took the Chair.
PRIVATE DEPUTIES' BUSINESS. - WORKING OF THE RAILWAYS (EXISTING OFFICERS AND SERVANTS) ACT, 1926.
Debate resumed on Motion by Deputy Davin:—
That a Select Committee consisting of eleven Deputies to be nominated by the Committee of Selection, be appointed to inquire into and report upon the working of the Railways (Existing Officers and Servants) Act, 1926, as affecting officers and servants of railway companies amalgamated or absorbed by or under the Railways Act, 1924, who lose their employment or suffer other loss or hardship and claim compensation therefor; that the Committee have power to send for persons, papers and records, and that the quorum of the Committee be five.
I dealt on the last occasion with most of the arguments advanced by Deputy Davin in moving the Motion on the Paper, in his name. There were one or two other small points raised by other Deputies. Deputy Moore asked: "Was it the intention of the House to allow legislation to be defeated by legal quibbles," and having asked that question ran away from any facts that would show that in fact legislation and the will of the Oireachtas were being defeated by legal quibbles. He read out one phrase which, if misunderstood or not taken properly in the context, might show that; but which, when fully read, shows distinctly that the will of the Oireachtas is being carried out in all essential details.
The quotation to which I refer was one which, if only partially read, would seem to show that there was too great a burden put upon men to prove certain things positively when the information was not in their control. He did not go on to read what the arbitrator said immediately afterwards:—"Although this is clearly my opinion as to the effect of this section, as already stated, I have not acted upon it in the hearing of these appeals so strictly as to dismiss any appeal whereupon in the appellant's own case he has failed to discharge the onus." That even does not finish the quotation, for it goes on: "I have sought all available evidence from both sides before coming to a decision as to what is the cause of any dismissal and such evidence has not, I am satisfied, been cursorily withheld in any case." That being the method of arriving at the facts and the principle being stated that if amalgamation was the cause the appeal succeeded, and if not, the appeal failed, I do not see where there can be any statement or suggestion made that the legislation or will of the Oireachtas has been defeated by any legal quibble. It might have been otherwise if the arbitrator decided that the four averments which he had set out had to be positively proved by these men, if he stuck strictly to this, and imposed that necessity upon these men before proceeding to give a decision. Deputy Moore said that they were at the mercy of Judge Davitt's good will. By no means. The arbitrator said that this was his method not merely in the Kearns case but in appeals generally. That was the procedure he laid down for himself and that is now established as a precedent for any new arbitrator that may be appointed. One must wait to see whether the new arbitrator follows either the strict interpretation the recent arbitrator said he might have followed or proceeds to act on the procedure now laid down and established as a precedent by the second arbitrator. Until we find that these conditions are being strictly imposed upon the men, there is no case for saying that a legal quibble is disturbing the effect of the legislation passed. Outside that, Deputy Moore confined himself to reading a list of cases of men with many years' service who he said simply did not receive any compensation. Why, I do not know. Whether it was that they appealed and were refused compensation by the arbitrator or whether it was that their cases have not yet been brought forward, I do not know. But merely to recite the list of names of men with years of service and to state, comprehensively, that they did not receive any compensation is not making a case for the motion. It is not making a case for inquiring into the working of the Act merely to state that certain men with years of service have not got compensation. Deputy Briscoe was equally vague. It will not do any harm and possibly it might do a lot of good, the Deputy thinks, to have this inquiry. It would mean, if we admitted that as a principle, that we should have an inquiry into every Act. "It will do no harm and it might do a lot of good to have an inquiry into every Act passed here." Surely there must be a prima facie case established before you set up a Committee of Deputies of the House. It is strange to have that Committee of Deputies of the House so anxiously looked for by Deputies Moore, Briscoe and Fahy, considering that on a previous occasion we had it stated by Deputy de Valera that no Committee of this House could be found to deal impartially with any subject. We voted strictly on Party lines and the Committees reflected that. Why now are we having this enthusiasm for a Committee? Is it that we want this discussed on party lines? Is a Committee of eleven Deputies to be built up purely with a view to their party affiliations, that they might discuss compensation for people disturbed by amalgamation, the principle of which was accepted by every party in the House when the Bill was going through? We are now to have that discussed on lines of present party divisions.
No.
I am not saying that that is Deputy Davin's point of view.
Nor anyone else's.
Have we got a changed point of view with regard to this House? Is it now possible to get a committee of the House to discuss the thing impartially? I object to a committee, not because I think they are going to discuss it on party lines, but because I do not see the case for it, I do not care how impartial it is going to be.
A lot would depend on what is being considered.
We had not that stated before. We accept that as an emendation of the previous general statement. But surely Deputies will admit that in a serious matter like this there ought to be some case established with regard to the hardship inflicted on people and in regard to the hardship which the Oireachtas never had in its mind and would certainly seek to alleviate if the case had been brought before its notice previously.
May I point out that I gave one case in support of that? That was the case of the painters in the old Dublin and South-Eastern Grand Canal Street workshops. I want the Minister to deal with that case. Upon that I rely.
I thought I had answered that. Eight painters operating in the Dublin South Eastern Railway's system—Deputy Davin's case is that they were all dismissed, that three or four of them looked for compensation but did not get it. They appealed for compensation and the case was tested on the basis that if it were due to amalgamation, they would get it, and if not they would fail to get it. They failed to get it, and the view apparently is that these men were not disturbed by reason of amalgamation. If, on the result of these three cases, the others decided not to go forward I do not see what the Oireachtas has to do.
May I put to the Minister a question? The Minister knows that the painting of railway carriages and wagons in the days when the Dublin and South Eastern Railway was a separate company, was carried on in the Grand Canal Street workshops. My point is, were it not for the amalgamation the Grand Canal Street workshops would still remain and that the Dublin and South Eastern Railway Company would employ their own painters in their own workshops to do their own carriages and wagons. The workshops were done away with as a direct result of amalgamation. That is my case.
If that is so is it not a case obviously that should have been made to the arbitrator? Apparently it was made and the arbitrator refused to accept it.
Because of your amending Bill.
I would like to have the case made to show how the amending Bill coerced the arbitrator into deciding against so clear a case, but it has not been made so far. The Deputy says that the Dublin and South Eastern Railway Company would be continued as before. My information is that the Dublin and South Eastern Railway Company was notoriously, from a financial point of view, from a dividend-paying point of view and a working point of view, one of the weakest of the lines.
Produce your figures.
I am not prepared to produce the figures. I am leaving out the smaller lines. Of the main lines it was definitely the weakest. I do not think Deputy Davin himself would deny that in the face of the competition there is at the moment some painters at any rate would be dismissed.
Some would have been dismissed whether there was amalgamation or not.
Possibly.
There might have been an earthquake.
Possibly.
Beyond the mere statement of possibility it is an absolute certainty that there would have been an earthquake in the matter of transport on account of the extra transport competition that came in. Three-quarters of a million were saved by amalgamation, but nobody who looks at the falling revenue could argue that the old staff at Grand Canal Street would have been kept on. The old Dublin and South Eastern Railway might have disappeared and the Grand Canal Street people with it.
Might.
At any rate, it is not for the Oireachtas to decide these individual cases. That is why an arbitrator was appointed. There has been no question of the fairness of the arbitrator. The only case Deputy Davin has made is that the amending Act coerces a fair-minded arbitrator into giving decisions which are unjust. I think we should have some prima facie case made. I think that something should be shown clearly to the House to prove that the new Act had coerced the arbitrator into giving these unjust decisions. That should be put to the House before we decide to set up an inquiry into the working of the Act. There was the case of the painters and of this man Donohue who had been waiting for a year.
I quoted Donohue's case to show the delay.
The delay is a thing which will have to be dealt with by itself. I say there may be certain cases of hardship, not by reason of the working of the Act, not by reason of the arbitrator being coerced into an unjust decision, but by reason of the changed conditions. I do not know if the House wants an amending of the Bill. It was definitely the opinion that the arbitrator should be appointed by the Chief Justice. The only alternatives were that he should be either appointed by the House or the Minister. It was rightly decided that it would be a difficult thing to ask the House to appoint an arbitrator, and it was regarded as highly dangerous to ask the Minister, who was in charge of transport, to appoint him. The only thing was to leave it to the Chief Justice. Again I may say that there have been no representations made to my Department officially with regard to the resignation of the arbitrator. I only know by hearsay that the arbitrator has resigned; I am not supposed to know it officially.
