Amendment 38 was moved by Deputy Duggan, and we were on a discussion with regard to its provisions.
ALLOCATION OF TIME OF THE DAIL. - RAILWAYS BILL, 1924—REPORT STAGE RESUMED.
The Minister, I think, was invited to explain what was meant by the term "National Forces."
I do not think that was exactly the demand made of me. I think the term "National Forces" explains itself, and does so without any details from me. I understood that a suggestion had been made that there should be incorporated here some such phrase as occurred in Deputy O'Connell's previous amendment. "work of national importance." Apparently, on the last day work of national importance was being defined as meaning work not in any of the military forces.
That is where my doubts arose. It was previous to that amendment having been moved that I asked Deputy O'Connell if he had in his mind any definition of "work of national importance" outside of "services with the military forces." I understood from him that he had not, that the term, "services with the military forces" included the one "work of national importance" which he intended to bring in. I was waiting for some further statement from Deputy O'Connell of the additional work of national importance which would not come in under the term "services with the military forces," and I am still waiting for that explanation.
I do not want to raise any particular objection to the insertion of this amendment, but it seems to me to emphasise the fact that the whole of the provisions of this Bill are laid down on the lines of real nationalisation of the railways. In other words, as an ordinary commercial concern, the railways, I think, could not be called upon to differentiate as regards their staff on an amendment like this. The whole trend of this amendment is that the Government are taking control, not only of the arrangements in connection with the railways, but in connection with the services of the servants of the railway companies.
Amendment put and agreed to.
I beg to move amendment 39:—
In page 35, Third Schedule, paragraph 5 (d), lines 48 to 52, to delete all from and including the word "average" to the end of the paragraph, and to insert in lieu thereof the words, "annual value of the remuneration and emoluments of which he was in receipt on the 3rd day of April, 1924, unless he received promotion within one year before the said 3rd day of April, 1924, in which case his remuneration and emoluments shall for the purpose aforesaid be taken to be the annual value of the remuneration and emoluments of which he was in receipt immediately before such promotion."
The amendment is introduced in accordance with a promise made when the Bill was in Committee. The object of the amendment is to ensure that a redundant official will receive his compensation on the basis of his salary at the date of retirement, except in the case of men promoted within one year prior to the 3rd April, 1924, in which case the basis of compensation will be the salary prior to the promotion.
We look upon this amendment, although perhaps brought forward in a little different form to that in which it was discussed in Committee, as being a most unfair and unreasonable attempt on the part of the Government in dealing with those who may become redundant as a result of this Bill. A railway servant, or an official who is associated with the Superannuation Fund, receives under ordinary conditions a pension based upon the rules in operation with regard to the fund which he belongs to. Some funds provide that superannuation is to be based on the last seven years of average salary, while others give a percentage of the average salary based on length of years of service. I cannot understand why the Minister has put in this proviso with regard to those who receive promotion twelve months prior to the 3rd April, 1924. I have seen a circular which is supposed to have been issued by the Ministry in regard to promotions that took place—I think the date given was the 1st January, 1924. Vacancies have occurred in the ordinary administrative positions in the railways for the last twelve months as they have always occurred. These must be filled from a purely administrative point of view. The attitude of the Minister in regard to these cases is that any person who may have been called upon in the ordinary course of events to fill a higher post, which had to be filled for administrative reasons, will not get the benefit of the increase of salary, following promotion, if he becomes redundant as a result of this Bill. Mr. Justice Wylie, in the case of the Irish Railways Wages Board, gave a decision which means a certain increase of salary for the lower grade staffs on the railways. This increase ranges from £5 per annum to £40 per annum. The effect of the operation of this amendment, as it stands, is that any of these lower grade officials or servants who may become redundant as a result of this Bill, in 1926 or in 1927 will not receive the benefit of these increases in their compensation or superannuation. In other words, they will be compelled to retire, and to accept compensation terms based upon their salary in 1921 or in 1922, although they may not become redundant until 1926 or 1927. I think that is very unfair, especially to the lower grade people, who otherwise would benefit to a considerable extent as a result of the recent decision of Mr. Justice Wylie. As in most cases it is the lower grade people who will become redundant, I hope the Minister will see the injustice that is being done by this amendment, and that in all fairness he will accept the later amendment standing in the name of Deputy Johnson, which deals with this matter.
In my opinion the amendment which stands in my name would meet the whole case. It is the last appeal that we are making to the Minister in the final stages of this Bill, and I hope the appeal will not fall on deaf ears. This is not a matter of looking for charity, but of looking for rights already established. Superannuation is already granted to servants retiring under ordinary conditions, and I think that what they get under ordinary conditions they should get under the extraordinary conditions created by the coming into operation of this measure.
At this late stage of the Bill it would, I suppose, be useless for me to make an appeal to Deputy Davin to read the amendment which is under consideration before I proceed to pass any comments on something that he has evolved from his imagination and which is not before me. He has spoken of increase in salary. Is, I ask, increase of salary mentioned in this amendment? The words are "unless he receives promotion."
Promotion surely means increase of salary, and increase of salary will have some effect on his superannuation or upon the compensation sections in this Bill?
I ask, does increase of salary always mean promotion? I am dealing with an amendment which states "unless he receives promotion," not unless he receives an increase of salary at a certain period. The object of the amendment, as stated, was this: That the railway companies were warned definitely, and were requested to take into their consideration a scheme for the reorganisation of the railways. They were given that warning about November, 1922, and the effect of the amendment is to catch any promotions that were made after that date. They were not actually tied to that date because they were given liberty to make promotions during two or three months following the date of that warning.
Is the Minister correct in stating that the date of the warning was November, 1922? I understood that the date was November, 1923.
The date of the warning was the 17th November, 1922. That was issued to the railway companies on that date, and we are now seeking to prohibit promotions made after the 3rd April, 1923, counting towards the pension which will be given if a man is discharged because he becomes redundant under this railway scheme. That is a very different thing to what the Deputy has stated. This question of promotion is very different to the granting of an increase of salary. People who get the ordinary increase of salary and who may become redundant will have their pensions calculated on the terms which Deputy Davin thinks equitable. The only people who will not benefit in that way are those who were given promotion after the three months' period or later than the warning was first issued to the railway companies, that a railway reorganisation scheme was on foot and that promotions should be carefully scrutinised. The amendment catches these people, and we intend to hold them to it. There is one change which perhaps may be made later in the amendment. The phrase at present is rather vague, and it is intended to substitute a more definite one. It is proposed to substitute for the "3rd day of April, 1924," the words "the date of the happening of the event giving rise to the claim for compensation." That is not so objectionable as accepting the whole of the next amendment. Is it possible to have this amended amendment considered with Amendment No. 40?
Yes.
Then I would like to have Deputy Johnson's views as to how far he agrees to substitute for the words "3rd day of April, 1924," where they first occur, the words "on the date of the happening of the event giving rise to the claim for compensation."
I think that would meet the case or the chief part of my claim. If that is accepted, I will not move my amendment.
The Minister desires to amend his amendment to read:—To delete all from and including the word "average" to the end of the paragraph, and to insert in lieu thereof the words "annual value of the remuneration and emoluments of which he was in receipt on the date of the happening of the event giving rise to the claim for compensation, unless he receives promotion within one year before the 3rd day of April, 1924, in which case his remuneration and emoluments shall, for the purposes aforesaid, be taken to be the annual value, etc."
Has the Minister any information at his disposal to indicate to the Dáil the number of promotions he has in his mind that have taken place following the issue of the circular by his Ministry?
