The Minister, when moving the Second Reading of the Bill, gave us an explanation as to why it is proposed to reduce the membership of the Railway Tribunal from three to one, but he did not give us a clear explanation as to why it is proposed that the one member should be appointed from year to year instead of for a five years' period. There was one sentence in his remarks, as they appeared in the Official Report, which implied that the Government were contemplating the termination of the existence of the Railway Tribunal within five years from the passing of this Bill, and that that is why this year-to-year appointment was necessary. I would be glad if the Minister would make the position clear in that respect.
Railways (Amendment) Bill, 1929—Committee Stage.
The Dáil went into Committee.
Section 1 put and agreed to.
Question proposed: "That Section 2 stand part of the Bill."
No, there is no well-founded intention on the part of the Executive Council to have the Railway Tribunal disappear within a five years' period. The Executive Council simply wishes to have the position this, that if at any time within that period it appears that there is no work which would require even one member of the Railway Tribunal to sit, then the Railway Tribunal as a whole may disappear. But there is no decision—there is not even a forecast of a decision—that the Railway Tribunal as a whole should cease to function. This is only to enable the situation to be dealt with inside the five years' period if it should appear that there was no necessity for any member of the Railway Tribunal to act.
In view of the fact that the Railway Tribunal is now going to be reduced to one member—
It is not.
I would ask the Minister to give an assurance that that one member should be a person having railway experience in addition to commercial experience.
I cannot, under the terms of this Bill—distinctly the opposite.
When the Minister tells us that there is no well-founded intention on the part of the Executive Council to remove the Railway Tribunal will he explain the phrase? What is a "well-founded intention"?
A "well-founded intention" is one where an explanation had been given by the Minister in charge of the railway situation that circumstances were likely to arise inside the five years' period which would lead to the disappearance of the Railway Tribunal. I think Deputies are inclined to suspect that there is much more in this Bill than what meets the eye. There is nothing in it except what is on the face of it. The position is that if there was not an amending Bill such as this the Executive Council would be faced with the necessity in August of this year either of removing the Railway Tribunal completely or of appointing three members for five years. There is no reason to believe that it will be necessary to appoint three members for five years. We want elasticity in two ways: we want elasticity either to reduce the number on the tribunal or to reduce the term of office of any of the three members from a stated five years' period to a year-to-year period. A decision will be taken when the circumstances become clearer. I could not say the last day that the Executive Council had taken this decision, but it is quite clear to me that I will not make any representation to the Executive Council to reduce the members of the Railway Tribunal until, for instance, standard charges have been prepared.
Question put and agreed to.
Sections 3 and 4 and the Title put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be reported without amendment.
The Dáil went out of Committee.
Bill reported.
Report Stage ordered for Friday.