Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 20 Apr 1927

Vol. 19 No. 12

ORDUITHE AN LAE. - ORDERS OF THE DAY. RAILWAYS (ROAD MOTOR SERVICES) BILL, 1927—REPORT.

Mr. B. O'CONNOR

I move amendment 1—

In page 2, section 1, to insert before line 13 the words:—

"The expression ‘Railway Company' includes any tramway the dividends on any part of the paid up capital of which are guaranteed under the Tramway and Public Companies (Ireland) Act, 1883 or any other Act or any Order in Council made under any such Act, and any tramway or railway conducted or managed by a county surveyor or by any person or persons on behalf of any county council or other local authority."

This means that a baronial guaranteed tramway should have the same privileges as the Dublin United Tramways Company—that the Blessington and Poulaphouca Tramway, for instance, should come under this.

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

The amendment is one I should like to have a fuller explanation of, because it appears to me to introduce on the Report Stage of the Bill a matter not previously in the Bill, and not directly connected with anything that I can find in it. The second part of the amendment mentions the word "railway," and that has made me curious to hear the explanation. I am not ruling out the amendment, but I should like to hear more about it and its connection with the Bill.

Mr. JOHNSON

There is one aspect of this which strikes me. The Act recently passed for the amalgamation of railways included a considerable number of light railways which were, in fact tramways. By that precedent such a line as the Blessington line might well be defined as a railway. Consequently. I think the amendment is in order owing to that precedent, and I think that there is good reason for supporting it in view of the opposition to the taking over of that particular line by the amalgamated company—that this company should be allowed to save itself and the ratepayers of Wicklow and Dublin by taking part in motor omnibus competition with, say, the Dublin Tramways Company. I think on these grounds the amendment is in order and it is worth supporting.

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

I was curious to know what the provisions of the Tramways and Public Companies (Ireland) Acts were. I am quite prepared to allow the amendment to be debated.

Mr. McGILLIGAN

There is no objection to the Bill being so extended. There is really only one undertaking mentioned. I think the second part of the amendment has really no effect; if the last three lines were dropped out, the effect of the amendment would still be the same.

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

Is the Minister suggesting an alteration in the amendment?

Mr. McGILLIGAN

So far as I am concerned it can remain as it is.

Amendment put and agreed to.

Mr. McGILLIGAN

I beg to move amendment 2, which is as follows:—

In page 2, before Section 3 (3), line 51, to insert a new sub-section as follows:—

"(3) Whenever a route submitted to the Minister under this section by a railway company as a route for a road motor service for the conveyance of passengers is in the opinion of the Minister substantially the same in whole or in part as the route on which a road motor service for passengers is at the time of such submission run regularly by some person other than such railway company, the Minister shall not approve under this section of such first-mentioned route until he has given to such person notice of such submission and has considered such (if any) representations as may be made in regard thereto by such person."

This amendment is in furtherance of an undertaking given on the Committee Stage. Where an application to run a service over a particular route is made, before approving the route the Minister must be satisfied that notice is given to people who are running a service over substantially the same route so that they may make representations and the representations may be heard.

Mr. ALTON

It seems to me that in order to avoid any vexatious delay, a time limit might be fixed inside which representations may be received from the existing companies.

Mr. McGILLIGAN

As long as there is no definite period laid down in which the representations must be made, the suspicion might lie the other way and the Minister might approve after giving formal notice. I think the Deputy may rely on the Minister carrying out the duties satisfactorily.

Mr. ALTON

I am quite satisfied to rely on the discretion of the Minister.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. P.S. DOYLE

I desire to move the following amendment—

In page 2, before section 3 (3), line 51, to insert a new sub-section as follows:—

"(3) When considering whether he will or will not approve under this section of a proposed route, the Minister shall have regard to the extent to which the vehicles to be used for the purposes of the proposed road motor service on such route will be manufactured in whole or in part in Saorstát Eireann and the desirability of promoting such manufacture so far as may be reasonably practicable."

This amendment is a revised form of an amendment that I moved on the Committee Stage. It provides that the motor bus companies will manufacture their vehicles as far as possible in the Saorstát. I think the amendment meets the views suggested by the Minister and Deputies who spoke on the subject before.

Mr. McGILLIGAN

This amendment is definitely in line with the suggestions made in Committee where an amendment was moved that vehicles provided by a railway company shall, so far as practicable, be equipped with bodies manufactured in the Saorstát. To that amendment I raised certain objection and I pointed out that it meant nothing more than a pious aspiration. I suggested if an amendment of a similar type was put into Section 3 it would give the Minister concerned power not merely to inquire into the building of the bodies of the new vehicles, but also the vehicles of the competitive service already in existence and it would have its effect on the competitive buses as well as on the new services to be established. I am in entire agreement with the amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. McGILLIGAN

Amendments 4 and 5 are the result of a discussion in Committee. They are as follows:—

In page 3, line 6, to add at the end of Section 3 a new sub-section as follows:—

"(4) In the case of a road motor service which is run for a particular part only of every year, the approval of the Minister under this section of the route on which such service is run shall (until the withdrawal and subject to any modification thereof under this section) continue in force so long as such service is run for the same or substantially the same part of every consecutive year.

In page 4, line 6, to add at the end of Section 5, a new sub-section as follows:—

"(3) A road motor service which is run for a particular part of every year shall not be deemed to be withdrawn or discontinued within the meaning of this section so long as it is run for the same or substantially the same part of every consecutive year."