You must be suffering from loss of memory because there was a question raised with regard to it in the House.
I was informed of certain things. but I have no right to put to the Chief Justice a demand whether or not he has the resignation in his hand. The bringing of the fact to the Chief Justice's notice would mean that an arbitrator would be appointed. I am not sure that even counsel for the Railway Unions have not the right to go into court and ask for such appointments. There are various ways of getting the appointment hurried up. Delay is one thing. If it causes hardship it is a thing that can be got over. Deputy Briscoe thinks that this Committee is going to do a great deal more than what Deputy Davin has in mind. It can go into the question of transport and even deal with the capital division of the Great Southern Railways Company.
I made no suggestion.
It is not in Deputy Davin's mind that the Committee should go into these matters. With regard to what Deputy Everett stated, I do not think it is a matter for consideration here. I do not know of the £35,000 being spent on the platform at Bray, or of £2,000 at Wicklow, or of pensions and donations given to directors. The only way in which fees given to directors would come up would be this: That if there seemed to be such moneys given as would, in the end, defeat the earning of the standard revenue, then it might be a matter to be queried before the Tribunal. But I have nothing to do with donations given to railway employees or directors.
Will the Minister deny the statement that there was a sum of £2,000 spent in Wicklow simply to deprive a signalman of his position, and that the expenditure was not successful because they had to retain a signalman at a smaller wage to look after the crossings? Also £35,000 was spent on the Bray platform that could have gone to the shareholders.
That is a matter for the shareholders to take up with the directors. It is not for this House. I do not care if they spent £70,000 on Bray platform, if they can make a case to their shareholders that it was proper expenditure.
My point is that the expenditure was unnecessary.
I am not taking Deputy Everett's point of view that the expenditure was unnecessary. I do not think he knows enough about station expenditure.
I know too much about it.
Probably about Wicklow. I am not admitting his statement. The Deputy may have local knowledge of Wicklow. It is not a case about money. That is a matter for the Railway Company to thrash out as between their directors and their shareholders. Deputy Holt made a point about the Cavan and Leitrim Railway—that certain men have been dismissed from Ballinamore. He made the case that the work could be done more cheaply at Ballinamore than in Dublin. That is questionable. In fact, it is quite clear. I think the prima facie case is that it could not be done more cheaply at Ballinamore than in Dublin where the workshops were amalgamated.
Does the Minister admit that the dismissal of these men from the Cavan and Leitrim Railway was due to amalgamation?
Not at all. I think the general economy might afford the Cavan and Leitrim Railway to get certain things done elsewhere than at Ballinamore—the mere working out of economies in the face of present day competition. Deputy Holt said that if there had been no Railways Act of 1924 these men would still be working. I presume they would not. From what I know of the Cavan and Leitrim Railway Baronies guaranteeing they had to pay not merely interest on the moneys lent, but also had to pay losses on the working for a considerable number of years prior to amalgamation. There is every reason to believe that the railway would have closed down if there had been no Railways Act. What then would be the position? There would be no service and the baronies would be paying interest on the moneys lent, instead of which they are going to be relieved after ten years. They pay a small sum based on the 1913 payment and after that the areas are relieved. Surely, the old railway directors would have been moved to effect economies.
If the Cavan and Leitrim, and the Dublin and South Eastern Railways are unnecessary and would, in the ordinary way, be closed down, why do you put these concerns on the shoulders of the better parts of the lines?
I never said they were unnecessary.
That is your line of argument.
I never said unnecessary, but they certainly would not have lasted in their old state in the face of the fierce competition since 1924. I think Deputy Davin, as a railwayman, ought to realise that. If they were unnecessary I would have let them go like the single line to Ballybunion.
Does the Minister accept it that the Cavan and Leitrim Railway would have closed when the Sligo-Leitrim and Northern Counties Railway, which was no stronger than it and which is not one of the amalgamated companies, is still open?
It was not in as bad a position prior to amalgamation as the Cavan and Leitrim Railway. If Deputies would look at the balance sheet and see the figures——
Produce them.
I am asking you to look at them. I do not believe that any considerable number of the baronially guaranteed lines would have remained if there had not been amalgamation. So far as the Cavan-Leitrim Railway is concerned the areas are putting up £4,000 for ten years after which they will be relieved of that tremendous responsibility. The £4,000 is based on the 1913 figure. If it was on the 1924 figure it would be considerably more.
They had often a bigger bill to meet.
Yes. If we had taken the bigger bill as we might have they would not be paying merely £4,000; they would be paying on the 1924 basis.
The Cavan and Leitrim Company employed, on that section, six or seven men. Now they send down men from Dublin to do the work. Is not that the result of amalgamation? And is it fair to the workers of that area?
There are two questions at issue. One is, are the railway directorate doing right in getting the work done at Dublin and not at Ballinamore? If that is wrong it is a matter of bad railway management.
It is not disputed.
There is no excuse at all.
If the railway management get the work done in Dublin and dismiss the men in Ballinamore because of amalgamation does not that entitle these men under the Act to compensation?
I agree, but I think there are two points at issue. The point made by Deputy Holt and Deputy Reynolds is that the work is not being done more cheaply under present conditions than previously. It is the usual accusation brought against the railway company—taking away signalling accommodation, crossings, changing to single lines and cutting workshops down. That is all useless. They are losing money. There are certain men in charge of the railway company and they have to be left to manage the system. The other side of it is that if men are dismissed by reason of amalgamation the will of the Oireachtas is that every man dismissed from or prejudiced in his employment should get compensation. The arbitrator has stated that his principle is that if those men are dismissed as a result of amalgamation they ought to be compensated. They have not been able to get compensation. The way to get compensation is to go before the arbitrator and make their case. Deputy Fahy asked me did I think that compensation was paid in all cases. I do not know all the cases. Cases of hardship, from time to time, have been brought before me. I have not yet had a case brought before me in which I believe the arbitrator was coerced by something in the Act into doing what was contrary to the will of the people who passed that Act. In other words, I do not know of any cases in which compensation should have been paid, in the minds of those who put the Act there, and was not paid. Putting it simply, I do not know of any case where a man was dismissed by reason of amalgamation who has failed to get the compensation to which he was entitled. Deputy Fahy said that the Dáil should see that compensation was given to those for whom compensation was intended, that we should not allow the Act to be defeated. The achievement of the end which the Oireachtas had before it has not been prevented by anything in the Act. I ask the House to consider that there have not been very many actual cases put before us. There was Mr. Donohue and a list of people read out by Deputy Moore, whose names I could not take down, who had long service in a steady way and who had been refused compensation when they applied for it.
I gave one particular case.
Which was it? I merely got a list of names from the Deputy. I did not know that he had one case on which he relied more than another.
I described the case of a man transferred from Avoca.
It is not fair for the Minister to make that point now, because I deliberately refrained from going into individual cases or group cases, believing that that would be work for the Committee.
Something should be put before the House to convince it that the appointment of a committee is necessary. I do remember some references by Deputy Moore to a man with long service being ordered to remove himself to another area refusing to do it and being dismissed.
The case I gave was that of a father and son in Avoca employed as smith's workers. The father has 47 years' service and the son 27 years' service. They are both transferred to Dublin on the amalgamation. The father goes out, and the son is put on four days a week. He puts his case before the arbitrator. The arbitrator takes months and months to consider his decision, and then finds that, notwithstanding these circumstances, notwithstanding that the man, who was fully employed at Avoca, who had a fairly large family living there and that he has now to do with four days' work a week, all that change is not due to amalgamation. That was after several months' consideration. I take it that apparently the delay in giving final judgment implies that the judge thought it a very serious case——
Oh, no.
—that he had to weigh the evidence very carefully, and all that sort of thing. My point is that in such a matter the Oireachtas, I think, intended that a man like that should get compensation; that in a case like that, where it was evidently very difficult to prove that it was not due to amalgamation that the man had suffered this loss, the benefit of the Act should not be lost to him.
