Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 30 Jun 1927

Vol. 20 No. 3

IN COMMITTEE ON FINANCE. - VOTE 58—RAILWAY TRIBUNAL.

I move:—

Go ndeontar suim ná raghaidh thar £5,102 chun slánuithe na suime is gá chun íoctha an Mhuirir a thiocfidh chun bheith iníoctha i rith na bliana dar críoch an 31adh lá de Mhárta, 1928, chun Tuarastail agus Costaisí eile an Bhínse Bhóthair Iarainn a bunuíodh fé Acht na mBóthar Iarainn, 1924.

That a sum not exceeding £5,102 be granted to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1928, for the Salaries and other Expenses of the Railway Tribunal constituted under the Railways Act, 1924.

This Vote is much the same as last year. There are decreases under every head. The decrease under sub-head A is explained by the fact that it was not found necessary to appoint one of the clerical officers or to appoint a typist sanctioned under the original establishment. Perhaps I may be allowed on this particular Vote to refer to a small matter that I had nearly forgotten to refer to, and which Deputy O'Gorman mentioned. It is the matter of a bonus. The Deputy asked a question with regard to bonuses under a special sub-head of the Statistics Branch. I should have explained that item definitely shows an increase this year. The Deputy will observe that a very big number of temporary people have been dismissed and their places are taken by clerical officers. Temporary people get no bonus; clerical officers do, and that would explain mainly what Deputy O'Gorman appeared to think an unreasonable increase. It is all brought about by the change from a temporary to a permanent staff. There is a decrease in the bonus.

Can the Minister give us any information—at least there are some railwaymen who would like an explanation—as to why so much of the work of the Railway Tribunal is carried on in secret session? When interested parties appear before the Tribunal in regard to certain matters, it is the usual practice to go, as they say, into Committee. I want to know whether the proceedings at the secret session are recorded in the form of shorthand notes, and whether it is proposed, when dealing with questions of public importance, to continue the work of the Tribunal in a secret session rather than in public court. I think the Minister will agree that the trading and the travelling public, as well as those who eventually as railway officials have to administer the laws made in this court—and I presume it is a court—should have, if required, access to whatever official records are available of the work carried on in committee. There is far too much of the work of the court carried on in secret session.

Has there been any secret session in connection with the Railway Tribunal?

Yes, and if the Minister follows the proceedings of the court, he will find there was much more of the work done in committee—that is the phrase used—than in the presence of the Press. As much as possible of the work of the Tribunal should be carried on in open court in the presence of the Press so that the trading and travelling public will get all the necessary information they are entitled to.

If the public are entitled to get certain information, and that information is being kept from them, in certain ways they have their redress. If the Deputy means by entitled that they have a legal right to certain information, and if that is kept from them, then there is a way open to secure that right. I do not know about proceedings in secret session. I do know there have been occasions on which the Chairman of the Tribunal suggested, in relation to the matter being argued before them, that if there was an adjournment a settlement might be arrived at.

I am referring to an adjournment of the court in order to have a private conference of the parties who appeared before the court. Is it not a fact that this is an ordinary established court and why should there be an adjournment to consult with people behind the scenes—people who come forward to make certain representations to the court? If it is a properly established court, all its work should be carried on in the presence of the Press and whatever information is ordinarily available it should be available for the trading and travelling public.

I think that Deputy Davin is under a misapprehension. In the first place, no such thing constituted as a court can be held in private. Any court that is held as a court is and must be open to the public. It may be that when certain people appear before a tribunal, for the purpose of convenience it is arranged that they may have a consultation in a room at the back. If they want to arrange a matter they adjourn the court, but they come back to court again—they are in the public court once more.

Nothing more than that has happened.

The Deputy is talking of the adjournment of the court, of a judge retiring to an unseen place and the counsel on behalf of both parties also gathering there trying to arrive at an agreement. In the case to which I refer, and it has been stated in the public Press, the judges, if they are judges and if it is a court, go into conference with the people who have appeared before the court to make certain representations. Why is not all the business carried out in public and in the presence of the Press? It is a different matter to what has been referred to by the Deputy.

It may well be that this tribunal is purely an advisory body.

It is not an advisory body; it is a court.

It is a tribunal.

I think if the Deputy will inquire with regard to the ordinary courts he will find that what he has referred to in regard to the Railway Tribunal happens quite frequently.

"Come and see me in my chamber."

Sometimes the parties leave the court and go with the judge, as the Deputy mentioned, to an unseen place.

Is it usual for a judge trying a man for murder to adjourn the court and have a talk with that man?

Oh, no. The Deputy is bringing in outside considerations now.

Vote put and agreed to.
Top
Share