There again I take exception to one phrase that the Deputy has used. I am not dealing with the circular that was issued on the 1st January this year. I go back to a warning given on the 17th November, 1922, and a certain liberty was given for a period after that. I go back beyond the date of the circular. That was a very definite event. The circular was issued specially because it came to our knowledge that a promotion was about to be made, and the circular was issued having special reference to that one promotion. We do know of three promotions made since that time.
Amendment to the amendment, put and agreed to.
Amendment, as amended, put and agreed to.
Amendment No. 40, not moved.
Mr. DOYLE
I beg to move Amendment 41:—
In page 35, Third Schedule, line 80, to add at the end of the Schedule a new provision as follows:—
"9, for the purposes of this Schedule every person in the employment of an amalgamating company or an absorbed company shall be deemed to be an officer or servant of that company."
The object of this addition to the Schedule is to include shopmen engaged in the manufacture of rolling stock as distinct from others included in the Schedule.
I beg to second the amendment. The matter was raised at an earlier stage. I think there is no need for it. I think that the Bill speaks of employees of the companies which must include all such persons, but there is no doubt that within a certain section of the railway service there have been certain suspicions, and this amendment will make matters quite clear and remove those suspicions from very suspicious people.
This amendment covers amendment 42 as well.
Yes, except for the reservation, "subject in the case of any solicitor to the provisions of paragraph 6 of the Schedule." Paragraph 6 deals with the matter of a solicitor acting for an amalgamated or absorbed company, and the word "solely" is an important word in that paragraph. We wish to preserve what is afterwards defined in paragraph 6 in this amendment
Is the Minister proposing that as an amendment to the amendment?
Yes.
It is proposed to amend amendment 41 by adding at the end the words "subject in the case of any solicitor to the provisions of paragraph 6 of the Schedule."
I expect the Minister has in mind the case to which my attention was drawn where a solicitor for an absorbed baronially guaranteed company had been engaged for over 38 years. He was appointed by the County Council. It appears, if I remember rightly, that the County Council would not, in view of the passing of this, consider itself responsible for pensioning such a servant. If this section is amended in the way the Minister now proposes it will mean that that solicitor, after having served 38 years as a whole-time employee of the Committee responsible for the baronially guaranteed line to be absorbed, will be deprived of his right of pension from either the county or from the railway company. I am not quite sure if I have the case right at the moment, because I did not expect it would arise, and my memory is not very clear on the point, but I expect the Minister has had the matter brought to his notice. It seems to me that injustice would be done, and I hope the Minister does not wish to do injustice to any single person, even a solicitor.
What is the period of service attached to this pension referred to in this amendment?
The whole question is governed by the preamble to the section.
But this refers to a class different rather to the class referred to in the Schedule. The Schedule, I take it, refers to existing officers and servants of a railway company. This refers, according to the Deputy who proposed it, to shop employees who may be Trade Union employees, and who may pass from one shop to another, and who have no service at all, except the period that is mentioned. Are the men after two, three, four or five years service in this shop entitled to carry a pension? This class is quite a different class to that referred to in the original schedule, and I think the Deputy who proposed the amendment saw the difference.
My previous answer when this point was raised was that shopmen were included. We had always intended to include them; and it was only to make explicit what we believed to be already in the Bill and in the schedule that this clause has been introduced. The period of five years put in is intended to apply to railway shopmen as well as to every other class of employee.
This is quite contrary to the usual practice in connection with Trade Union employees. If a man who has had three or four or five years' service in a shop is going to get a pension and leave that service and go into some other service, he is going to get a rate in excess of what is the recognised Trade Union rate. This is going to set up a principle that is going to be exceedingly awkward; it is going to set aside what I might call standard rights in connection with certain trades.
Amendment to amendment agreed to.
Amendment, as amended, put and carried.
I hope I will be taken as voting against that. It does not make much difference, I think. A good many principles have been knocked on the head.
I move Amendment 43:—
"In page 42, Ninth Schedule, Part II, to delete the figures opposite ‘Mayo' and substitute therefor ‘£292.'"
I wish to convince the Minister of the unreasonableness of the attitude which he takes up in trying to victimise a county that is not over prosperous, in the interest of the huge monopoly which this Bill is going to establish. In Mayo there are two railways, and remember that they are guaranteed railways. We heard a lot last week about keeping one's engagements, but that all seems to be forgotten when we come to deal with individual promises. There are two railways in County Mayo— the Claremorris and Ballinrobe Railway and the Claremorris and Swinford Railway. The Claremorris and Ballinrobe line is carried on at a loss, and the Claremorris and Swinford line is carried on at a profit. The Claremorris and Swinford line was built in order to break down the monopoly of the Midland Great Western Railway and allow the Great Southern and Western Railway Company to get in and take some of the route. This Bill changes all this. The attitude that the Minister takes up indicates that he is going to do something that at least is not exactly carried out in commercial establishments. He wants to treat each of the railways as a separate item, and, as far as the County Mayo is concerned, he takes completely all the profit, and he wishes the County Mayo to take the whole portion of the loss. Shylock brought up-to-date. That is really what it is. He takes not only his pound of flesh, but he takes 800 times his pound of flesh. Now, in 1913 they made a kind of standard agreement in regard to these railways, and from 1913 to 1923 the officials of the County Council had no access to the books of those companies; but in 1923 the official of the County Council came along and he had access to the books; and for the half year ending the 30th April, 1923, the Claremorris and Swinford Railway—the only railway to whose accounts they had access— showed the surprising profit of £29 13s. 2d. A very astonishing thing happened in the very next half year. The profit in the next half year rose from £29 to £1,163. There seems to have been a gold mine in the railway running from Swinford to Claremorris. Now, the years in which the auditors or the officials of the County Council had no access to the books of the railway companies were very prosperous years, and I am sure—I have not the slightest doubt about it—that if the officials of the County Council had access to the books, the receipts of the county would have benefitted very considerably by their investigations.
The loss on the Ballinrobe line was £1,776 18s. 4d. for 1923. Those are the very last figures available. The gain on the Claremorris and Swinford line was £1,193 9s. 3d., made up of a profit of £29 in one half year and a profit of £1,163 in another half year. Of course, we feel this very much in the county of Mayo. We do not think that it is at all fair that the people of the county should be mulcted for their portion of the loss on the Claremorris and Ballinrobe Railway, while there is no account at all taken of the profit on the Claremorris and Swinford line. And what I wish to suggest to the Minister is—and I hope he will adopt the suggestion—that the difference between those two figures, £1,776 and £1,193, will be taken as the full loss that is, £583, for half of which the County Mayo is only liable in justice.
Mr. McNALLY
I second the amendment. For the last twenty years the Tuam and Claremorris Railway has been worked at a profit roughly of £1,100 a year. The branch line is a guaranteed line. The line from Claremorris to Ballinrobe has been working at a loss roughly of £900. What the Minister proposes to do is to take the £1,100 profit and make us pay the £900 loss on the Ballinrobe line. That is not fair, and I, therefore, second the amendment.