There is no argument to be founded on the length of time taken to decide a case. I read parts of the judgment in which the arbitrator stated that
"A number of cases, in fact the majority, I reserved for consideration, partly for the purpose of taking the evidence of officials of the respondents upon general matters relevant to all such reserved cases, and partly for the purpose of enabling counsel and solicitors upon behalf of various appellants to cross-examine upon such evidence and address general arguments to me upon the interpretation of the Acts.
"This course had the advantage of enabling me to take a larger view of each individual case, and gave all the appellants the benefit of evidence and arguments advanced on behalf of each particular one."
I think that was the proper course for him to follow. You cannot argue from the fact that because a single case was held up it raised any great difficulty. It might have raised some general points upon which the arbitrator wanted to have general information, and there are quite a number of cases held up in that way, although they were relatively simple from the point of view of giving decisions. There can be no argument based on that, I think Deputy Moore will admit, after that passage. It might be one of the cases which the arbitrator reserved for consideration, a case bringing out points of general interest and general application of the Act. A man was transferred and came before the arbitrator to prove that it was due to amalgamation, and the arbitrator turned him down. I think, prima facie, the Deputy's view of the case is not as strong as he would lead us to believe. If you have a simple case that the cause of dismissal was due to amalgamation the man succeeds, unless we are to reopen cases, examine the facts here, and say that the arbitrator's decision in particular cases was wrong. I do not suppose that anyone wants that.
Deputy Davin raised one other point, and that was with regard to the less than five years men, that the 1926 Act defeated these men, and that previously they were entitled to plead their case before the arbitrator; that the 1926 Act put this bar upon them, that if they did not come with a case within a period of seven years from the passing of the original Act the case could not be heard. That argument was used on the 1926 amending legislation, and the argument in favour of the proposition for a seven years limit was that if a man was to be affected by amalgamation that would certainly take place within seven years from the time when amalgamation took place. That argument appealed to the House. It was not strongly contested, and that was the reason why the seven years was put in. Nobody can say that any person is prejudiced yet by that, because the period has not elapsed, and I am not sure what was the reason for bringing in that argument.
The reason is that in the headquarters offices no decent attempt at reorganisation has been made. There are supposed to be a number of redundant men in the headquarters office, and the reason, as far as I can understand it, for not giving effect to a proper scheme of reorganisation is to leave these men walking about, some of them doing very little, until the seven years are up in 1931. They will then be outside the terms of this Act, and they will be got rid of.
The seven years was put in for the reasons I have stated. It was considered to be a good reason at the time, and I do not think the argument for it has failed since. The Oireachtas has to make up its mind on two things. It wanted certain men compensated. It did not want to stereotype the number of men at work on the railways in 1924 and to give everyone compensation who afterwards disappeared, no matter for what reason. Nobody asked for that. Nobody could work on that principle. The railways are a business concern; if there is not enough trade the number of hands employed will be lessened, and it is only fair that the railways company should have that right. There were two doubts expressed here when the 1924 and 1926 Acts were going through. One was that the men would not be able to prove certain things. I ventured the opinion that, inasmuch as there was certain evidence that would be peculiarly within the knowledge of the railway companies, the onus of proof would shift from the men to the company, who would only be rebutting cases when established. That was not contested at the time, and the opinion was expressed that if that was the case the situation was definitely eased. But apart from ascertaining the facts and establishing a particular case, a doubt was expressed that the 1926 Act in particular, and the 1924 Act also, laid down too rigid conditions within which a man had to fit before establishing a case. There were all sorts of borderline cases put to me as to what would happen if the arbitrator decided that 51 per cent. of the reasons for dismissal were not due to amalgamation and 49 were, and I said that that had to be left to the arbitrator. We get the arbitrator on these two points. He said first of all, in regard to the 1926 Act: "That in so far as the 1926 Act renders it less easy for officers and servants of the amalgamated company to recover compensation, it should be construed strictly. With this argument I agree." He says that the Act must be construed strictly against the company and definitely in favour of the men. Having said that, he said that there were four things to be proved to his satisfaction:—"That his services were dispensed with. That they were dispensed with because they were unnecessary. That they were unnecessary by reason of certain changes of administration. That these changes of administration were due directly to amalgamation. These averments are all positive, and though the information necessary to prove them would be peculiarly within the knowledge of the respondents, still I have been able to discover no principle of evidence which would relieve the appellants from the burden of proving these averments before they can succeed. Although this is clearly my opinion as to the effect of this section, as already stated, I have not acted upon it in hearing these appeals so strictly as to dismiss any appeal where upon the appellant's own case he has failed to discharge the onus."
He then gives his method: "I have sought all available evidence from both sides before coming to a decision as to what was the cause of any dismissal, and such evidence has not, I am satisfied, been cursorily withheld in any case." Have you any better way than that laid down by the arbitrator? He said previously: "As soon as I commenced hearing these appeals it became evident that for an appellant to discharge or even shift this onus of proof was a matter of extreme difficulty. In the majority of the appeals, if I had to decide the question upon the evidence offered upon behalf of the appellant only, I would have had to dismiss them." Then he continued: "This course, however, I did not adopt, and in all cases required the respondents to submit evidence as to the reason for the dismissals or the event relied on as the case might be, and this attitude upon my part was not seriously opposed by counsel upon behalf of the respondents. I finally came to treat the appeals in this way. I would hear all the evidence available on both sides, and after doing so would make up my mind as best I could as to what was the cause of the dismissal or other event." And that is the very definite principle that the Oireachtas wanted carried out—if the cause was amalgamation the applicant succeeded: if it was not, he failed. Does the Dáil want anything else than that method?
Is there not there, technically, an admission by the judge that if he had interpreted the law as it stands the law would have been a fiasco?
I do not think so. I am not concerned with that. It is hypothetical what would happen if the judge had done something else. The arbitrator has, in fact, done certain things. Let there be a case for an inquiry made if and when a new arbitrator is appointed and the new arbitrator proceeds to act in any strict way. But take the law as it has been interpreted by the recent arbitrator——
Might I ask if you are prepared to go so far as to say that the new arbitrator will give a re-hearing to the shops cases that I have referred to?
I should hope not. Does Deputy Davin want any re-hearing of cases outside the general principle that Judge Davitt decided on? Does Deputy Davin want anything but that compensation should be paid where amalgamation was the cause of dismissal?
That is what I am looking for.
That is what the arbitrator says he set out to get, and that is the basis of his decision. If a new arbitrator does not accept the precedent set up by Judge Davitt and we find that there are cases of hardship arising from a strict interpretation of the Act, then would be the time, not so much for an inquiry, as for an amendment of the Act. But the arbitrator was carrying out faithfully the wishes of the House when it passed the Acts of 1924 and 1926. No case has been made, and until a prima facie case is made the House should not drift easily into setting up an inquiry into the working of the Act. If committees are to be set up to inquire into the working of every Act, on Deputy Briscoe's principle that it cannot do much harm and may do good, it would appeal to some people, but not to people who take their laws seriously.
I followed with the closest interest every syllable that the Minister for Industry and Commerce spoke, both last Wednesday night and to-day, in regard to this motion in Deputy Davin's name, and I may say, when seconding the motion on Wednesday, I purposely refrained from making any remarks with regard to it, until I would hear what the Minister had to say. Candidly I must say that I am altogether disappointed at his reply to Deputy Davin and the other Deputies who advocated the passing of this motion. The Minister, in my opinion, has made a very close study of the railway question, and, if I might venture to say so, outside, perhaps, those with a practical knowledge of railway work, he knows more about railway matters than any other Deputy I have met. One thing I notice repeatedly about the Minister is that, when he has a weak case, he usually reveals it by the tone of his speech. I think the tone of his reply to Deputy Davin has proved that while he may have a certain technical knowledge in regard to the matter he does not understand the situation. His speech proved that he has been closely in touch with the railway managers, and that his advisers in this particular case are men who, being themselves civil servants, would be entitled to compensation under the Treaty, if their positions became redundant. The Minister indulged in a big block of legal technicalities that were raised by Judge Davitt. However, he did not, in my opinion, advance any substantial argument as to why this motion should not be passed. He did not even attempt to deny the contention that, since the Railways Act of 1924 was passed, upwards of a thousand employees of the railways company have had their services dispensed with. By his discussion about these technical matters he has, I believe, obscured the whole issue, because the question is a difficult one to understand unless one has studied the Act of 1924 and the amending Act. Seeing that the has more or less obscured the issue, I propose to sort the wheat from the chaff, in order to try to put the situation before Deputies, in the hope that they will, when recording their votes, vote on the merits and not as party politicians. The Railways Act of 1924 provided for the amalgamation of all railways wholly situate within the Saorstát into one group. It was recognised when that Act was passed that certain economies could be effected in administration, and, in order to safeguard the interests of the men whose services would be dispensed with owing to the amalgamation, the Labour Party succeeded, notwithstanding the Government's attitude, in getting a schedule embodied in that particular Act——
It was in the Act. The Government introduced it.
