• Pádraig O Dubhthaigh.
• Eamon S. O Dúgáin.
• Seán O Duinnín.
• Domhnall O Mocháin.
• Seán M. O Súilleabháin.
• Caoimhghín O hUigín.
• Liam Thrift.

Amendment declared lost.

Mr. JOHNSON

I move:

In page 35, Third Schedule, paragraph 5 (a), line 11, after the words "shall be" to insert the words "in the case of an officer or servant with less than five completed years of service a gratuity calculated at the rate of one-sixth of his remuneration and emoluments for each completed year of his service, and in the case of an officer or servant with not less than five completed years of service."

I may say, to save time, that this amendment is taken from the Bill of the Minister for Local Government. Consequently I have no doubt it had the consideration of the Minister for Industry and Commerce in another aspect, and I presume we shall receive his support in this matter, and that it is unnecessary to enlarge upon it. If it has been found reasonable by the Minister for Local Government then I have not the slightest hesitation in thinking that it will surely get the support of the Minister for Industry and Commerce. I therefore move the amendment.

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

Is not this amendment consequential on No. 34?

Mr. McGILLIGAN

I should like to get it made clear to me whether this amendment should not be regarded as consequential on one previously defeated, No. 34. We have a preamble to this Third Schedule which says:

"The following provisions shall apply in respect of persons who, on the 3rd day of April, 1924, were, and for a period of not less than five years have been, officers or servants of any amalgamating company or absorbed company."

And then this amendment seeks to establish rights for those with less than five completed years of service. And if the amendment is in order at all, I can only raise the objection to it that I raised on Amendment 34—that five years has seemed to be the most equitable compromise when giving pensions or when putting in a pensionable position those who previously had no pensionable rights and who entered the railway service without any agreement regarding pension.

Mr. DAVIN

Would the Minister say why he supports, in the Bill introduced by the Local Government Minister, the conditions claimed in this amendment, and denies the same rights to railway servants who are to become redundant because of his action?

Mr. McGILLIGAN

Because this is not a Local Government Bill, and the conditions are entirely different.

Amendment put, and declared lost.

Mr. DAVIN

I beg to move:—

In page 35, Third Schedule, paragraph 5 (a), line 16, after the word "service" to insert the words "with the amalgamated company or an amalgamating or absorbed company, or with any railway company carrying on business in Ireland of which he was an officer or servant during any period preceding and continuous with his service with an amalgamated or absorbed company."

When I tell the Dáil that what we are claiming in this amendment is likely to be a greater benefit to the general managers than to the rank and file of the clerical staff, I am sure that those of you who have so consistently backed the higher type of official, and the capitalist class as a whole, will see the justice of the amendment we are putting forward. I have in mind at the present time the case of one of the high officials in railway managerial circles who now is general manager of a railway that will be concerned in the amalgamation scheme, and who previously had had a long and honourable service in another company that is likely to be compelled to accept the scheme, if the clause is put into operation. If it is, and if this general manager has the misfortune to be found on the scrap heap, then the compensation clause of this Bill will only give him credit for the service in the company of which he is now general manager, and he will not get credit for the service he had in the other company, of which he was a prominent official, and on which he did good and useful work. We claim, through the terms of this amendment, that he should get credit in any compensation terms that he may receive, if he does receive them, for his continuous service in the railway company which he has already served, and the company that may be compelled to come into the scheme. He is general manager of a company that is agreeable to come into the scheme. I think it is only a fair claim to put forward. In the same way, we cannot see any difference between that type of case and that of an individual who may have been employed in the Great Northern, I will say, or in any other non-amalgamated company, if his services have been continuous, in a railway company or companies, which are regarded for all purposes as public services. In any compensation which he may receive as a result of becoming redundant, he should get credit for his full service in the railway service since he first joined the company, whatever that company may be. This is likely to have a serious and perhaps, a disastrous effect upon general managers, because there will be a number of general managers' positions done away with, and that would be very disastrous to people who have served the public so well and so faithfully and honourably as these general managers have done, some of whom have been very fair and square in their dealing with the staff. We do not think it is right that they should be treated in this unfavourable manner, as the clause in the Bill as it now stands, purports to treat them.

Professor O'SULLIVAN

Perhaps before the debate concludes, I would be permitted to ask an answer to this question. Suppose a man spent 35 years in the service of the L.M.S. Company, which is a Railway Company carrying on business and discharging functions in Ireland, does the amendment propose that he should be included?

Mr. DAVIN

I have no such claim as that at all.