This amendment has for its object the setting off against the amount payable by the County Council of Mayo in respect of the Ballinrobe and Claremorris Railway, a so-called surplus arising on another railway. There are three railways with which the county of Mayo is concerned—the Athenry and Tuam Extension to Claremorris, the Ballinrobe and Claremorris Railway, and the Claremorris and Swinford Railway. With regard to the first of these, the Bill does not provide for any payment from the County Mayo in respect of that line. With regard to the Ballinrobe and Claremorris line there is a loss, and that loss is being met by the arrangement under the Bill. Against that we have in this amendment to set off what is called a surplus arising out of the Claremorris and Swinford Railway. The true position with regard to the Claremorris and Swinford Railway is this: It is worked by the Great Southern and Western Company under a very old agreement, an agreement which, if this Railway Bill did not come along, would certainly have been revised, and which would have turned this peculiar surplus into another loss. It is an old agreement set up many years ago whereby the line is worked for a sum of £4 per mile per week. The Great Southern and Western Company, working this portion of the line for that sum of money, enabled a portion of the line itself to show a surplus. It is quite certain that the cost per mile per week of running any baronially guaranteed line in this country would average at the moment between £10 and £12, so that the case is that, by virtue of the old arrangement, which is quite inequitable in present-day conditions, this portion of the line is at the moment enabled to show this so-called surplus. If the Bill had not come along that agreement would have to be subject to revision, and had it been revised at the rate which corresponds with the working expenses per week of other lines, there is no doubt that this so-called surplus would disappear. Consequently, the provision of the Bill that the county of Mayo shall pay a sum of £866 for ten years in substitution of a perpetual liability for payment of the interest on the guaranteed capital, is quite equitable. A case can be made out for setting off the so-called profits against the loss on the other line, but that surplus arises, as I have said, by virtue of an old agreement, which is completely out of touch with present-day conditions, and which is subject to revision, and which would have to be revised had this Bill not come along.
Would the Minister explain whether the time has expired? Why is it subject to revision—was it for 20 years or for what period? I can hardly understand how we could call it inequitable, because it was an agreement. We consider all those baronial guarantees in which the barony has to pay, inequitable, but why would the Ministry consider an agreement, if it operates against the company, inequitable? Is there any definite clause asking for this revised arrangement within a certain time?
I wish to congratulate the Minister on his excessive care for the Great Southern and Western Company, and to point out that his argument was altogether based upon supposition. If you make a commercial agreement you will have to carry it out, whether you sink or swim.
In answer to Deputy Wilson, I wish to say that the agreement was not made for any stipulated period, but there was nothing which would prevent the company from making application to have the rate revised. The circumstances are such that any clear exposition, any clear view, of the present cost of working would immediately put this agreement out of court, and even though no time-limit existed as to the time it would run, application had only to be made for the agreement to be broken. I am not interested in one railway company over another. The question of one company over another disappears with this Bill. There is to be one amalgamated undertaking, and that has to be made economical. The County Council of Mayo is being relieved from the liability it had in perpetuity, and it is being set over a period of ten years, and it has to pay a very limited sum. I think that Deputy Good will assent that the Mayo County Council, like every other county council, comes very well out of this Bill.
I think the argument of the Minister is not quite convincing. I think there was a bargain made and that it should be adhered to. According to the Minister, so far as the interests of the railway companies are concerned, it should be a case of heads I win and tails you lose. The point he makes about the cost of running the line having increased, is an argument that would tell in favour of the reduction of the profit, but not of sweeping away the whole lot. I suggest to the Minister that he should look at it from that point of view, and give the county credit for some of this profit that is made on the Claremorris and Swinford line. He has not made much of a case for sweeping away the entire profit, because he said that the railway company would have raised the point. I think the Great Southern and Western Company is well able to look after its own interests. When they did not raise the point up to now, they might have gone on for another twenty years without raising it.
The Deputy who has just spoken has mentioned that the arguments of the Minister in this matter are not very convincing. I would like to expand the argument, and say that the arguments of the Minister in favour of the Bill are not convincing, but are quite the other way. Deputy Sears and Deputy Wilson are responsible for putting through this Bill, and how either of them can get up and say that there is a claim for retaining an obligation against a railway company when they have been roping in the spoils during the whole period of this Bill, seems to me to be very unconvincing so far as they are concerned.
As regards Deputy Sears, who has asked me why I should not keep the railway company to its bargain, I must say that if we are going to speak of bargains we must consider the matter in the widest possible way. Was there a bargain between the Mayo County Council and certain baronies with regard to these guaranteed lines, and why are we not keeping the baronies to their agreement? Would he prefer the baronies kept to their agreement and have the Claremorris and Swinford line also kept to their agreement? Would he consider it a reason for mulcting the County Council in heavy sums if the baronial guarantees were kept in toto?
I would like to ask the Minister have the Mayo County Council repudiated their claims or tried to change them in the very least?
No, but they have not sent any deputations or protests to me for doing it for them.
Amendment put and negatived.
I move—"That the Bill, as amended, be received for final consideration."
I can easily understand why the discussion of the Railway Bill is considered to be such a dry subject, especially as we find alongside it the Intoxicating Liquor Bill awaiting discussion. I have no desire to delay, even for one minute, the time of the Dáil, or the time which the Minister for Justice is going to take up in connection with the Intoxicating Liquor Bill, when he will, no doubt, in a very eloquent way, advocate the cause of temperance. I want, however, to make a few points in regard to the Bill as it now appears before us. The Bill, as amended in Committee and on the Report Stage, is certainly a considerable improvement on the Bill as it appeared when originally drafted, but we are not exactly satisfied that the Minister was justified in rejecting some of the very reasonable amendments which we put up with the object only of improving the Bill as a whole. I can assure the Minister that he will be faced with amendments of the same kind in the other House, where the machinery of the Government Party organisation does not work so effectively and so unjustly as it works in this House. I hope in the intervening period he will look more closely into these amendments so that he will not be faced with a defeat in the other House, which will give more favourable consideration to the amendments on their merits.
Clause 25 of the Bill directs the tribunal that is to be set up to go into and decide upon the question of a preliminary revision of railway rates within three months. I want to draw the attention of the Minister to the fact that the amalgamated company, when formed, will control—or, at least, I think it will—the Royal Canal. I want to know from him if a preliminary revision of rates in regard to the amalgamated undertaking that will affect the Midland Great Western Railway, will also mean a revision of tolls affecting those who trade on the Royal Canal system. I want to know from him if on this preliminary revision of railway rates the question of rates and tolls on canals will be gone into at the same time. In other countries where a system of water transport is used to a greater extent than in this country there is a deferential in favour of canal companies; the rates are 20 per cent lower than those that operate on the railways. I draw attention to this fact because I happened to be on the Canal Commission, and I have received many communications from by-traders particularly, conveying to me the grievances under which they suffer as by-traders. There has been no reduction of canal rates or tolls since they were first imposed by the Ministry of Transport.
I think any preliminary revision of railway rates should not prejudice the position of those who are using the canals and waterways system of the country at the present time. I hope the Minister will make that quite clear. I believe the Bill does give power to the Minister acting on his own behalf and without representations from anybody, to order the tribunal to go into the question of canal rates and tolls. I think it is a very important matter, and I think the Minister should take some steps to give a direction to the tribunal in the matter. There was a Commission set up to inquire into the future of the inland waterways and canals, but as far as I can see the report has been buried without a funeral service. I hope I am wrong in that. At any rate, the Minister, or his predecessor, has made no statement to this Dáil as to what it is intended to do arising out of the report of this Commission. For that reason, I think it desirable to mention the matter here now.
There is another matter which I wish to speak on, though I may appeal in vain to the Minister to look into it; it is the question of pensions to old railway servants, men who retired before the bonus came into operation on the railways. They have been retired upon a pre-war basis, and, as everybody knows, the pre-war pension basis has severely hit old pensioners, whether they were Civil Service pensioners or railway pensioners. I was wondering if the Minister would make some representations to the directors of the amalgamating company to see if anything could be done to improve the position of the very few men who are affected. Something of an improvement has been effected in the position of men pensioned by the British railways on a pre-war basis. Perhaps representations on the part of the Minister to the people who have the doling out of the money would have the desired effect.