Which Act was it first in?
In the 1924 Act.
Copied from the Transport and Communications Bill which the Labour Party introduced. Embodied in this particular Act was a clause under which proper compensation should be given to men with five years' service who lost their jobs as a result of amalgamation. A man dismissed after amalgamation, for any reason but misconduct or incapacity, had a statutory guarantee of compensation, and the Act made it mandatory that all amalgamation and absorption schemes should incorporate the statutory provisions for compensation. This particular schedule was more or less an exact copy of a similar schedule in the British Railways Act of 1921. In fact, the whole Act was more or less a copy of that Act. But the draftsman of the 1924 Act, probably through an error of judgment or a blunder, departed slightly from the wording of the clause in regard to compensation which was embodied in the British Act of 1921, with the result that in a few cases dismissed men were enabled to claim compensation for disturbance, and also secure a lump sum out of a local superannuation fund to which they had been subscribing for periods up to fifty years. This, however, applied only in four or five cases and, even if every one of them so circumstanced was dispensed with, the financial obligation on the company would not be heavy, because the number would amount to not more than fifty or sixty cases. This slight anomaly could have been rectified by the introduction of an amending measure, but instead of introducing a measure to amend Schedule 3 of the 1924 Act, we find the Government introducing a new Act reducing the meaning or the interpretation as contained in Schedule 3 of the 1924 Act. The title of the amending Act is the Railways (Existing Officers and Servants) Act, 1926. Its purpose is supposed to have been "to make better provision for the compensation of officers and servants of railway companies who lose their employment or suffer other loss or hardship in consequence of the amalgamation and absorption of railway companies effected by or under the Railways Act. 1924, and for that purpose to amend the Third Schedule to that Act."
Probably some Deputies who do not understand the true position will have come to the conclusion that better provision was made in the amending Act of 1926 for compensating redundant railway employees than was made in the original Act of 1924. I might say, as far as the expression "making better provision" is concerned, that as a piece of hypocrisy it stands unique, for the simple reason that it is not making better provision for the men who became redundant. According to the legal interpretations and the discussions that have taken place, both before Mr. Meredith and Mr. Justice Davitt, upon the wording of the Act, the arbitrator held that it was for the dismissed man to prove that he was dismissed by reason of changes of administration due directly to amalgamation, and that the burden was not upon the company of proving that the dismissal was due to some economic cause; in other words, the man must prove something peculiarly within the ken of the other party, namely, the real reason why the other party dismissed him, and if he cannot do this he has no case. This was so unfair that the arbitrator disregarded this provision of the Act according to his considered judgment in Kerins's case. I may say that I do not want to bring in or to mention this particular case, but the Minister more or less did so last night.
I did not bring it in. It was Deputy Davin who mentioned it.
Deputy Davin was not the first to introduce the Kerins case.
He introduced quotations from it.
I did not refer to Kerins by name.
No, but you introduced the case.
Mr. Justice Davitt held, in referring to these cases: (1) that an appellant has to go before the tribunal to prove that his services were dispensed with; (2) that they were dispensed with because they were unnecessary; (3) that they were unnecessary by reason of certain changes of administration; (4) that these changes of administration were due directly to amalgamation. Any Deputy who knows anything about railway work, whether it be the case of a station master, clerk, guard, or shunter, knows that this information is exclusively at the disposal of the railway companies, and while the Minister says that Mr. Justice Davitt in a few cases called upon the company to produce evidence, Mr. Justice Davitt made it quite clear that he had not the power to get the company to bring all the evidence at its disposal before the tribunal. Furthermore, it was only gradually, as each case was heard, that the unions or counsel appearing for the men were able to get any information at all practically for this reason: that the newspaper reporters were under the impression that the proceedings which took place before this tribunal were private. What led them to think that was that the sittings of the tribunals were not announced in the Law Diary. The result was that it was very hard for counsel appearing for the men to get information.
Since amalgamation has come into operation upwards of one thousand men have had their services dispensed with in the workshops alone. The Minister does not deny that. Even Deputy Doyle has pointed out that there have been wholesale dismissals at Inchicore. Notwithstanding that, the Minister has had the audacity this morning to get up and say that no cases have been proved. Does the Minister deny that there have been over 1,000 men's services dispensed with since amalgamation took place?
No.
Dismissals have taken place at Inchicore, the Cork and Bandon Railway, the Cavan and Leitrim Railway, and the West Clare Railway. Now we hear some talk that under the amalgamation scheme, on the old Midland and Great Western Railway which is now part of the Great Southern Railways, it is contemplated running a single line from Clonsilla to Galway. Possibly some men may have their services dispensed with and possibly under this Act the arbitrator would turn these men down even though their dismissal was brought about by amalgamation.
Does the Deputy hold that there could not have been any possibility of a single line there even if it had remained as part of a separate system, and that modern signalling equipment would not have driven the directors, in face of present-day competition to single the entire line?
I think that as far as that line is concerned, the Minister will admit that in pre-amalgamation days it had one of the most astute railway managers in Ireland. I venture to think that, had it remained as the old Midland and Great Western system, the directors of it would have had more consideration for the port of Galway than to try to divert traffic away from it by making it a single line.
There is no question of amalgamation bringing about the singling of that line and diverting traffic.
If amalgamation had not taken place there would not have been a hundred dismissals from the railway.
There would have been far more than that.
I put it to the Minister that in the year 1922 his Department set up a commission to deal with the Irish railways. It sent out a circular in April of that year to the members of the Railway Commission explaining the railway position. On page 46 of the memorandum sent out for the information of the members of the Irish Railway Commission, it is stated, as far as workshop employees are concerned, that "the rates paid to railway shopmen have been in general lower than the ‘district rates,' that is those obtaining in the outside shops of the district, as it was considered that railway employment was more advantageous." That shows that the Minister's Department believed that there was a certain permanency in railway employment.
In giving evidence before that Commission Mr. Keogh, who was then general manager of the old Midland and Great Western Railway, stated: "Under normal conditions a railway man, permanently appointed, is reasonably assured of his job during good conduct. Further, continuous employment is available for him, week in week out."
Under normal conditions.
The position actually is this: that the Minister, as I have said, has not denied that the services of over 1,000 men have been dispensed with. He maintains that the Act is quite all right, and that these men who did become redundant as the result of amalgamation, have got compensation, but let us examine that statement. Under the original Act of 1924 there were 52 cases dealt with by Mr. Meredith. Out of that number we find that in 42 cases the men got compensation, and only 10 were dismissed. When Mr. Justice Meredith resigned and Mr. Davitt was appointed, we find that under the amending Act Judge Davitt tried 166 cases, and out of these cases only 35 men secured compensation, and 131 applications were dismissed. I understand quite a large number of cases are awaiting hearing.
Apart from that I want to make the point that out of 1,000 whose services were dispensed with up to the present only 77 received compensation. I want to put it further to the Minister that under the terms of the Treaty, Local Government officers and other classes of officials who became redundant as a result of amalgamation brought about by legislation, and who were declared to be redundant, received compensation from the ratepayers. Police and civil servants who felt their conditions of employment were altered, or were forced to retire as a result of the Treaty, were also properly compensated. Under the 1923 Land Act, under which the Minister is entitled to take over a certain amount of land for distribution, the owner is paid for his land, and rightly so. Under the Licensing Act, if it is found that in a particular district there are too many public houses and one has to be closed down, the publican is compensated.
Compensated by whom?
By those who get the benefit of its disappearance.
Publicans get compensation for the loss of their livelihood.
Who pays for it?
The Deputy cannot discuss the Licensing Act under this motion.