There was no amendment down which gave rise to this point, but during the discussion I think Deputy Davin raised a question as to a service which could be described as seasonal only, and pointed out that where such a service may be only for the summer months, or for a brief period, it could be withdrawn without a breach of the terms of the Act. I said that such seasonal services might be applied for and authorised and the withdrawal at the end of the specified period would not be a withdrawal such as is precluded by the terms of the Bill. I pointed out that the better course would be definitely to assert by way of amendment what was then asserted more or less by inference. Amendments 4 and 5 are put down for that purpose, and I accordingly move them.

Mr. BAXTER

Is it possible for a railway company to make application to run a service on a particular route where already a service exists, and, having got that right, withdraw after continuing over a period during which the traffic would be heaviest? I think it is necessary to add something like this at the end:—"Provided always that all the year's service is being run on the same route." Perhaps the wording may not be exactly correct, but I think without some such thing as that it would leave it open to the railway company to make application and get a concession to run over a period of the year, thus leaving the owner of the bus service, who would be running a service all the year, in the position of having competition during a period when the traffic would be heaviest. The railway company could then remove its service when the traffic would not be heavy.

Mr. McGILLIGAN

There is a slight danger in what the Deputy says. It is a danger that I called attention to in Committee. I think the danger is narrowed down to a very fine point. If the two amendments in my name are taken, an application will have to be made for the running of a service of a particular type over a particular portion of the year. All that would be taken into consideration is: Do the circumstances seem to warrant the running of a service for a limited portion of the year? If the circumstances did warrant it, then approval would be given. The service would run over a limited number of months and then its withdrawal would not be such as is forbidden by the Bill.

If the danger the Deputy has in mind is a real one, there is this to be said: If there is a service running on a particular route during the year and there is a particular traffic over that route in the summer months, there may be a greater demand during the summer months which the railways would be able to supply under this Bill. They would not interfere with the ordinary all-the-year service; in other words, they would take the tourist end. I think that is what should be allowed to the railway company and there is no danger in that regard. There would be an interference with the service running the whole year round, but if there was a special traffic for a particular period, that should be taken into consideration.

Mr. BAXTER

The Minister's interpretation of the section makes it rather more serious from my point of view. Undoubtedly you get cases in which during part of the year the owner may for a number of months lose on the service. He may make good this loss in the tourist season. The service during the whole year is a convenience to the public. During part of the year it is maintained perhaps at a loss, the owner hoping that in another period that loss will be made good. Now, if you are going to give the railway companies the right to step in and take that extra traffic for two or three months the effect will be to cripple the owner who is maintaining the existing services, and thus put him off the road; the travelling public will lose the convenience that that bus service has been giving them in the other parts of the year. It seems to me that the matter could be met by the owner of the existing bus service, catering for the public, putting on perhaps an additional bus on the road. If the Minister's interpretation of the section is to be accepted I believe there is grave danger that the existing service will be hampered by further keen competition from the railways for a short period of the year when traffic is best, and to be left then through the lean months to carry on. The Minister can appreciate the effects of such an eventuality on the bus service to a particular district.

Mr. McGILLIGAN

These circumstances would arise in particular cases, and particular cases will always be dealt with under the second amendment on the sheet to-day. Those would be matters put to me by way of representation from the owners of services already in existence, when permission to run new services would be applied for by the railway company. I suggest that where there is already a satisfactory service in existence that question would be taken into consideration when application to run a service is made. The fact that an all-the-year-round service was already in existence would be considered by my Department.

Mr. BAXTER

I would not like to press that point. I would not like to confine the railway company to that, because I can see where it would be right that they should get permission to run. But I should like an understanding from the Minister as to what the interpretation of the section would be—that we are not going to have existing routes put out of existence or done away with, or that we are not going to permit such competition with the existing services as would probably render them incapable of maintaining the service which they have given up to the present. If we think that the competition that we are going to have will have that result, then it is going to be bad for the travelling public. We want to guard against that, and we want from the Minister an interpretation of the section, so that it is not likely to have that result.

Mr. McGILLIGAN

I am afraid I could not give the interpretation unless I had before me the facts of the particular case.

Mr. BAXTER

What I want to provide against is a misinterpretation.

Mr. McGILLIGAN

The main consideration is not going to be—is this likely, in the sense of looking for something that is likely, to wipe out and destroy already existing services. On the other hand, seeing that the railway company are giving the public a service, they will not be stopped from setting up a new service through the fact that a service is already there. The main consideration is the service that is to be given to the public. After that, however, is the special consideration that I would have to give to the application of the railway company. They are not to be allowed to enter into injudicious competition that would affect the railway revenue.

Mr. GOOD

Let us put the thesis the other way. A railway company undertakes to run a bus service for the whole year and it is obvious that for a considerable portion of the year that is not a paying service. Will the Minister have any powers to prevent another bus company from entering into what might be called unfair competition with the bus service belonging to the railway company during the remunerative portion of the year? That is the reverse of the case that is being put up by Deputy Baxter. It is portion of the case that should be considered and the reason why it ought to be considered is that before a railway company can put a bus on a particular road it has got to get the leave of the Minister's Department. It cannot withdraw that bus without getting the sanction of the Minister's Department. In the working out of this it would happen that the railway company would be compelled to run a bus on certain roads during certain periods of the year, when, as I say, that service would be unremunerative. Surely it would be only reasonable if we compel the railway company to accept these somewhat onerous terms that there should be some prerogative in the Department of the Minister to prevent unfair and unreasonable competition being brought in during the period of the year when the service is remunerative.

Amendments agreed to.

Question—"That the Bill, as amended, be received for final consideration"—put and agreed to.

Fifth Stage ordered for Friday, 22nd April.