It has been agreed to adjourn to Wednesday, 1st April.
ADJOURNMENT DEBATE. - WEXFORD SHIPPING AND RAILWAY DIFFICULTIES.
In this connection it is necessary for me to explain the position as to the operations of the different railway companies in Wexford prior to amalgamation. At that time the Dublin South Eastern Railway Company was running into Wexford and had a station on the north side of the town. On the south side the Great Southern Railway Company had their station, and between the two there was what might be described as a loop-line, a double line of rails extending along the whole length of the quay. The particular area, where the rails were laid down belonged to the G.S. and W. Railway Company. One line of rails was used as a siding. It was immediately nearest to the quay side, and the G.S. and W. Railway Company made wagons available there in order that coals might be unloaded from ships into them, now that coal was being brought from Wexford town up the line to Ferns, Enniscorthy, or any places on the north side of the town. It was the D.S.E. Railway Company that charged the freight and included in that freight was a charge they called haulage charge of 9d. per ton.
The Wexford Harbour Commissioners during that period repeatedly made representations to the D.S.E. Railway Company to try to get that haulage charge withdrawn, because it militated against the best interests of the Port owing to the close proximity of Rosslare Harbour. It was apparent then to the shipping interests in Wexford that the Great Southern and Western Railway were providing facilities in order that Rosslare might be developed as against Wexford. Just immediately prior to the advent of amalgamation, representations were again made by the, Wexford Harbour Commissioners to try to have this haulage charge removed, and the Harbour Board was told then that when amalgamation was brought about that that charge would automatically disappear, that that was a transfer charge between the different railway companies operating in the town. Since amalgamation representations have again been made with a view to getting this charge removed, but not alone was the charge continued, but the Harbour Commissioners cannot get an answer from the railway company, although they have written to them repeatedly since the agreement came about. Coupled with that is the fact that the Great Southern and Western Railway Station at the south end of the quay has been done away with. All the trains run right through now along the quay, not exactly through the middle of the town, but on the quay line, which extends the whole length of the town from north to south.
Only four trains used to pass up and down there prior to the amalgamation, but Wexford is now faced with the spectacle of having seventeen trains running up and down at different times of the day. The result is that it is almost impossible for ships to be unloaded at the Port. The Harbour Board is protected under an Act called the Waterford and Wexford Railway Act of 1871. Under Clause 10 it is set out:—
"The Board of Trade may, on the application of the Wexford Harbour Commissioners, make such orders with respect to the number of trains, engines and carriages which shall pass along that portion of the railway which will be situated on the quay at Wexford Harbour and with respect to the hours during which same shall so pass as said Board shall consider necessary for preventing obstruction or inconvenience to the trade at Wexford Harbour. Such Order shall be binding on and fulfilled by the company and all other companies, bodies and persons using such railway."
I take it in this connection whatever powers the Board of Trade had have now been transfered to the Minister for Industry and Commerce. I request that in the best interests of the trade of Wexford the Minister will immediately take up the matter with the railway company with a view to having a settlement brought about. Coupled with that disadvantage, during the past fortnight the Great Southern Railway Company have given a special through rate from Rosslare to stations north of Wexford town.
They have reduced the rate that did prevail up to a fortnight ago by 2/- a ton from Rosslare, and they have made no reduction whatever for shippers in the town of Wexford. I consider, and it is apparent to everybody in Wexford, that that is doing something which will militate against the best interests of Wexford. They are deliberately providing facilities which will develop Rosslare and they are giving an undue advantage to Rosslare over the port of Wexford. It is mentioned in Section 30, sub-section (2), of the Railways Act that this is not permissible. I can quite understand the Minister telling me that the proper procedure, if such a thing as that exists, is to apply to the Railway Tribunal. I suppose I might as well forestall the Minister's answer. I submit that when such a flagrant breach of the Railway Regulations takes place, it is for the Minister to interfere. The Harbour Board have already written to the railway people in this connection and they cannot get them to answer.