I suppose under the Licensing Act the publicans who benefit pay compensation for the licence extinguished, I think the railways that benefit by the dismissal of their men should pay them compensation. Deputy Murphy refered to the fact that traffic was being diverted from the railways by the buses, but the railwaymen should not be held accountable for that. I put it to Deputy Murphy that the livelihood of the railwaymen is being taken from them by this particular Act. I do not think there is anything very revolutionary in the motion. It proposes:—
"That a Select Committee consisting of eleven Deputies to be nominated by the Committee of Selection be appointed to inquire into and report upon the working of the Railways (Existing Officers and Servants) Act, 1926, as affecting officers and servants of railway companies amalgamated or absorbed by or under the Railways Act, 1924, who lose their employment or suffer other loss or hardship and claim compensation therefor; that the Committee have power to send for persons, papers and records, and that the quorum of the Committee be five."
I ask the Minister why should he oppose this motion? Is the Minister afraid of the finding of a committee appointed as a result of this motion, although I suppose if it is set up his own party will have the majority on it? Candidly speaking, I do not think this should be a party matter. I have not tried to make it a party matter, and I do not think the Minister should do so. In my opinion a grievous wrong has been done to the railwaymen by the passing of this Act. The figures I have given speak for themselves. Surely it will be admitted by independent Deputies that there is something wrong there. I appeal to the Minister not to put his Whips on in this division. If he does I would appeal to independent Deputies. Let us take the case of Deputy Good, who is in the building trade. The Minister for Local Government proposed to introduce a Building Act, and he brought on amalgamation affecting contractors and brick works, and as a result some of the directors in the building industry lost their employment. I put it to the Deputy concerned, or to the House, would not these contractors like to be compensated for the loss of their livelihood? I put it to the university professors here if—as a result of amalgamation of the universities by legislation—they lost their livelihood would they like it? I hope Deputies will look at things from an impartial standpoint. I believe that Deputy Davin and other Deputies who have supported the motion put up a strong case, and the Minister has not attempted to refute it. The setting up of a committee will not incur any financial expenditure. When Deputies come to vote on this motion I hope they will exercise their own judgment rather than be harassed into legalising a very unjust Act as far as the railwaymen are concerned.
I was glad to hear the Minister state that if a case was made out in any particular instance he would be prepared to inquire into it. I think I am in a position with figures I got from some men recently dismissed from the Cavan and Leitrim Railway, to give an instance sufficiently strong to show that wrong has been done, and that victimisation has taken place as a result of amalgamation, for which the men have no means of redress. The Minister referred to Deputy Holt's remarks on the previous day in which the Deputy pointed out that the expenses were greater in consequence of amalgamation. The Minister said the Deputy had no figures to support that. I have here a few items which refer to engine wheels which were dispatched from Ballinamore to Inchicore for repairs. The work of loading these wheels absorbed four men's time for three hours.
It worked out as follows:—One fitter for three hours, 4/7½; one labourer for three hours, 2/11½; two apprentice fitters for three hours, 3/4; giving the total cost, 10/11. The cost of transfer at Dromod absorbed four men's time to the extent of seven hours each as follows:—One fitter, 10/9; one labourer, 6/11; two apprentice fitters, 7/5; giving a total of £1 5s. 1d. Three hours each of these men's time were unproductive, due to travelling to and from Dromod, and waiting at that place for the departure train. Further expense was incurred by unloading and re-loading at Inchicore for return to Ballinamore.
The expense outlined was repeated at Dromod and Ballinamore when the wheels were being returned. When the wheels arrived back in Ballinamore they had to be renovated by a Ballinamore turner, which occupied two days, at a cost of £1 4s. The wheels in question could have been re-tyred in one day at Ballinamore at a cost approximately of 19s. £3 10s. alone was expended on the mere getting of the wheels to and from Inchicore, not to speak of the cost of executing the actual repairs at Inchicore. When the wheels arrived back it was discovered that they bore Vickers stamp, which indicated that they were repaired in England. These wheels could have been repaired at Ballinamore for the amount it took to transfer them to Inchicore. In connection with the permanent way department, it is shown that the cost of painting Lawderdale Bridge, in terms of wages, in April, 1922, amounted to £8 5s. I would like the Minister to contrast this with the cost of painting the same bridge in the year 1927. Again, the cost in wages of painting Ballyconnell Bridge in 1922 amounted to £11. I ask for an investigation to see what would be the cost under amalgamation of similar work on the same bridge in 1927.
That is not due to the Act of 1924 or the Act of 1926.
It is to this extent, that as a result of this interference with the work seven men have been recently dismissed at Ballinamore. It may be stated that there is machinery by which these men can secure compensation.
They have an arbitration court to apply to, but what means have they for bringing forward their cases to prove that their dismissal was due directly to amalgamation? They have not made an effort to do so, because they are convinced in advance that the dice are loaded against them. Could the Minister state that if amalgamation had not taken place these men would not have been retained in Ballinamore? Their dismissal can be directly traced to the result of amalgamation, but they have not got compensation.
They have not tried to get it, according to yourself.
The advice which they have got from their leaders and their legal advisers was to the effect that it would only be a waste of time and money to attempt to do so. These men are not in a privileged position. Under amalgamation, in the first instance, the Government, I am sure, examined the pros and cons of the case. They knew that economies would have to be affected if the railway industry was to be preserved, but they gave covering conditions to ensure that no person would, in consequence, suffer unduly. Having, however, discovered after two years that, owing to a flaw in the Act, some undue hardship was imposed on the directors they passed an amending Bill to relieve the shareholders of the responsibility which they felt was unduly placed on them to compensate those who were dismissed. When it is proved that undue hardship has resulted from that Act, I hope that the Minister and the Government will be as ready to bring in an amending Bill to secure the interests of the workers as they were in 1926 to secure the interests of the directors.
The interests of the railways users and the public, not the directors.
If the railways on amalgamation can show no profit I say that there is justification for every form of economy. I have already referred to the inconsistencies in the working of a comparatively small line like the Cavan and Leitrim Railway.
I could quote further cases to prove that. In order to paint on a crane at one station the words "one ton" a man was sent down from Dublin and the work occupied one hour, so that he spent the rest of his time waiting for the next train back. A similar thing happened in the case of the repair of a broken window. The main purpose of the railway is to carry coal from Arigna, yet the engines are fired, and every station on the line is supplied with foreign coal. Previous to amalgamation the engines were fired with Arigna coal. If the directors and the railways deserve consideration by means of legislation surely it is only reasonable that we should demand from them fair consideration for local industries in return, and that men should not be unduly dismissed or, if dismissed, they should receive that consideration which is shown to others. This railway has a connection at one end with the Great Northern system and at the other with the Great Southern line. It would be reasonable to expect that the Southern Railway under amalgamation would endeavour to compete on business-like lines with other railways, but what are the facts? I find in one instance that the cost of carriage from Belfast to Belturbet—there is no through booking and you can only book from Belfast to Belturbet and from there to Ballinamore—is 14s., a distance of seventy miles. while the cost from Belturbet to Ballinamore, a distance of seventeen miles, is 11s.
Surely we are not now dealing with railway rates.
I want to show that amalgamation has not been a success.
This is a question of employees and not amalgamation.
Amalgamation is said to be a justification for the dismissal of men. I want to prove that the falling off in business is due to the incompetency in dealing with this competition.
They should reduce the rates and cause more dismissals.
If people complain of lack of trade I say that that is due to their own inefficiency. The Great Northern Railway, on which there is no amalgamation, has beaten them hollow on their own ground.
Via Belfast.
So far as I know, they have not made any great reduction in staffs on the Northern line. Then there is the Sligo and Leitrim Railway, one end of which links with the Midland Railway at Sligo and the other with the Great Northern system at Enniskillen. It is not affected by amalgamation, and I have never heard complaints that men were dismissed. The greater portion of the Sligo and Leitrim Railway is in the Free State. If railways that have not been amalgamated are able to compete adversely with the amalgamated railways and are able to retain their staffs, I say that a case has been made out against big amalgamation, and that there is a strong case for investigation into the whole matter.