Professor O'SULLIVAN

The L.M.S. Railway Co. is a Railway Company which does discharge functions in Ireland. Am I to assume that he is to get, after five years service here, two-thirds of his salary as pension when leaving the Amalgamated Company?

Mr. DAVIN

No, unless he is in the service of a Company working in Ireland.

Professor O'SULLIVAN

I gave the Deputy a concrete case and showed how it came under his amendment. The L.M.S. is a Railway Company carrying on business in Ireland. Therefore, if a man who has spent 35 years over in England in the service of the L.M.S. Company changes to the Amalgamated Company, the Amalgamated Company must give him two-thirds of his salary as pension. Is that so?

Mr. DAVIN

That is the claim in the amendment, and it is a case that may happen; because the Irish Railway Company may, in their wisdom—the wisdom that these Directors of Railway Companies are credited with— have brought over Englishmen to fill high positions here. That is the effect of the amendment—that is when these men are brought over here they should get these terms.

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

resumed the chair.

Professor O'SULLIVAN

I only wanted to make that point clear.

Mr. McGILLIGAN

Deputy O'Sullivan has put in concrete terms the point that I want to put in a more vague way. Why should the Amalgamated Company be asked to bear the responsibility for compensation for a period of years service in a Company with which the Amalgamated Company has no connection? If a man were serving in one of the Companies not to be amalgamated or absorbed, and that individual, for his own betterment, left and took the risk involved, there is no reason whatsoever why the undertaking should be burdened with compensation for years not served in any of the Companies with which the Amalgamated Company is concerned.

Major COOPER

I am not entirely convinced by the Minister's argument, and still less am I convinced by Deputy O'Sullivan's argument. In future when the amalgamated company engages a man, knowing that he has had this service, if this amendment is carried they will know that there is this liability and they will not engage a man unless they consider that he is a man of such outstanding ability that it is well worth their while to bring him into their service and to render themselves liable for the compensation this amendment would give him. If this amendment is not passed the effect will be that it will prevent good men who have service in other railway companies, say with the Great Northern, with the L.M.S., and possibly with the American and Canadian railway companies, to come over here, because they may forfeit any rights they may have to pensions.

I want to see the State getting the service of the best men and the most experienced men. I think it has been found that many of the best officials in the Irish railway service, and in the railways outside Ireland, are men who had previously got wider experience elsewhere. I do not see why they should suffer in respect of pension rights on account of having been brought into the service in that way. I believe the Minister himself may claim that he learned something when he was in the High Commissioner's office in London, and I would be glad to see him compensated in regard to that. His being brought over here has been good for the State and good for himself. The same thing will apply in the case of railwaymen, and it is because of that, that I am in favour of this amendment, and I hope Deputy Davin will press it.

Mr. JOHNSON

The Minister has taken up Deputy O'Sullivan's point as if it were a conclusive argument against this amendment. But let us take the point and examine it. This amendment does not deal only with persons who may become employed by the Amalgamated Company. It deals with persons who have been employed by the Irish Railway Companies, but who have served previously in English Railway Companies, or an English Railway Company which had its activities in Ireland. Now these persons have been engaged by the Irish Railway Companies because of the experience they had gained in English Companies. I wonder does Deputy O'Sullivan or the Minister conclude that the company that was engaging such a person has no right to take into account the fact that they have had the advantage of that man's experience? But the Minister and the Deputy who have opposed the amendment have not taken into account the other class of employee who is hurt by the operations of the Bill, or will be hurt by the operations of the Bill, as it stands at present. I refer to the class of employee who was in a company, that is going to be amalgamated, wholly in Ireland and transfers to another company also wholly in Ireland. Such an employee is only going to get the benefit of the service in the second company, the company which he now serves. His previous railway service is not to be reckoned, even if it is in a company wholly working in Ireland and which is now to be amalgamated. The Minister did not meet that. side of the argument. Then there are other companies which are working wholly in Ireland and which are not to be amalgamated and from which transfers have occurred quite frequently to other companies that are to be amalgamated. The object of the amendment clearly is to ensure that the railway service shall count to the employee even though it may be railway service not wholly in this country.

Professor O'SULLIVAN

Not at all.

Mr. JOHNSON

The Minister even has not suggested that he must have been working in this country before he has been in the amalgamated company. The Minister has not suggested that he is prepared to meet the case of employees who have been wholly working in railway companies in Ireland. Deputy Davin has mentioned an obvious case of a railway manager who may be thrown aside in the course of the amalgamation, and the greater part of whose services was spent in other companies, but who is only going to be compensated on the basis of the service he has spent in the present company. That applies to others. It seems to me that the amendment makes a plea which ought to be easily accepted, and I would press the Minister to say that he would meet this point.