If the scheme which is laid down under this Bill, that is the scheme of a huge monopoly under private ownership, is going to fail, it will fail simply because of the failure of private ownership. We were told by the President, when moving the Second Reading of this Bill, that the people who would be entrusted with the carrying out of the work in connection with the operation of this scheme, would be given a last chance, and if within the period which was allocated for experimental purposes it proved to be a failure, then the Government, or whatever Government would be in power at the time, would be compelled to take the bold step of nationalising the Irish railways. I have supported this Bill on principle, because I believe it makes the path easy for nationalisation. I believe if it fails it will fail because of the failure of private ownership, and if this scheme fails, and with it private ownership, we will no doubt look upon this Bill as the last monument to the system of private ownership in this country. I hope the experimental period will not be very long, because I am as certain as I am standing here, that this scheme will eventually fail, and fail because it will always take into consideration, or the people who will be administering it will take into consideration the question of more revenue and higher dividends for the owners, rather than the question of providing the best services that can be given to the community at the cheapest possible rates.
I suppose we may take it that, when speaking on this matter, Deputy Davin has really been speaking in favour of the Bill. This Bill entered the House on Second Reading in an atmosphere which was, perhaps, a little more heated than should be the case in considering a business Bill of the importance of this measure. It has gone through Committee Stage and has been amended. In so far as the amendments to the Bill have been carried, I think it is thereby improved—that is, if it were possible to improve what is unimprovable, so far as the principle is concerned. This Bill nas been brought forward by the Government and it has been forced through the House by the machinery of the Government. It has received support from Labour, and in that connection one is hardly surprised that it should get the support of Labour. Deputy Davin has been quite outspoken in that respect. He considers the measure as a milestone on the road to nationalisation. I hope the House will bear that in mind. On a former occasion the Labour Party brought forward a Bill on the lines of nationalisation, and this House, in its wisdom, threw it out on the Second Reading. It did not even submit it for amendment. Now the Dáil has, by a majority, adopted what Deputy Davin recognises, and rightly recognises, as a Bill making for nationalisation. And what for? Who wants this Bill? The railway companies do not seem to want it. I have not seen very much enthusiasm on behalf of the Bill in the Dáil except in Government circles and in those circles in which the people supporting the Bill or advocating it are going to get something for themselves. The Farmers' Party told us, in the earlier stages, that they supported the Bill in a half-hearted fashion. It did not much matter whether they supported it in half-hearted fashion or not. They have supported it, and the basis of their support, I think, is, without their having stated it deliberately, the relief the baronies are going to obtain through the transfer of the loss on the baronial railways to the trading community. I make the Farmers' Party a present of that. It is a short-sighted policy, and I do not think they see very far on the road they are travelling. Deputy Davin has said that this Bill is going to fail, that it is an experiment in the direction of nationalisation and the last chance for private enterprise. Where does private enterprise come into this Bill at all? There is not the semblance or the vestige of private enterprise in it. This Bill provides that a certain number of directors shall operate the railways in the financial interest of their shareholders. That, if they had free and untrammelled control of the railways, or even reasonable control, would be private enterprise. But that is not so in this Bill. Any possible power they had got has been taken from them. There is a tribunal to be set up which is going to be comprehensive and far-reaching in character. That tribunal is going to tell them what rates they are going to charge. That tribunal is going to tell them what wages they are going to pay, presumably.
No.
My friends on the opposite benches can very well look after that, and I am sure they will. But this tribunal is going to be an allpowerful factor in connection with the running of these railways under unification. What is this tribunal going to be? It is going to be a tribunal appointed by the Government. It is going to have the Government behind it. In other words, the whole railway system, from beginning to end, is going to be permeated by political influences. When Deputy Davin talks about the unified railways under this Bill as being private enterprise, he is only jeering at the whole principle of the Bill. There is no private enterprise in it. There is no initiative in it. There is nothing but a dead thing in it, except so far as political influences are going to run the undertaking on political lines. I do not mean to say it is going to be run on political lines, beyond the fact that the political party in power is going to have control of the railways as effectively as if they were nationalised. To talk about railway directors being there to manage the railways is only a farce. What is going to happen under the Bill? The board of directors are naturally going to take full advantage of the protective clause of the Bill, which provides that the revenue coming to the shareholders is to be based on the revenue of the three preceding years to 1914. The tribunal is to say what rates of freight and what passenger fares are to be put in operation to provide that revenue. Supposing there is contention about that— and there must be contention about it straight away—you have got one member of the tribunal, a man of experience in railway matters, and you have got, the railway directors, on the other hand, and you start straight away— almost as soon as the tribunal is formed —into contention between the various bodies, as to what is the right rate to be charged for goods and passengers. You have, of course, got the public to consider. The public have been jibbing at the high rates and fares that are being charged. I say deliberately that, within the last twelve months, their chance of getting a reduction in these rates and fares has been prejudiced by this Railway Bill. I say deliberately that the railway companies that are going to be amalgamated could not have continued for the past twelve months to have charged twenty-five per cent. over the competitive non-amalgamated companies if it had not been for the bad influence of this Bill on the whole situation. Is it going to be easier to deal with Labour under the amalgamated company than it is under the present companies?
Just as easy.
I think not. I can see the influence that has already been brought to bear in connection with this Bill having a very material effect on the cost of working of the railways in future. You have seen Deputy Davin using very successfully his powers and influence in connection with this Bill. You have seen at the last stage, at the death knell, of this Bill provisions being inserted to include pensions to shop men on the railways—a class of men who were never considered railway men in the past. What have we seen through the course of the Bill? The Farmers' Party want their goods carried for nothing. The farmers, as the Minister himself has said, represent 75 per cent. of the wealth of the country and those responsible for 75 per cent. of the wealth of the country are going to demand that their goods should be carried very much lower than the goods of anybody else. How is the Government going to resist it? We can wait and see. The unfortunate part of the thing is that when we wait and see we are in the soup.
And then you cannot see.
That is quite true. What I complain of is, the Bill is so far-reaching that the people who have been discussing it do not understand how far-reaching it is. They have no more idea than the man in the moon where they are going to hit themselves. Of course, the Bill can be altered and swept away, but my responsibility in the matter is, that any word of mine that can bring forth a recognition of what this Bill will mean in the future must be said. What is the use of talking—not a bit in the world. I have spoken many times on this Bill, but we have the stone walls around us. We have the Farmers' Party supporting the Government. We have the Labour Party supporting the Government. Where do I come in? Nowhere. But I do make this last protest, that the Bill is wrong in principle and that the Bill in practice will work out very differently to what Deputies expect. If they expect that this Bill is going to bring prosperity and wealth to this country, I suggest to Deputies that they are making a grave mistake. It is a bone of contention which so far from pacifying is going to create more trouble in the country. But it is going to pass. I cannot prevent its passing, but I do say that it is wrong.
Deputy Hewat has spoken very earnestly and has approached nearer to passion in regard to this Bill than ever I have noticed before. He fears that it is a long step downwards. Perhaps Deputy Hewat remembers when he speaks about our supporting this Bill that, as a matter of fact, we were in the same Lobby with him when we voted against the Second Reading. But the Dáil having decided that this Bill is deserving of support and ought to be passed in principle, we have endeavoured to the best of our ability to amend it. Sometimes we have found ourselves supported by Deputy Hewat. We endeavoured to amend it; he endeavoured to destroy it. Several times, when opportunity occurred on the Committee Stage, he delivered Second Reading speeches denouncing the principle of the Bill, and he has managed on the Final Stage to do the same thing. He is to be commended for that, because he is reiterating his very deep convictions. But Deputy Hewat ought to have supported the Bill which was introduced some months ago. Then there would have been no need to have felt so sorely about this Bill. We have tried to amend the Bill, and in some few directions it emerges from the Dáil better than it came in.