If we are to wait for six or twelve months, and this is permitted to go on, the best interests of the trade of Wexford town will be prejudiced to such an extent that the port will not be able to retrieve its position. In consequence of this reduction of the through rates from Rosslare, a person who is in the habit of getting a steamer into Wexford Port, an Enniscorthy merchant, told a ship-broker there that for the future he could not see his way to have his coal brought into Wexford, and it was all because of the reduction conceded by the Great Southern Railways so far as Rosslare is concerned. The reduction enabled him to save £20 on 200 tons of coal. I think the Minister will agree that this is a serious matter for the town of Wexford.
There is great indignation there about it. Rosslare Harbour is, of course, in my constituency, just the same as Wexford town. I do not object to the rates being reduced at Rosslare, but I do say that when rates were reduced between Rosslare and Enniscorthy some reduction should have taken place on the Wexford side. If the Minister has the power, I would ask him to intervene immediately. There is widespread indignation because of the action, or inaction, of the railway company. If the Minister has not power directly to interfere, I would ask him to bring pressure on the Railway Tribunal with a view to remedying at once what I consider to be a very important matter.
Deputy Corish has been very adroit in mixing up two questions. Yesterday he had down on the Order Paper two questions addressed to me. The reply to one he apparently considered satisfactory, because he made no return to the reply. That was in regard to Question No. 7.
Does not the Minister know that because of the rules of procedure I could not reply? I am only permitted to ask the question.
The Deputy asked supplementary questions, and they finished at a certain point. I thought he nodded his acquiescence when I had answered the second supplementary question. In regard to the other question, he gave notice that he would raise the subject matter of it on the motion for the adjournment. He now raises the subject matter of both of the questions answered yesterday. Together with the subject matter of Question 6, he raises the question which was more or less satisfactorily answered yesterday.
I wanted to show that by reason of the passage of the Act amalgamating the railways, Wexford was suffering from a dual disadvantage.
The Deputy asked me if I had had a complaint from the Wexford Harbour Commissioners pointing out that inconvenience and difficulty were experienced by shippers at the port by reason of the Railway Amalgamation Scheme, and that the scheme had rendered it almost impossible for them to carry out the unloading of ships at the Port. That question was asked yesterday. The Deputy got a certain reply, and he appeared to be satisfied with it. He now raises the same matter together with the subject matter of Question No. 6 on yesterday's Order Paper, his intention to raise which he gave definite notice of.
Get to the point.
I cannot say any more than what I said yesterday, when I gave the Deputy a satisfactory reply. We have taken the matter up, and we believe that it will be adjusted.
Will the Minister say what he means by the statement that they have taken the matter up? What is the course of action the Minister has adopted in regard to this complaint?
Which complaint?
The matter that has been raised by Deputy Corish.
He raised two matters. Which of them do you refer to?
You said that you had disposed of one question satisfactorily and that the other is being taken up.
I thought the Deputy was making some mistake. The matter we have taken up is not the one that Deputy Corish is raising this evening. It is the other one we are taking up.
And which is that?
It is the subject matter of Question No. 7 on yesterday's Order Paper, and it reads as follows:—
To ask the Minister for Industry and Commerce if he has received a complaint from the Wexford Harbour Commissioners, pointing out that inconveniences and difficulties experienced by shippers at the Port of Wexford since the Railway Amalgamation Scheme came into operation render it almost impossible for them to carry out the unloading of ships, and whether his Department would have inquiries made in the matter.
We disposed of that. It was disposed of in this way: we believe an adjustment will be arrived at, and we are going to see that an adjustment will be arrived at.
Did you say could or would?
In what connection do you mean?
Did you say would be arrived at, or could be arrived at?
As far as we can achieve, an adjustment will be arrived at.
What has been the method of procedure regarding the complaint made by Deputy Corish in reference to the quotation of an uneconomic rate which gives an undue preference to a particular Port?
I have not dealt with that. I am going to deal with it now.
For God's sake, do.