If the Minister does not think that the motion is necessary to protect the men who were dismissed, surely he will agree that something must be done in the case of men of twenty and thirty years' service who were thrown out of employment as a result of amalgamation. There is no doubt that it was the amalgamation scheme which caused the unemployment on the Leitrim section of the Southern Railways. Prior to amalgamation there was plenty of work for men at Ballinamore, but now that work is being done at Broadstone or Inchicore at a higher cost. The railway company maintain that that has been done in the interests of economy, but, as Deputy Maguire and others have pointed out, it is absurd to say, considering the cost of sending a small amount of material to Dublin and back again, that that work could be done more cheaply here than in Ballinamore. Something should be done for the people in that part of the country where the railways workshop was the only industry they had. I think that the people in that area have been most unjustly treated, and that the Minister should do something to protect them. Men of thirty years' service with families have been thrown out of employment owing to amalgamation, but they have not got any compensation. I say that that is most unfair.
I do not propose to keep the House very long in any remarks I have to make arising out of the debate to which we have just listened. Many statements have been made under cover of the motion, which in my opinion have nothing to do with the merits of the motion. The Minister was equally culpable in that way with other members from both sides of the House. The Minister has assumed, I am sure only for the sake of argument, that were it not for amalgamation the Cavan and Leitrim Railway, the Cork and Bandon Railway, the Dublin South-Eastern Railway, the West Clare Railway, and all the baronially guaranteed lines would have closed down. I certainly dispute any statement of that kind. When members of the House or people outside the House talk about the necessity for railway transport, in a particular part of the country, they should not feed their minds with the fancy that passengers have other ways of getting to and from certain points and that even goods and small parcels can be carried more cheaply or that they can get a more efficient service from one point to another. I ask Deputies and people outside who talk like that, when it is necessary to send cattle from Clonakilty to Birkenhead or from Clonakilty to the Dublin Cattle Market, do they propose to walk the cattle from Clonakilty to Dublin and across the water to Birkenhead or if they cannot be carried by rail what other means they propose to adopt?
Will they get a sufficient amount of traffic from cattle to keep the railway going?
That is a point the Minister will have to answer in the near future. That is one of the points that must be considered. In moving this motion, I was as brief as I possibly could be in regard to the reasons why I brought it forward. I explained that for one thing there was an unnecessary delay in the working of the Act. I explained that it was due to the fact that the first arbitrator appointed, when he had heard the cases presented to him up to a certain point, apparently could not see his way to have his decisions reviewed. It was proposed to review them, not under the terms of the original Act, but under the terms of the amending Act of 1926, and as a result he resigned. The resignation of Mr. Justice Meredith, for the reasons I have stated—and I emphasise that these were the reasons—resulted in considerable delay. There was a delay between the date of his resignation and the date of the appointment of his successor, Mr. Justice Davitt. Mr. Justice Davitt came to consider the claims for compensation under the terms of the amending Act but not under the terms of the original Act. He carried on up to the 9th January, 1928, and not a single one of the applications that are still outstanding has been heard since then.
I quoted the case of a worker named Donohoe, dismissed from the Tralee and Dingle Railway, to show the long delay that has taken place in the hearing of applications. That is a very glaring case. He was dismissed from the service of the company on the 9/10/26, two years and two days ago. His application for compensation was submitted immediately by the organisation of which he was a member, and the usual procedure was adopted. His case was heard on the 9th January, 1928. The case was a losing one from the Railway Company's point of view. They produced heársay evidence, and when they saw the case was likely to go against them, they gave an undertaking to produce other evidence. Mr. Justice Davitt adjourned the case in order that they might produce evidence other than hearsay evidence. There has been no hearing of that case since. No evidence has been brought forward by the Railway Company. My own opinion is—and I do not wish to criticise Mr. Justice Davitt, because as far as I know he may be a very excellent Judge—that in this case Mr. Justice Davitt should have, on the evidence then available, given a decision against the company, because it was up to the company to produce evidence other than hearsay evidence in the first instance. I am not criticising a decision of the Courts. I thought, A Leas-Chinn Comhairle, you were getting uneasy.
I was.
I am not attempting to criticise Mr. Justice Davitt or to criticise a decision given in Court. The decision has yet to be given, but it will not be a decision given in court. However, Donohue is still waiting to hear whether he is entitled to compensation or not. I submit that that is a very clear case that the Act has worked unfairly and to the disadvantage of applicants. Most of the 107 cases still outstanding were, according to the information at my disposal, submitted in the early part of 1926. In fact, I was shown a copy of a letter from the company's solicitor which makes that quite clear. I have only stated one case, and on the merits of that case, I am prepared to rely. I am prepared to leave it to the free judgement of members of the House if a free vote is allowed, after listening to the debate. I make bold to say that if no Amalgamation Act had been passed, the Dublin South-Eastern Railway and even the Cavan and Leitrim Railway, the West Clare Railway, and the baronial lines—but certainly the Dublin South-Eastern Railway—would have continued to exist as separate lines. If they continued to exist as separate railway undertakings, they would retain the painters to paint their rolling stock in the same way as in pre-amalgamation days. If that is so, it is only reasonable to assume that the closing down of the railway workshops and the dismissal of the painters from the Grand Canal Street Works are a direct result of amalgamation, and if these people have not got compensation there is something radically wrong with the working of the Act or with the minds of the men administering it.
On the question of falling revenue, the Minister pinned his faith to the point that the Dublin South-Eastern Railway would not have continued to exist. Of course, he did not give any figures in support of that statement, but he states that there has been a considerable reduction in the revenue of that section of the Great Southern Railways. Deputy J.X. Murphy is a director of the railway company, and the Minister knows less about the matter perhaps than Deputy Murphy, whom I do not expect to put down confidential figures. But the Minister has been poking his nose behind the scenes, and knows the present financial position of the Great Southern Railways Company. I challenge the Minister to produce the figures in regard to the revenue of the Dublin South-Eastern Railway. If he produces these figures, they will show that the revenue of that section of the railways has been maintained to a greater extent than the revenue even on the main line of the Great Southern Railway. Do you accept the challenge?
I would not accept anything that the old London Midland and Scottish had to do with.
I am not dealing with the London Midland and Scottish. If the Minister can produce any figures to support his statement I am prepared to leave over the motion until he brings the figures before the House. If he is able to support that statement by figures, I am prepared to admit that there is less in my motion than I thought when I prepared it.
We are not inquiring into that.
There is no use in making a statement which you cannot prove. I make this further statement, that there are more trains running to-day on the Dublin South Eastern section of the Great Southern Railways than ever ran in pre-amalgamation days. That being so, if it were maintained as a separate undertaking there would be more work to do in the workshops at Westland Row and more men would be employed than in pre-amalgamation days.
If Deputy Davin wants my opinion, it is that there are far too many trains running on the Dublin South Eastern line at the moment.
I am amazed that a director of the railway would come in the House and make that admission. However he admits it is a fact, so that these passenger vehicles would have been painted and repaired at the workshop at Westland Row were it not for amalgamation.
Does he say it is due to amalgamation?
I am sure he will not go so far as to say that the wagons and vehicles running on the line would not have been painted since amalgamation.
Some of the Westland Row ones.
It is on grounds of that nature that I base my whole case. I join with Deputies Holt, Reynolds and Maguire in maintaining that the ratepaying community who have been paying rates for a long number of years for the Cavan and Leitrim line would not willingly allow that line to close down. The same applies to the West Clare Railways. Of course, the Cork and Bandon and the Cavan and Leitrim were not baronially guaranteed lines, but the ratepaying community, who are paying a guarantee of one-tenth of a farthing per ratepaying individual, would not allow them to be closed down.
Would they pay a penny instead?
I hope the Deputies agree with me. If that is so, the workshops in these areas would still be operating and these people would be still employed painting those carriages and wagons. Individuals, at any rate, who have been removed by dismissal from the services of the Cork and Bandon and the Cavan and Leitrim, and from the services of the Dublin and South-Eastern as well as the West Clare lines, would not all have been dismissed. These men whom I now refer to have all been dismissed as the result of centralisation, and this is the direct result of amalgamation. That is the case, and the whole case, that I make to this House in support of this motion, and if that is not a case for amending the Act and setting up a committee I do not know what is a good case.
They did not come forward applying for compensation.
I said most emphatically that the case was tested as the result of the four applications submitted by four of the eight painters employed by the Dublin and South-Eastern Railway works. Their claim for compensation was turned down, and the Railway Clerks' Association, acting in cooperation with the National Union of Railwaymen and the Associated Society of Locomotive Engineers and Firemen, and with the finest legal advisers this or any country could provide, have been advised that it is a hopeless and futile farce, and that it is useless for us to go any further with these cases.