I do not want the Dáil, or Deputy Hewat particularly, to think that I look upon this Bill as something which is very valuable. I do not. While I agree that it is probably paying the way for a nationalised system, and do not think any alternative to a nationalised system is likely to be of real value to the country, I have objected to this Bill because of the fact that while I foresee nationalisation, this Bill is prejudicing such a nationalised system. It is weighting the nationalised system with a burden which will make nationalisation uneconomic, and will give an opportunity in future years to Deputy Hewat to say: "Didn't we tell you so; nationalisation is uneconomic; you cannot run the railways successfully without subsidies; you cannot run railways under a nationalised system and be successful." This Bill is preparing the way for Deputy Hewat in five, ten, or fifteen years' time to say that about a nationalised system. It is weighting the future nationalised system with a burden which no nationalised system will be able to bear and give proper service at reasonable rates. It is securing the present owners of railways in a position which they will be able to use when bargains come to be made for nationalisation. That is why I object to the Bill.
I am not sure whether we ought not to take a little more account of the developments of traction and transportation and not look forward to nationalisation so eagerly after we have adopted this Bill, because of the burden it is going to place on a nationalised system. Deputy Hewat has said that from no part of the country and no quarter of the Dáil has there been any keen demand for this Bill. I wonder does he think that there is no need for any change in the railway system. Of course—I gave him credit for it several times—he is consistent, inasmuch as he opposes everything that would prevent any group of persons running a railway from here to anywhere. He would not have any State regulations in regard to railways. He would have free private enterprise in regard to railways and other things. Unfortunately for his contention we are living in a country which is circumscribed in area and in economic possibilities and we must realise the necessity for regulating the railroads so that the private enterprise Deputy Hewat would like cannot eventuate.
It did eventuate.
Has there been no demand for changes in the railway system? Has the commercial, industrial, and agricultural public been satisfied with the railway system and railway services under private enterprise? Evidence produced at quite a number of railway commissions proves quite the contrary, and that the commercial, industrial, and agricultural communities have been insistent and persistent in their complaints about the railway services under private enterprise and competitive conditions, so dear to the heart of Deputy Hewat.
The railway system had then, in response to public needs, to be changed. In what direction was the change to take place? We suggested, as a very generous suggestion, but one that was practicable and, as I think, too generous to the railway companies, a nationalised system, which would not only nationalise the railways, but bring under one co-ordinating authority all transportation and communications.
I maintain that the railway system in this country can only be economic, and really give the maximum value to the community, by co-ordinating and using to the best advantage, the various systems of transportation. This Bill fails to do that. This Bill bolsters up the existing railway shareholders, and gives them an extraordinary advantage, which they did not in equity deserve. While paving the way for nationalisation it is, in advance, making nationalisation likely to be a financial failure. However, there may be no other course to adopt at this stage. I want just to say that I, at least, am not welcoming this Bill as something of great value. I believe it will be, both in service, in economy of working, and in many other ways an advance on the present system. That, at least, ought to be satisfactory to the trading and to the farming communities.
AN LEAS-CHEANN COMHAIRLE took the Chair.
One thing I would like to say: that is, to give a word of thanks, and to express my own gratitude to the Minister for the way he has conducted the Bill through Committee. I think he has taken up this new undertaking, very shortly after his acceptance of responsibility, in a manner which is very creditable to him. He has conducted the Bill through the Dáil with every regard for criticism, and with a genuine attempt to meet the arguments that were honestly raised. I think he is entitled to our gratitude for that.
I would like to support what Deputy Johnson has said with regard to the courtesy we have received from the Minister in the conduct of this measure. That has been referred to already, more than once, during the discussions that have taken place on the Bill. I think everything that has been said in connection with the conduct of the measure, and with regard to the courtesy shown by the Minister, will be supported generally in the Dáil. On these Benches we have offered a good deal of criticism, but we have tried to put it forward in a way that would be least hurtful. The same spirit, I think, has actuated the Minister in replying. Deputy Johnson has referred to what he considers the great objection to the Bill right through. That is, that it is too generous to the railway shareholders. I am afraid that view is not shared, to any large extent, by the railway shareholders, because, if I can follow what has happened on the Stock Exchange with regard to railway shares, since this Bill was introduced, I have not seen any considerable rise in the value of these securities. In fact, my attention has been drawn in several quarters to the fall that has taken place in a number of these securities. Deputy Johnson's view, I am afraid, is not shared outside the Dáil, if, to any extent, inside the Dáil. Though one does not like to anticipate what might happen under certain circumstances, I could not help feeling—as we were loading the amalgamated company with blisters of one kind or another, which amount to a considerable sum in the aggregate per annum—what would happen if the Tribunal failed to maintain the standard income. That is a possibility—I will not say probability—that has occurred to the minds of some of these stockholders in connection with the railways. I am sorry it was not present a little more frequently to the Government and to those who had charge of the Bill, when they accepted, as they did accept to-day, a rather unusual liability in connection with pensions for shop hands. I wonder is the Government aware of the amount that this burden may involve on those who have to carry on the railways in the future? We talked of the liability in connection with baronial guarantees. That is all cast on them. I would like to know what will happen to those who hold these baronial stocks in the event of the railways which are under the charge of the Tribunal not reaching the standard income? What will happen to these baronial securities transferred to the company? If the company cannot function, what is to happen to these liabilities? These are matters we would like to hear something about from the Minister. It is all very well to say that such a thing is impossible. or that we could not see circumstances being brought about whereby such questions would arise. As one sees this Bill laden, from day to day, with additional burdens, one becomes more or less alarmed, and the probability of the unforeseen occurring is certainly more probable at the end of this discussion on the Bill than it was in the early stages.
We, commercial men, have objected to this Bill from two points of view. First of all because it creates a monopoly. In commercial circles we do not look upon monopolies at all favourably. We also object to the Bill for another, and equally strong, reason— that it would not reduce rates to the figure which is necessary. It has been pointed out during the discussions here. on many occasions, that seventy-five per cent. of the products carried by the railways in the Free State are agricultural products. It was also pointed out recently, by one in authority, that ninety-five per cent. of the exports of the Free State were agricultural products. That being so, ninety-five per cent. of our exports are carried by the railways, and there ought to be no people more interested in the Railways Bill than the agriculturists.
We have been discussing this matter now at considerable length, and no section in this Dáil has taken a smaller interest in this Bill than the agriculturists. One of the surprises to me and one of the surprises outside the Dáil is that this Bill could have had support from the agricultural section. What is the position? At the moment agricultural produce is carried on the railways in England at fifty per cent. over the rates prevailing in pre-war days. That is to say, fifty per cent. over pre-war levels. In Northern Ireland agricultural produce is carried at 75 per cent. over pre-war levels. In the Free State to-day the rates for agricultural produce are anything between 120 and 150 per cent. over pre-war level—three times the rate that their competitors have to pay on agricultural produce in England. That is the position in the Free State. We hold that this Bill will establish those rates, and that is, as I said, one of the reasons why we object to it so strongly. If there is one thing more essential than another for the success of this country, it is cheap transit for agricultural produce. Agricultural produce is to-day paying three times as much as those against whom it has to compete are paying in Great Britain in the way of railway rates. Yet, as I said, those who are the most deeply interested in that commodity, agricultural produce, support this Bill. We have not, throughout the whole discussion on this Bill. been given a single reason for that support. We have been told by the Government that the reason for urging this Bill at the moment is that they were anxious to effect economies. We have had no statement whatever nor any White Paper of any kind issued, showing in money value what economies may or will accrue from this measure.
