I ask for a Second Reading of the Railways (Amendment) Bill, 1929, the purport of which appears from a reading of the four sections. Under the Railways Act, 1924, three standing members were appointed to the Railway Tribunal, the term of office being five years. Section 13 of the Act of 1924 provided that at the end of five years these three should retire and be eligible for re-election. Under that Act, if re-elected—the Tribunal as established then was a tribunal of three persons—these three members would each hold office for a subsequent period of five years. It was considered that during the operation of the five-year period the work of the tribunal would have diminished to such an extent that there would be no necessity for a tribunal of three members or for a tribunal with another five years to run. The Bill provides that on the expiry of the term of office of the present members there should be leave to decrease the number and the appointment should be from year to year.
Railways (Amendment) Bill, 1929—Second Stage.
I should be glad if the Minister would give us an amplification of the statement that at the end of another five years the work of the Tribunal will have so diminished that there will be no necessity for a Tribunal at all. The case that can be made for the reduction of the Railway Tribunal to one member is a good one, and it is a wise economy to effect at this stage. I do not see that the case for the abolition of the Railway Tribunal is as good, and the Minister seemed to imply that the next step would be taken before the five years of its existence would have lapsed. I should be glad if the Minister would amplify that statement, and give us a clearer insight into what is in his mind concerning this matter.
Provision is made in this Bill to reduce the term of office of the standing members of the Railway Tribunal to one year, and to enable the number of members to be reduced to one. It seems to me very strange that the Minister should consider reducing the number of members of the Tribunal from three to one before the standard charges dealt with in Part III. of the Act have been settled.
It will not be done.
I would like the Minister to give some indication as to when the standard charges and the Appointed Day will be settled.
That depends on the Court.
I would point out that under the provisions of the Act of 1924 the Tribunal was composed of three members, one of whom was an ex-railway manager, the other an accountant with considerable commercial experience, and the third was a judge. I presume that when the number of members has been reduced from three to one the remaining member will neither have commercial nor railway experience though he may be called on at any time to decide new matters arising out of the railway situation. A development of this kind might far outweigh any saving in salary of the two members whose services have been dispensed with. I would ask the Minister to state what powers the Tribunal exercises in regard to agreements reached between the Great Southern Railways and other transport undertakings. The Minister will recollect that some time ago an agreement between the Dublin United Tramways Company and the Great Southern Railways Company in regard to the Dublin to Dalkey district was vetoed at the dictation of the Railway Tribunal. We have, on the other hand, no indication whether authority was given by the Tribunal to the Great Southern Railways Company to enter into an agreement with the Irish Omnibus Company. So far as that agreement is concerned, it has been stated by a person with accountancy experience that the agreement was apparently made by the representatives of the Irish Omnibus Company who held revolvers, so to speak, at the heads of the representatives of the Railway Company. I am sure that the Minister will not deny that so far as that agreement is concerned the Railway Company came badly out of it.
I submit that that is not relevant to the Bill.
I am dealing with the Tribunal appointed under the Act.
The Bill does not deal with the authority of the Railway Tribunal.
The question which I wish to ask the Minister is in regard to the agreement between the Irish Omnibus Company and the Great Southern Railways Company.
Is this relevant?
No. The Deputy's first point in regard to the remaining member possibly having neither railway nor commercial experience is relevant but the other point is not. I do not think that he can go into the question of the agreement between the Irish Omnibus Company and the Railway Company.
I do not intend to. What I want to ask the Minister is whether the Tribunal, which has certain powers, and which has put them into operation in regard to the agreement between the Dublin Tramways Company and the Railway Company, has any authority in regard to the agreement between the Irish Omnibus Company and the Railway Company. I presume that the object of the present Bill is to economise, but I submit, so far as the railway situation is concerned, that, if the Minister wanted to wield the economy axe he should have wielded it in a better way and in a direction in which there would be much more scope for its operation, with less serious consequences to all concerned. If the electricity supply of the country can be managed and controlled by a board of five, I submit that, so far as the Southern Railways Company is concerned, there is no administrative or economic justification for a board of fifteen.
Does the Deputy think that on this Bill, which proposes to reduce the term of office and the number of members of the Railway Tribunal, he can deal with the number of directors of the Board of the Great Southern Company?
The reason I mention it is to show that although there are fifteen directors of the Great Southern Company, drawing over £700 a year each, the company is really controlled by one director who is not a representative of the company but who has been nominated by an English company.
Again I ask is this relevant?
I have given the Deputy two opportunities of keeping to the Bill. I think he ought to come to it now.
The reason that I brought in the reference was to show that the Tribunal is going to be a one-man affair—composed of one member who has neither railway nor commercial experience. That being so and in view of the fact that the Great Southern Company is being run by one director, I think that the Minister should give a better explanation to the House of this particular arrangement. If it were possible that savings would result by having the Tribunal composed of one member with no railway or commercial experience I would like to know how such economy could be brought about. I say that the Great Southern Company, as controlled by a director who has £7,000 a year from an English company and who has really got no interest in it from a public point of view, should be able to effect economies in that department.
I would like the Minister to explain what will happen eventually. I do not understand what he intends to do under the Bill.
Deputy Cassidy said that the Great Southern Company is controlled by someone who is working in the interest of another railway. I would like to ask him what proof he has of that.
We can have no discussion on that. It was an irrelevant remark and I presume that the Deputy has not proof.
I have proof and can produce it if needed.
The Deputy cannot produce it now.
I desire to state that I have not said that there will be no Tribunal within the next five years. So long as this Bill remains there must be a Tribunal. The only power given is to reduce the number of members to one. The reason it is expected that the personnel can be reduced to one member is that the duties put upon the first Tribunal will to a great extent disappear. Standard charges will have been fixed and the Appointed Day declared. Deputy Cassidy, however, is afraid that that will not be done because it is going to be reduced before the Appointed Day is declared. That is not so. It is not stated in the Bill. The Deputy will have to wait to see what order will be issued by the Governor-General on the advice of the Executive Council. It is quite obvious that if the Governor-General is advised to that effect the two ordinary members of the Tribunal will disappear and there will be a Tribunal composed of a judicial member. His capacity to deal with the duties that will then come before him will be one of the matters which will be under consideration when the Governor-General is advised to issue, the order. The powers of the Tribunal are neither being enlarged nor diminished, as the Bill is intended only to reduce the numbers of the Tribunal and their term of office. I am not concerned with the directors of the Great Southern Company nor with Deputy Cassidy's allegations about them. In reply to Deputy Lemass, as to what will happen under this Bill, I am taking powers to prevent myself being landed in the position that in August next I would either have no tribunal or would have to appoint people for three years more.
That may be quite right and I imagine that the House will agree with that, but some indication of what is actually in the mind of the Minister should be made available for the House.
Will the Minister state definitely that the membership of the Railway Tribunal will not be reduced until the standard charges have been declared?
I do not think it is possible to reduce the Tribunal until the standard charges have been declared.
But is it the present intention that the members of the Tribunal shall remain until the standard charges have been declared?
That matter has not been considered by the Executive Council. The only matter before them was whether it was right that in August we should be faced with a situation as a result of which we would have to appoint three people for five years or appoint nobody.
Are we to take it that the old position still holds?
What was that?
That three members shall constitute the Tribunal?
The Deputy can take it for granted that the Executive Council have not had the matter formally brought before them and have not said that any change should be made.
I am a lot wiser.
They have not discussed it.