Could the Deputy tell me the wording he would like to have changed? Let us get the wording that he complains of. Would the Deputy put forward an amendment?
What I say is that these men have lost their occupations as a direct result of the amalgamation.
The men who lost their occupations as a direct result of the amalgamation ought to get compensation.
The case in support of that and finding words to amend the Act is the case to be argued before a Select Committee of legal men who know their business. I am not even an amateur lawyer and I am not going to argue it before the House. At any rate I am making the case as an ordinary individual and the cases I have cited should prove to the House that it is not unfair for me to ask that a Select Committee of eleven Deputies, upon which the Minister's own party would have a majority, should be set up to inquire into the matter of the amending of the Act so as to make it possible for men of that type who have been dismissed to get compensation.
The Deputy's motion is that a committee be set up to inquire into the working of the Act, but if I understand his speech now what he wants is the amendment of the Act.
No, I want a Select Committee.
What about a Commission to inquire into brewery and distillery workers who have been disemployed?
God help them; I am sure while our friend is here they will not be lost sight of. The brewers are getting barley very cheap this year.
Does the Deputy see the point?
I do see the point but not the pint. I certainly say that the Minister has had evidence given to him here in this House and in other ways showing that the Act at any rate has not been administered in accordance with the intentions of those who passed the 1924 Act and the 1926 Act in this House, and the 1926 Act in particular.
I deny that.
I have cited the case of the workshop people in support of it. I am moving this motion with the serious intention of not making a farce of legislation passed through this House. I submit, at any rate, that I am not asking of the Minister anything that is unfair when I ask him to set up a committee of eleven Deputies, with the majority of his own Party on that Committee, to inquire into the working of the Act and if a case is not made in support of an alteration of the wording of this Act so as to allow men of this type to get compensation then I am prepared to submit to the free will of the majority of the committee.
Does not the Deputy understand that that is quite different from what is in the motion?
Yes, certainly. I am complaining about the working of it— the interpretation of it if you like. I gave one case to show that a man had been dismissed two years ago and that he had not yet got any compensation.
That has nothing to do with the working of the Act. Is not that merely due to the fact that the Chief Justice has not appointed an arbitrator?
It has certanly to do with the working of the Act, but it is only a minor matter so far as my complaint is concerned. I submit that I have given a case in support of it, that a man who should have got compensation two years ago has not got it yet. As far as I know, the intentions of those who supported this Bill in the beginning were that these men should get compensation and they have been refused compensation.
What were the intentions of the Bill?
Anyway, these men were refused compensation. The intention was to give compensation to those who were dismissed as a direct result of amalgamation.
Judge Davitt gave his view of the case definitely. If dismissal was due to amalgamation, the applicants succeeded; if not, they failed.
I have quoted cases in Grand Canal Street and cases have been quoted from Ballinamore and Ennis and it is evident that these places would not be now closed down were it not for amalgamation.
I have said nothing about the Ballinamore men because they have not been looking for compensation, according to Deputy Maguire. The arbitrator has definitely laid down a principle in line with what we want—if the dismissal is due to amalgamation the applicant succeeds, and if not, he fails. The principle there is compensation for loss of work or office or prejudicial effect by reason of amalgamation.
Is the Minister prepared to produce the statements of Judge Davitt in connection with the four test cases that were submitted on behalf of the workshops people in Grand Canal Street?
I will get them now if you like.
You took care not to quote from the decision of the Judge in these cases.
Is it very material?
Yes.
Why did the Deputy not quote them?
There were no shorthand notes taken and we cannot get that information. As a legal man, the Minister favours further appeals to higher courts—another farce, another way of getting jobs for K.C.s and solicitors at the expense of the starving railway men. The four cases submitted by the men in Grand Canal Street were test cases, and I am prepared to pledge anything, on the opinion of the legal men who advised us, that as a result of the failure of those test cases, the Ballinamore men will not get compensation. Their cases are practically the same cases.
Those are now apparently strong cases and we heard nothing about them except that they had not got compensation. There was nothing shown here which would point out where the Amalgamation Act has failed.
Are you prepared to allow the Select Committee to take evidence as to whether or not these people have a case?
Yes, when it is shown to the House that there is justification for the setting up of a committee. Give us the facts.
I adhere to the statement that they were dismissed as a result of amalgamation.
Is not that what has to be proved?
I am not going to carry on a system of speech-making by way of interruption. The Minister's point was that these works would have been closed and that there would have been no painting or fitting work carried on at those works if the railways continued to exist as separate undertakings. That is his only answer and I dispute that.
I am not the arbitrator.
Are you prepared to allow the Committee to be set up and consider the circumstances surrounding the four test cases?
Those were cases which the arbitrator decided were not cases of dismissal due to amalgamation.
Is not the Minister prepared to read what the arbitrator said?
I have not seen it.
The Minister did not look for it.
We must not have this type of cross-examination.
There is no use in arguing with the Minister. He is adamant in the attitude he has adopted. He made certain statements last night and to-day which he did not make in 1924 when he was bringing in the original Bill, or in 1926. when his confiscatory Bill, referred to as the Railways (Existing Officers and Servants) Act, was passed. I claim that I have made a fair case. I want to assure the House that there is no such thing involved by the passing of the motion for one, two or three thousand people. If this motion is carried and the Act has to be amended in order to give effect to the idea that compensation should be given to those dismissed as a direct result of amalgamation, it will mean that compensation will have to be given only to a very small number of people, and not to one or two thousand people whose cases have been referred to this House. I do not want Deputies to be frightened by the idea that if the Act is amended in the way we want it will mean compensation claims from a couple of thousand men. The number will be a very limited number, possibly one hundred at the very outside. I submit that I have argued the case fairly and squarely in favour of the setting up of a Committee. If the Minister feels that there is injustice done even to one man, then his duty as the father of the original Act and the 1926 Act is to set up the Committee suggested.
Will the Deputy give the House the benefit of his wisdom in the matter of the interpretation of the words "due to amalgamation"? In the arbitrator's decision that I have read in connection with that matter he produced a very lucid case of positive and negative proof. Let us suppose that the Deputy is right, but let us remember that it is the working of the Act he mentions in his motion. Let us suppose that that is not exactly what he means. What exactly will he recommend as an amendment of the Act?
The President has now asked me to put down in legal language phrases which will enable people of the type I have referred to to get compensation. I deliberately refrain.
Not at all.
Suggest something; show us where there is weakness in the Schedule.
One of the Deputies on the Labour Benches mentioned that there were several hundred people who would be entitled to compensation.
I stated that since the 1924 Act was passed over one thousand men had had their services dispensed with.
And they got no compensation. Deputy Davin, on the contrary, says there would be, perhaps, one hundred who would benefit.
Deputy Cassidy did not say that all these people would be entitled to compensation. I say that they certainly would not all be applying for compensation. I am arguing in favour of a group of cases where economies have been effected as a result of amalgamation, and where the men were dismissed as a result of the Amalgamation Act. If it was the intention of the members of the House who voted for the measure to give compensation to men dismissed as a direct result of amalgamation, it is the Minister's duty in cases where compensation has not been given to amend the Act.
If the Deputy can produce one case and can follow it out in all its details, and let us see how far it is as the direct result of amalgamation that the man was dismissed or prejudiced in the matter of hours or pay—if the Deputy can establish one case to the satisfaction of the House, and can show that a man was prejudiced as a direct result of amalgamation, I will agree not merely to a committee but to an amendment of the Act.
I cited one case of a painter. I positively state that from one to eight of these men would still be employed were it not for amalgamation. Not one of them has got compensation. I submit they have been dismissed as a result of amalgamation.
And that is your case for an inquiry?
That is one case; it is not the only one.
It is a poor case.
Question put.
The Dáil divided; Tá, 65; Níl, 67.
Tá.
- Allen, Denis.
- Anthony, Richard.
- Blaney, Neal.
- Boland, Gerald.
- Boland, Patrick.
- Brady, Seán.
- Briscoe, Robert.
- Broderick, Henry.
- Buckley, Daniel.
- Carney, Frank.
- Carty, Frank.
- Cassidy, Archie J.
- Clery, Michael.