We have been told that by concentration in certain directions, by purchasing, by way of repairs and by way of manufacture, that economies will ensue. I have some doubt about it. Certainly we, in this generation, will not reap much from these economies, because all such economics, will have been brought about by dispensing, to a considerable extent, with those in authority. It means that those who are dispensed with will have to be paid pensions on a fairly generous scale up to two-thirds of their existing incomes. So that we cannot, as far as I can see, and I have taken a fair view of the Bill, hope to expect very much in the way of economy for a number of years. That is one side of it. On the other side you are weighting this amalgamated company with the burdens accruing from these baronial and other uneconomic propositions. Of those we have a figure. That figure has been given to us and has been pointed out, of course, as an estimate. It can only be an estimate. That figure has been given to us over the signature of three of the four amalgamated companies, and that figure shows that the amalgamated company will be burdened with £90,000 per annum through the baronial affairs. Now, where are the economies on the other side to be put against that? We have been told there are economies. But where are the economies to be put against the £90,000? Where are all the economies that have to be put against the £90,000? So that if we must cut down rates, as it is essential in the national interest that we should cut them down, we can only do so by reducing expenses. How is this amalgamated company to reduce expenses? I hope the Minister will give us some further enlightenment on that question. We certainly have not received much light in that direction up to the present. I am satisfied, however, from what I know of the railways and from what I have seen of this Bill, that this Bill is going to place a heavy burden on the commerce of this country, and as that commerce is a competitive commerce, depending for success on maintaining its position against competition in England, I say that this is a burden that will injure that trade. It will injure the agriculture of this country, and instead of doing any good, I am satisfied that as a result of that injury it will increase instead of reduce the number of unemployed in the Free State.
We on the Farmers' benches received this Bill with very little acclamation, and we gave it, as Deputy Hewat says, what amounted to half-hearted support. But we gave it our support, and now we are taunted by Deputy Hewat and Deputy Good for doing so. The very reason that Deputy Good states as the reason why we should not give it our support is one of the reasons why we are supporting it. That is, that we do know that the rates for agricultural produce in Great Britain are now only 50 per cent. above pre-war rates. We know that the rates in Northern Ireland are only 75 per cent. above pre-war rates. We know that the rates on agricultural produce in the Free State are from 100 per cent. to 250 per cent. above pre-war rates. We know that that is the existing state of affairs, and we see no prospect in the management of the companies of any steps being taken which would have the effect of reducing the high rates on farm produce. Things being as they were, we thought that any change would be a change for the good, and we feel in this Bill, that there is some possibility that the rates on agricultural produce, and the rates on produce in general, may be reduced. We are not at all hopeful that they will be reduced to any great extent, but we are going to give it a chance, and we feel that this Bill will give us a better chance of having our rates reduced than if things are continued as they have been in the past. If we went to the railway directors and said: "Rates on agricultural produce are killing agriculture, we cannot afford to pay those rates," the answer we got was: "Look at our wages bill. You see it is so much now; it was so much in pre-war days. How can we reduce rates when wages are so much above pre-war?" Then we come to Deputy Johnson, and Deputy Johnson points out that the wages paid on the railways have practically no effect on the rates that they are charging on agricultural produce. His figures seem to be very convincing, and he shows that a reduction of 20 per cent. in wages would only cause a reduction in the ordinary rates of a very small amount.
Deputy Johnson says—I do not know if he actually said it, but the implication was—that if the higher railway rates are not caused by wages they must be caused by something else, such as bad management, lack of cohesion, and lack of co-operative working. Between both parties it is impossible definitely to find out where the fault lies. We are sent from post to pillar, and meantime we are continuing to pay high rates. Therefore we conclude that if there is to be a chance of improvement, the chance is by a change, and the only feasible change that we see, short of actual nationalisation, is a change in the direction of amalgamation. I took up an attitude of strong opposition to the nationalisation of railways when the Labour Bill dealing with the matter was introduced. I must say that my attitude is not now so strong as it was then, because I have a feeling that the Bill which we adopt to-day will tend in the direction of nationalisation.
Deputy Good, I think, wants to know what is to happen if the railways fail to pay the standard rate, and if the revenues which they get fail to make up the standard revenue. The answer to that is nationalisation. If the railways do not meet the standard rate of dividend, and if they are not able to reduce the rates charged at present, I think there is no alternative except that of nationalisation. I am not supporting nationalisation. I do not believe in it. Theoretically, I believe it is the correct thing, but as a practical proposition it cannot be a success. I believe there are defects in human nature which make nationalisation not a very feasible proposition.
Deputy Hewat gave as the reason why we supported this Bill that we were pleased the cost of the baronial guarantees was to be made a national cost, and would eventually be placed on the amalgamated company. That is a small reason to give for our support. We did not give support for that reason but we did support the change in the baronial charges for the reason that we believed it is the only feasible proposition in the scheme. We are being taunted with not taking very much interest in the Bill. Perhaps we did not take as much interest in it as we might have, but I must say our points of view were being guarded largely from the Government benches, and the discussions and the wranglings —if I may use the expression—which took place were largely between the Independent Benches, representing as they do the shareholders and capitalists, and the Labour Benches representing the workers. We do not stand here representing either capitalists or workers; we represent a large number —by far the largest number—of railway users. We give this Bill our support, half-hearted though it be, because we think there is a possibility that rates may be reduced, and it is essentially important for agriculture that railway rates be reduced.
There is an old French proverb known as: "Qui s'excuse, s'accuse.” I think that fits exactly the attitude of mind of the Farmers' Party, as expressed by the last speaker. He says that he and his friends are giving this Bill their half-hearted support, and then he proceeds to excuse himself and his friends for that half-hearted support. At any rate, we know what the attitude of the farmers is on this matter. What I rise especially to endeavour to find out is what exactly is the attitude of the Labour Party towards the final stage of this Bill. I listened most attentively to the speech made by Deputy Johnson, in which he stated that he and his party voted against the Second Reading of the Bill, and he also correctly stated that they proposed several amendments, some of which were carried, most of which probably were rejected, and those which have been carried have improved the Bill; but Deputy Johnson sat down without informing the Dáil what he and his party were going to do in relation to this stage of the Bill.
Now in company with others upon these benches, I spoke and voted against the Second Reading of the Bill, and proposed certain amendments in Committee. Nothing that has transpired during the course of this Bill through the Dáil has led me to alter my own opinion upon the merits of the Bill. I said previously, and I say once again, that this Bill creates a monopoly, and that it creates not private monopoly, nor a Government monopoly, but that it is a hybrid monopoly; that is my rooted objection to it. If there is to be a monopoly at all would say once more let it be a Government monopoly, and I repeat that personally I would prefer that this should be a straightforward measure of nationalisation than a half-hearted hybrid proposal, which I agree with Deputy Johnson, may jeopardise future nationalisation; it certainly will destroy private enterprise.
Deputy Hewat said quite rightly that there was no demand for this Bill, that there was no demand for the specific proposals contained in it. He is quite right. But there is a demand, and a very proper demand, for a reduction of rates, and that is the one thing throughout the whole of this discussion, which no speaker has been able to guarantee that this Bill will bring about. Deputy Johnson himself stated on one occasion that he did not see how this Bill was going to bring about a reduction in rates, and I have yet to learn from any Minister how this measure is going to bring about that much-sought reduction.