Mr. McGILLIGAN

Deputy Cooper did not completely understand the position. His remarks applied to service of officers who will join, at some time in the future, the service of the amalgamated company. That, I should say, will be a matter to be considered hereafter. These rules do not apply to them. Now with regard to the people for whom Deputy Johnson spoke, he made a case for a man with special qualifications, and a very good case, and the case that was made was so very well adverted to, that special provision has been made in Section 5 (b) of the Third Schedule. That special section will deal with almost every case spoken of by Deputy Johnson in the last remarks he made. Here is part of the sub-section:—"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."

Mr. DAVIN

Who is to determine the service—who is to decide?

Mr. McGILLIGAN

The tribunal decides all these points when they come up for decision.

Amendment put.

The Dáil divided: Tá, 16; Níl, 30.

Tá

• Seán Buitléir.
• Bryan R. Cooper.
• John Daly.
• David Hall.
• Connor Hogan.
• Tomás Mac Eoin.
• Risteárd Mac Fheorais.
• Patrick J. Mulvany.
• Tomás de Nógla.
• Aodh O Cúlacháin.
• Liam O Daimhín.
• Eamon O Dubhghaill.
• Seán O Duinnín.
• Domhnall O Muirgheasa.
• Tadhg P. O Murchadha.
• Pádraig O hOgáin (An Clár).

Níl

• Earnán de Blaghd.
• Seoirse de Bhulbh.
• Próinsias Bulfin.
• Máighréad Ní Choileáin Bean Uí
• Dhrisceóil.
• Patrick J. Egan.
• Desmond Fitzgerald.
• John Good.
• John Hennigan.
• William Hewat.
• Seosamh Mac Bhrighde.
• Pádraig Mac Giollagáin.
• Risteárd Mac Liam.
• Seoirse Mac Niocaill.
• Pádraig S. Mag Ualghairg.
• Martin M. Nally.
• John T. Nolan.
• Peadar O hAodha.
• Mícheál O hAonghusa.
• Criostóir O Broin.
• Partholán O Conchubhair.
• Mícheál O Dubhghaill.
• Pádraig O Dubhthaigh.
• Eamon S. O Dúgáin.
• Donchadh S. O Guaire.
• Fionán O Loingsigh.
• Pádraig O Máille.
• Domhnall O Mocháin.
• Seán M. O Súilleabháin.
• Caoimhghín O hUigín.
• Liam Thrift.

Amendment declared lost.

Mr. DUGGAN

I move Amendment 38:—

In page 35, Third Schedule, line 31, to insert after paragraph 5 (a) a new paragraph as follows:—

" (b) where any existing officer or servant was temporarily absent from his employment as such officer or servant and during the whole of such absence was engaged in service in the National Forces of Saorstát Eireann, or any military forces serving under the authority of the First Dáil Eireann, the Second Dáil Eireann, or the Provisional Government of Ireland, or the British Army, Navy, or Air Force, such temporary absence shall for the purposes of this Schedule be reckoned and included in his period of service as such officer or servant."

Mr. JOHNSON

There is a difficulty about this amendment that I think ought to be taken notice of. That is the term "service in the National Forces of Saorstát Eireann." One does not know what that means. We know the general colloquial meaning of it, but it is difficult to know how a judge or tribunal would interpret it. Does it mean any national service, or does it mean only armed service? It ought to mean any national service, any service of the Government. The amendment also insists that the whole of the service shall be in military service. There may be very many people in the railway service during the last few years who transferred to work which was not definitely military but might well have been of national importance. I do not know whether any people transferred, whether from the British or Irish service, say, to, the making of munitions. They would be deprived of benefit under this section. I suggest to the Minister it would require some consideration, and amendment before it passes. I think the term "National Forces" is too loose. It may give rise to a good deal of difficulty and contention, and it would be well if he revised the phraseology in some way to include all persons who are serving the State in any manner, whether militarily or otherwise. Subject to that I have no objection to the amendment, but I would ask the Minister to consider this, either between now and the meeting of the Seanad, or perhaps between now and the next sitting of the Dáil.

Further consideration of Bill was adjourned.

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

When does the Minister propose to proceed with this?

Mr. McGILLIGAN

First business on Wednesday, and I may say now that I intend to take all the necessary steps to secure the Fifth Stage for Friday.

The Dáil adjourned at 4 p.m.