- Coburn, James.
- Colbert, James.
- Colohan, Hugh.
- Cooney, Eamon.
- Corkery, Dan.
- Corry, Martin John.
- Crowley, Fred. Hugh.
- Crowley, Tadhg.
- Davin, William.
- Derrig, Thomas.
- De Valera, Eamon.
- Doyle, Edward.
- Everett. James.
- Fahy, Frank.
- Flinn, Hugo.
- Fogarty, Andrew.
- French, Seán.
- Gorry, Patrick J.
- Goulding, John.
- Hayes, Seán.
- Hogan, Patrick (Clare).
- Holt, Samuel.
- Houlihan, Patrick.
- Jordan, Stephen.
- Kennedy, Michael Joseph.
- Kent, William R.
- Kerlin, Frank.
- Killane, James Joseph.
- Killilea, Mark.
- Kilroy, Michael.
- Lemass, Seán F.
- Little, Patrick John.
- Maguire, Ben.
- MacEntee, Seán.
- Moore, Séamus.
- Morrissey, Daniel.
- Mullins, Thomas.
- Murphy, Timothy Joseph.
- O'Dowd, Patrick Joseph.
- O'Leary, William.
- O'Reilly, Matthew.
- O'Reilly, Thomas.
- Powell, Thomas P.
- Redmond, William Archer.
- Ruttledge, Patrick J.
- Ryan, James.
- Sexton, Martin.
- Sheehy, Timothy (Tipp.).
- Smith, Patrick.
- Tubridy, John.
- Walsh, Richard.
- Ward, Francis C.
Níl.
- Aird, William P.
- Alton, Ernest Henry.
- Bennett, George Cecil.
- Blythe, Ernest.
- Bourke, Séamus A.
- Brennan, Michael.
- Brodrick, Seán.
- Byrne, John Joseph.
- Carey, Edmund.
- Doherty, Eugene.
- Doyle, Peadar Seán.
- Duggan, Edmund John.
- Dwyer, James.
- Egan, Barry M.
- Esmonde, Osmond Thomas Grattan.
- Fitzgerald, Desmond.
- Fitzgerald-Kenney, James.
- Gorey, Denis J.
- Hassett, John J.
- Heffernan, Michael R.
- Hennessy, Thomas.
- Hennigan, John.
- Henry, Mark.
- Hogan, Patrick (Galway).
- Holohan, Richard.
- Jordan, Michael.
- Keogh, Myles.
- Law, Hugh Alexander.
- Lynch, Finian.
- Mathews, Arthur Patrick.
- McDonogh, Martin.
- McFadden, Michael Og.
- McGilligan, Patrick.
- Mongan, Joseph W.
- Collins-O'Driscoll, Mrs. Margaret
- Conlon, Martin.
- Connolly. Michael P.
- Cooper, Bryan Ricco.
- Cosgrave, William T.
- Crowley, James.
- Daly, John.
- Davis, Michael.
- De Loughrey, Peter.
- Mulcahy, Richard.
- Murphy, James E.
- Murphy, Joseph Xavier.
- Myles, James Sproule.
- Nally, Martin Michael.
- Nolan, John Thomas.
- O'Connell, Richard.
- O'Connor, Bartholomew.
- O'Donovan, Timothy Joseph.
- O'Leary, Daniel.
- O'Mahony, Dermot Gun.
- O'Reilly, John J.
- O'Sullivan, Gearoid.
- O'Sullivan, John Marcus.
- Reynolds, Patrick.
- Rice, Vincent.
- Shaw, Patrick W.
- Sheehy, Timothy (West Cork).
- Thrift, William Edward.
- Tierney, Michael.
- Vaughan, Daniel.
- White, John.
- White, Vincent Joseph.
- Wolfe, Jasper Travers.
Tellers:—Tá, Deputies Cassidy and T. Murphy. Níl: Deputies Duggan and P.S. Doyle.
The voting is: Tá, 65; Níl, 67.
Before you declare the vote, may I ask is it right for a teller to declare first that he is in favour of the motion and, when he finds that there is a tie, to change his mind?
Will the Deputy put the case to me?
I will put the case clearly. The number that voted in favour of the motion in this particular Lobby was 65. As far as the number that voted against the motion was concerned, the clerk thought it was 67, but the teller on behalf of the Government Party, Deputy Peadar Doyle, clearly expressed the opinion to the Clerk in my hearing that he wanted to vote the other way. When he got over to the other side he saw there was going to be a tie, and he said he would change his opinion.
Will the Deputy put the point again? He says there were 65 votes for the motion.
The actual point is, that as far as voting against the motion was concerned, 65 Deputies passed through the Lobby. Counting the two tellers, the Clerk, when he came to make the calculation, found there were 67 against the motion, but the Government teller, Deputy Doyle, said he wished to vote the other way. When he got over to the other Lobby and saw that by voting the other way it would be a tie, he changed his opinion.
Cumann na nGaedheal first, and the Inchicore workers second!
I admit stating that I intended voting the other way, but when I approached the Table the question of the transfer arose. I had not at that moment seen the figures. When Deputy Cassidy came on the scene of course he saw them. He knew them, but I did not know them when I said I would not change my vote. The reason I did not change was because the complication arose over the transfer of the teller.
I wish to state that Deputy Peadar Doyle came over to the Lobby and informed us that his Party had won by one vote, in other words, that he was the saviour of Cumann na nGaedheal.
Deputy Davin raised this point of order, and will he tell me precisely what he wants me to decide?
Is it in order for a Deputy who is acting as a teller to declare first of all in the presence of the Clerk, the manner in which he intends to cast his vote and, after having made such a declaration, to change his mind when he finds out what the figures show?
Before you answer that, may I ask whether, when a Deputy consents to act as a teller on one side or the other, he is not automatically recorded as voting upon the side for which he acted as teller?
As to Deputy Redmond's point, it is always assumed, when a Deputy acts as a teller for a particular side, that he is voting for that particular side.
But when the Deputy in question expressed his opinion the other way?
It is always assumed when a Deputy acts as a teller on a particular side that he is voting in that particular way. If any other practice were adopted, it might lead to useless divisions. Deputy Doyle, I was informed, was prepared to tell in this particular way and was appointed a teller with his own consent. I think there is a point of order as to whether or not he should be compelled to vote for the side for which he was telling. If so, this result is presumably sound and is a proper result. That point never arose before, and I never had any opportunity of considering the question whether a Deputy who tells against a motion can vote for it. It seems very undesirable that he should be allowed to do any such thing. In this particular instance the Deputy's final conclusion as to the way that he is voting is surely what must be taken as operative. I think no other conclusion could possibly be taken. The alternative is that the division should be taken again. As to Deputy Redmond's point, I never had an opportunity of considering it. It is such an unusual thing that one would never consider it without it actually arising. My own impression is that a Deputy who acts as a teller for a particular side should vote on that side; but I can see an argument against that too. What I am confronted with now is that a Deputy acted as a teller on a particular side and voted on that particular side, and the tellers have now signed a sheet and handed it to me.
Save the Government!
They have handed in the sheet in this particular way, and I think I have no remedy, seeing that the tellers have signed the sheet and handed it to me, except to declare the result accordingly.
How many times is a Deputy entitled to make a declaration to the Clerk of his intention?
There is no necessity to make a declaration of his intention to the Clerk except in the extraordinary case where a Deputy tells on one side and is, at some period, prepared to vote on the other. That is the only case in which it would arise.
Could he go a third time and reverse that?
I think, assuming he could vote on the other side at all, that he could reverse it up to the time when the sheet was signed.
Is a Deputy entitled to ask the Clerk what the votes are before he indicates his intention to vote?
I do not think so.
Is not that the point?
How else could a teller's vote be recorded, the rest of the Deputies having voted, except by the fact that he was a teller for one side, meaning that he meant to vote for that side?
If a Deputy does not vote for the particular side he is teller for, in one Lobby there would be two tellers for one side, instead of one for each side, which is the intention of the Standing Order. This result seems to me to be in accordance with what the practice should be, that a teller should vote for the side for which he tells. In connection with the other matter, the only thing I could do would be to declare the Division invalid, and take another division. I declare the motion lost.
rose.
I have settled the point now, and declared the motion lost.
The Dáil adjourned until Wednesday.