There has been a reduction in rates on a certain railway line. There has been a reduction upon a railway which has its head office in, and which is registered in the Free State—I refer to the Great Northern Railway of Ireland. The Great Northern Railway have reduced their rates considerably within the past few months, and I contend if this Bill had never been introduced that the Midland Great Western Railway, which is in competition—in spite of what has been said about there being no such thing—with the Great Northern, in certain portions of the County Cavan, and elsewhere in the West, would, inevitably, have reduced their rates. They would have reduced their rates of themselves if it had not been that this Bill was propounded, and that they were waiting the result of its passing through this House. Further. I say if the Midland Great Western Railway rates, and other Free State railway rates are reduced after the passage of this Bill, it will not be because of the passage of the Bill, but it will be the inevitable consequence of the economic conditions entailed by the reduction of rates by the Great Northern Railway, and consequently a reduction in rates all round. But what I object to most strongly is the proposal that we shall have now a system of railway control which shall be neither railway companies' business nor the Government's business, but which shall be the business of both, and, therefore—probably—unfortunately the business of neither. Nobody has demanded the actual proposals in this Bill. Everybody has demanded a reduction in rates. A reduction of rates is not even promised by this Bill, and certainly it is not guaranteed, and the proposals which are made in this measure are such that a great many of them were never asked for, and a great many of them we could do without. There are a considerable number of inconsistencies throughout the Bill. Some agreements have to be kept because they are statutory agreements; other agreements are not to be kept because they are not statutory. We were told in one breath throughout the Committee Stage that there was a moral obligation in one direction, and we are told on Report Stage, as is instanced by what occurred here this afternoon, that where an agreement was in favour of a county council that agreement need not necessarily be kept. Therefore, what I sincerely regret is that this Bill was introduced in the first place at the time it was introduced. This Bill is now going to become law.
At the present time there is no definite boundary fixed between the Free State and the North. We all hope, perhaps, that there never may be such a boundary fixed, but this Bill is going to operate upon certain railways in certain parts of the Free State and it is not going to operate upon certain lines in other portions of the Free State, and what we do not know even at this stage is how, when such a boundary is fixed, the other railways within the remaining portions of the Free State which are not touched by this Bill are going to be brought in and fitted in and adapted according to the system which will then be in operation in regard to the amalgamated company. Is there going to be one amalgamated company embracing that portion of the Northern Railway which will be within the Free State, or is there going to be a group system such as exists in England whereby competition can be, and actually is in operation in that country. We do not know. We are passing this Bill in the dark. We do not know where we will be when the time comes for considering the railway problem of the whole Free State. I said this is piecemeal legislation. I say it is legislation which is untimely, which as far as reduction in rates is concerned, is inoperative, and which has had not the slightest shadow of foundation of support either in this Dáil or in this country. Therefore, so far as I am concerned, if there is a division called in regard to the Third Reading. I, for one, shall vote against it.
I have listened with regret to some of the speeches that have been delivered on the Report Stage of this Bill.
Is the President concluding?
No, the Minister will conclude. I have been amazed at the last statement just uttered by Deputy Redmond, when he said that there is not a shadow of support in the Dáil for this Bill. That could scarcely be borne out by the records, in which, I think, the people who have opposed this measure have met with a rather extraordinary reception here, if one were to consult the votes that have been taken in connection with it, and still more if one were to examine the case that has been made against the Bill. The Deputy states that there is neither a promise nor a guarantee for a reduction of rates according to this measure. Apparently the Deputy has not read the Bill, or apparently he was not here when we were discussing that portion of the Bill which concerns itself with an almost immediate revision of the rates fixed about 1920 or 1921. The Minister explained at great length. and with great care and precision, that during a period of something like nine months an increase of rates was allowed to cover a period of sixteen months, but the Deputy has probably forgotten that. This Bill has been treated to opposition principally on personal grounds. The Deputy is dissatisfied because he did not get the particular amendments which he proposed and which dealt with his own constituency. If we were to deal here only with the rights and privileges and the representations that are put up exclusively from our own constituencies, then this would be a poor assembly, and the great national interests and the real needs of the country would be subordinated to parish politics. That would be a poor position to have this House put in and the results would be poor.
I do not like to interrupt the President, but with regard to the statement which he has made about my amendments, I wish to say that I voted against the Second Reading of this Bill before any of my amendments were proposed. It was not for that reason, therefore, that I opposed the Bill.
It is easy for one to cover oneself with regard to these matters. The issue in this case is, that we put up a Bill, a sound, constructive proposition, for dealing with the railways, and the opposition to it is petty and miserable, and a peccavi sort of opposition. I have listened to one or two speeches which have really amazed me. One would think from these speeches that there was going to be no business in this country in future, that there was going to be no progress and no prosperity. That is in keeping with some of the prognostications that we have heard of late. If there is one thing in this country that we are going to be treated to in the future, as far as one can see, it is prophecies, but the days of the prophet are gone. We do not want prophets, but we want business. We want business to be conducted in this country on a basis which will benefit the country. There is an alternative to this Bill. I understand it is incorrect to say that there are two alternatives. There can be only one alternative, but if it be wrong to say that there are two alternatives, then I suggest it is possible that there may be three other methods That is to say, unification, which we are going for; (2) grouping, and (3) nationalisation. These are the three propositions. As regards grouping, I think that has been disposed of. The proposal, as far as could be learned was to have the Midland and the Dublin and South-Eastern in one group, and to leave the Great Southern, with all the minor companies, or what are called by some people, the lame ducks, bearing all the burdens which are distributed over the whole lot according to this measure. Another proposition is that the Great Northern should be cut, and that the Dublin and South-Eastern should be joined up with the mutilated portion of it, constituting a group by itself, and that possibly the Midland and Great Southern should be joined in another group.
Then if such a method of dealing with these matters were to be resolved, we are promised competition. What is competition? Competition, as I understand it, means that two well organised institutions will vie with one another for certain traffic. When we examine the history of competition with regard to railway companies what do we find? We find that where competition strikes at the vital interests of railway companies, where it possibly militates against the revenue earning capacity of either of the two concerns or of three or four concerns, if there be such, that a review of the whole circumstances of the case is immediately undertaken by the directors, and the war is declared at an end. They seek other means of making up their revenues and so on. The case that we are presented with is this, that instead of having a complete and final settlement of the railway question in the circumstances that we have at present before us, we are asked to adopt a half-way measure which would be unsatisfactory and give reasons for all the infirmities which Deputy Redmond has exposed here at such length—bad business, bad management, high railway rates, etc., and at the end of that time discount any improvements that might have been effected in the transit of the country.
We have been studying this question for two years. Other Deputies may possibly have had much less time to concentrate their energies upon it. We came to the conclusion, after very careful consideration, that we must eliminate every possible extravagance, and cut out every possible item of expenditure that could be cut out, in order to make the transit problem in this country free from every obligation that it could possibly be freed from, and leave it free as the servant of the State, doing a useful work for the State at the smallest possible price. It is said that there are no opportunities for economies. Where are they? I think a perusal of the White Paper issued will show at once one particular economy that any business man would discover at a moment's examination. According to that Paper, you have an immense number of directorates, each concerning itself only with its own district, buying for itself and doing its business in its own way and indifferent to any other transit companies in its immediate neighbourhood. Under the Bill all this will be under the one management. Are we so short of business representatives on directorates that we are going to have twelve duds running this company? Are we so short of business acumen that that tribunal will be a farce, and that business men on it will not be able to see whether it is possible to eliminate extravagance. to make economies and to secure better efficiency than we have had up to this? Even if there were grouping, you would still require a tribunal, and no better system for examining the railway business of the country has been suggested here or elsewhere.