I cannot deal with it in a manner that will give satisfaction to Deputy Corish. I told him yesterday that a complaint had been received within the last few days. It was stated that the conditions existing were sufficient to constitute an undue preference. I told the Deputy that that matter was being carefully investigated. That was what I said to the Deputy yesterday, and he considered it unsatisfactory. I cannot say any more to him to-day. The matter is still being investigated. You cannot expect to get, in a grave charge of this nature, satisfactory replies over the telephone from a railway company, nor can you expect to get from them within 48 hours their carefully considered reply to a matter which may, in the last resort, have to be brought before a Railway Tribunal or be the subject of legal proceedings.
I am going now to add to the dissatisfaction of the Deputy by saying what I did not say yesterday—that it is not my business to take these things before the Railway Tribunal, and if Deputy Corish, with an appearance of indignation, asks is this to be allowed to drag on for six months and the trade and commerce of Wexford to be ruined, I say if those interested in the trade and commerce of Wexford allow it to drag on for six months, it would make me believe that the preference is not so clearly proved.
But I have already said that we cannot get any word from the Railway Tribunal. Could the Minister not bring any pressure to bear on them? I say it is a flagrant breach of the Railways Act, and what the Minister refers to is only in the case of a dispute. This is not a dispute; I say it is a flagrant breach.
If the Minister is satisfied that undue preference has been given in the case referred to by Deputy Corish, are we to draw the inference from his answer that he declines to use the powers afforded him by the Act and that he consequently throws the responsibility on the traders who are suffering as a result of this grievance?
I am afraid we are getting into a debate on the Railways Act again. I am not going to refuse to use the powers imposed or given to me by the Act, but I have no power to bring this before the Railway Tribunal. It is for the aggrieved parties to do that, and if the Deputy reads the clause to which he himself referred me yesterday——
I think the Minister is exaggerating. I did not refer him to any clause yesterday.
It is to me he is referring.
—making what I think he thought was an effort to get me out of the difficulty, alluded to Section 30 of the Railways Act——
You will pardon me. If you send for the Official Report you will find that it was not my suggestion.
What I want to know is this: Supposing the Wexford Harbour Commissioners kept on making representations to the Railway Tribunal without effect, and supposing this kept on for two years without their case being heard, is there any machinery at the disposal of the Government to demand that they do hear this case which is such a flagrant breach, as far as can be seen, of the Railways Act?
This is the first time I have got it announced from the Deputy that the Harbour Commissioners have made representations to the Railway Tribunal.
I told the Minister three times to-day.
To the Railway Tribunal?
To the railway company.
That is where the vital difference is. If the Deputy cannot get a proper reply from the railway company his proper resort was to the Railway Tribunal, and they are bound to hear it. I have no way of interfering in this matter until such time as proceedings are instituted. Then I may appear, and I may have certain representations to make, because outside extra legal action may be taken by the Department, if we were sure of the facts, and the facts were before us to prove that there was a flagrant breach. If we had those facts we might negotiate before proceedings were entered upon, and might take certain steps with the railway company.
I have given the Minister the facts.
Because the Deputy states that there has been something which, in his mind, constitutes a flagrant breach of that clause of the Railways Act, and when I have not got yet, and cannot expect to have in the time, any reply on behalf of the railway company, surely I am not entitled on an ex parte statement made by Deputy Corish to intervene with the railway company. I have intervened to the extent of asking them, and when I get their answer I can see what else may be done. But let the Deputy take it from me that if the railway company like to stand on their rights and say, “This is really not for you to concern yourself with,” I have no answer. The aggrieved parties have the right to go before the Railway Tribunal; it is within the aggrieved parties' power to go before the Railway Tribunal. If the aggrieved parties feel that they are aggrieved, as Deputy Corish makes out, they can simply proceed to the Railway Tribunal.
But is it too much to ask that the Minister will follow up this case in the meantime?
I have never refused to follow it up. I said to the Deputy yesterday that the matter was being carefully investigated. He considered that unsatisfactory, and had it raised here again. We are proceeding——
You will communicate with me?
Despite the Deputy's dissatisfaction we will proceed in the same way as before. We will make our investigations and consider what we can do, but it will be extra legal action, and the interests for whom the Deputy speaks have their right under the Railways Act, and they can take proceedings under the Act.
The Dáil adjourned at 4.10 p.m. until 3 o'clock on Wednesday, 1st April.