Then we come to the bogey of partition. Within the last two years I have been told that the key to the solution of this partition question is in the railways. I have not seen the key. No one has produced it, and it has not come out. It is held up as a bogey to frighten people and to arouse political antagonism against this measure. If there be a solution of the railway problem let us have it. If anyone holds that key he ought not to keep it, but ought to produce it for the solution of a great political problem. At one period during the discussion on this Bill we were told that certain Ports were to be placed at a disadvantage, and that we could not protect them. The danger was held up, and to some extent bandied about on public platforms and boards that the great Port of Dublin was in danger. When these people were asked: What securities do you want in order to secure that these ports will be safe guarded, very few propositions were put up other than those that we have inserted in the measure ourselves. It is stated that one company, not in this country, a non-national company, and I mention the term now not with any degree of disrespect, is not getting its statutory rights. We are prepared to give them their statutory rights, but we will give them no more than their statutory rights. We shall do that with regard to that company, and we shall also give the same guarantee to the other non-national company, which I mention in exactly the same spirit as the one I have already referred to, the London, Midland, and Scottish in the first case, and the Great Western in the second case. If the Great Western have got rights we have guaranteed these rights. If the London Midland and Scottish have any rights which are not guaranteed in this measure, which they are guaranteed by statute, we are prepared to guarantee these rights, but no more in either case. We have kept our bargain with regard to these non-national companies, and we intend to do so, but we are not going to allow any company, either national or non-national, to dictate to this country in what way it is going to regulate the transit of the country.
It has been suggested that one reason why the Deputies representing the agricultural community here voted for this measure was because of the relief guaranteed in the measure to the baronially guaranteed companies. It has been put up to us on more than one occasion that the relief which is given in this case is going to interfere with the commerce of the country. We have dealt with that. If I have to say anything more about it it is this, that in putting on the baronies which are responsible for these guarantees a limit. we must also take into account, that they, like the rest of the country, may progress during the next ten years, and that during those ten years the lines which are at present uneconomic may become economic. We have got to balance this possibility with the other possibility, that they may not be economic in that time. But at any rate the amount placed on them here is a fair burden: it is fair to the new unified company and it is fair to the barony, and any other proposition would entail an expenditure which would not be justified by the results.
A great responsibility rests upon this assembly for sending out messages to the country. I deprecate very strongly indeed those messages which strike at the confidence that the people of the country ought to have in this, its first and most representative institution. Tales of woe and tales of bad times to come and bad business, and all that sort of thing, are not going to benefit the country; and they are not in accordance with what is in existence at the present moment. The country is bound to progress, bound to progress if there is good honest work given to it by every section of the community.
Good government.
As far as the Government is concerned, there are few people in this country who work harder than the members of the Government work.
Lest I may be misunderstood, what I said was." by good government."
Well, it is for the Dáil to say if it is bad, and it is for the Dáil to change it if it is bad, and it is for the Dáil to bring to these benches such a Government as will give good government. I should like to remind Deputy Redmond of what he will probably hear in Church—and I am sure he attends Church very often—"Sursum corda.”
It has been arranged that Deputy Wilson's motion is to be taken at 5.30.
I suggest that if the Minister does not make a long speech we could finish this.
With Deputy Wilson's leave, and to gain his commendation I will be as brief as possible. There are about four points which have to be dealt with. Deputy Davin has raised the question of the canals. He wishes to know if the tolls and rates on the canals will be taken into consideration with a view to reduction at the time when the rates on the railway will be taken into consideration. That is a question entirely different from the reduction of railway rates. No case for the reduction of canal tolls is prejudiced by anything in this Bill. The by-traders had always certain rights with regard to the reduction of rates on the canals, and these rights still remain to them. If they raise the matter and make their case, the reductions will follow.
One point has been stressed by Deputy Hewat with regard to the tribunal, on which I should like to make one remark. He says the tribunal is to be appointed by the Government, and I think his words were that the whole doings, the whole atmosphere, around the tribunal will be permeated by politics. That remark to me is significant. It reveals to me a type of mind which I thought had disappeared from this country recently —the type of mind which wishes to accept, on the surface, the theory, for instance, that judges were above politics, and at the same time insisted, that judges were appointed only for political reasons. There is no intention, and there is no way under this Bill, of removing the members of the railway tribunal, except as laid down in section 13. During the period of their office they can only be removed by a vote of this Dáil and the Seanad for misbehaviour or incapacity stated. We have set out to place, and I think we have succeeded in placing, the tribunal as far as possible from politics, and I do not consider it quite fair comment to have the tribunal described as being in a position in which it is going to be influenced—necessarily influenced—by whatever be the politics of the party supporting the Government or placing the Government in position at any time.
The question as to why the agricultural representatives here, who are mostly concerned with the Bill, did not take an interest in it, has to some extent been explained by Deputy Heffernan. Deputy Baxter spoke one evening in this Dáil and stated very definitely that he and his party were refraining from very much discussion on the Bill, because they considered that the Bill met their needs in so far as they saw their needs could be met. And what Deputy Heffernan added to-day is simply supplemental of that statement.
The question of the baronially guaranteed lines was raised, as one would expect that it would be raised, by Deputy Good; and he again quoted the £90,000 figure from the White Paper, a figure which the company that issued that statement do not now accept at all. The stressing of the position of these baronially guaranteed lines reveals to me rather the mind of the investor than the mind of the person interested in the proper organisation of the transport undertakings of this country. It is undoubtedly hard that the larger lines should have to bear what is called the burden of the baronially guaranteed lines, and from the point of view of the investor, it is deplorable. But take it from the other point of view, the small lines serve a useful purpose. They have to be continued; they have to be taken account of in any scheme which sets about organising transport by railroad in the country; and it is no explanation to point out that the baronially guaranteed lines could have been left to their own fate. It is well known what that fate would have been if this Bill had not come along. Most of these lines would have gone out of operation.
An important question has been raised with regard to the condition of the stockholders in these baronially-guaranteed concerns. A certain amount of correspondence has taken place in the daily Press, and the position has not been quite clearly or fairly stated. It has been represented by correspondents that the divdends which they make out were guaranteed in perpetuity are going to cease after the ten years' period. That, of course, is not the case. If I am asked now what is going to be the position of these stockholders under the amalgamation, I cannot define it. All I can do is to point to the steps that have to take place under the Bill to give them a certain position. The exact position of the guarantee that these stockholders have to-day must be taken into account. They are guaranteed by certain areas. Those areas have had to strike a railway rate which it is impossible to pay, and but for this Bill, steps undoubtedly would have to be taken to get that liability reduced, if not altogether done away with. Now, the Bill does not in itself reduce, nor does it do away with the liability for dividends. The Bill sets out that an exchange of securities may take place by agreement, that the parties interested can press their case, and press the point as to the perpetuity of the guarantee previously given to them, and can get the best possible terms by the arguments that they put up. And, if an agreement be not reached, the railway tribunal has to decide, after hearing all parties. It is not correct, therefore, to say that the guarantee lapses after ten years, as one of the effects of this Bill. The fact is that there is a possibility of agreement, and if agreement be not reached, the tribunal—a judicial tribunal—decides, after hearing all the facts and arguments.
The question of the statutory agreement referred to by Deputy Redmond has been dealt with by the President, and I need not go into it. One other point is urged by Deputy Redmond. He said that to-day I had revealed myself as opposed to breaking a statutory agreement, because it told against a railway undertaking and told in favour of the County of Mayo. Now, that again is not a full statement of the case. What I have done is this: I have said that if the County of Mayo receives a remission of the loss over two of the railways in that county, it is only fair that the small surplus which accrued in a very peculiar way should be set off, and that they should not receive that surplus while having their liabilities reduced. The Mayo County Council asked that the liabilities for loss should be reduced, and that they should have the profit on one line. What I say is that one is an equitable set-off against the other.
Question—"That the Bill, as amended, be received for final consideration"—put and declared carried.
There is a motion about the Fifth Stage. Could you take it next?
If there is any opposition we cannot take that.
Why not follow the usual procedure?
The usual procedure with regard to this evening's business, or with regard to the Railway Bill?
I must take Deputy Wilson's motion now. We can come back to the other afterwards.