I move amendment 1:—
In page 2, line 22, to delete the word "mail-bags" and substitute the word "mails."
Road Transport Bill, 1931—Money Resolution. - Railways (Miscellaneous) Bill, 1931—Committee.
Section 1 agreed to.
SECTION 2.
In this Act—
the expression "the Minister" means the Minister for Industry and Commerce;
the expression "the Principal Act" means the Railways Act, 1924 (No. 29 of 1924);
the expression "road transport" means the carriage of passengers, passengers' luggage, merchandise and mail-bags, or any of them, for reward by road in mechanically propelled vehicles not running on permanent rails;
the expression "mechanically propelled vehicle" includes a vehicle drawn by a mechanically propelled vehicle;
the expression "statutory order" means an order made under the authority of a statute, whether such order was or was not confirmed by statute;
the expression "statutory agreement" means an agreement recognised, approved of, or confirmed by statute or by statutory order.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment 2:—
In page 2, to add at the end of the section the words "the word ‘merchandise' includes goods, wares, minerals, and animals but does not include passengers' luggage or mails."
This is to clear up a doubt as to whether the word "merchandise" includes livestock, and the amendment makes it clear.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 2, as amended, agreed to.
Section 3 agreed to.
[An Leas-Cheann Comhairle took the Chair.]
SECTION 4.
This Part of this Act applies to every railway line (whether forming or not forming part of a larger railway line or of a system of railway lines) for or towards the construction of which a free grant was made out of public moneys or which was constructed under a statutory order whereby a presentment by a grand jury guaranteeing payment of dividends by the company constructing such line was confirmed.
On behalf of Deputy J.X. Murphy, I beg to move amendment 3:
3. To insert at the end of the section the following words:—
"This Part of this Act, save Section 6 thereof, applies to every railway line other than a railway line mentioned in the foregoing sub-section (whether forming or not forming part of a larger railway line or of a system of railway lines) which or part of which, a railway company is prohibited by statute or agreement from singling or closing, or in respect of which a railway company is by any statute or agreement under an obligation to maintain any service of trains for passengers or merchandise."
Under this Bill the company is able to close or single a baronially guaranteed line or lines. It was pointed out on Second Reading that possibly they had not power to do the same with regard to one of its own lines. The Minister was of a different opinion. It is suggested that to prevent any doubt it would be well to make the matter explicit by inserting words such as are set out in the amendment I have proposed.
The amendment, I should point out, is a little confusing. The words "in the foregoing sub-section" should read "the words in the foregoing section." The intention of the amendment is perfectly clear and I think it would be well to make the position unambiguous in the interests of the railway company.
That explanation hardly gives the point of the amendment. The point of the amendment is to make it clear that a railway company may at its own discretion single or close down any part of its lines. That is the purpose of the amendment. We have dealt in this legislation with certain railway lines for or towards the construction of which a free grant was made out of public moneys or were constructed under a statutory order whereby a presentment by a grand jury guaranteeing payment of dividends by the company constructing such line was confirmed. In other words, we are dealing with the baronially guaranteed lines or of lines built out of public moneys. This amendment goes further and says that this Part of the Bill about having power to close down or single a line should apply to every part of the company's lines and will sweep away every restriction on the railway company with regard to its main line. I would like to have that explained as the full effect of it because I think it is a point in which the traders generally would be interested.
The exact situation as I understand it is this, that a railway company has power to single its main lines. It has also power to close down, subject to this, that it is tied down by certain port protection direction clauses, and also by a clause which provides that reasonable facilities must be given to the people in the area. It may, however, get permission to close down a line on making application to the Railway Tribunal, if the Railway Tribunal, having heard representations in relation to the port protection clauses or in relation to the granting of reasonable facilities, decides that either singling or closing has to be allowed in the circumstances. But this amendment would sweep away the necessity for coming before the Railway Tribunal and would allow the railway company to close any part of its lines or to single any part of its lines without adverting to the port protection clause obligation on them to grant reasonable facilities and to prove to the Railway Tribunal that it is nevertheless, though closing down part of its line, continuing to grant certain facilities. This is an unreasonable amendment. It would remove from the railway company the only obligation they are under at present to go before the Railway Tribunal and make their case with regard to singling or closing down, that the port protection side is being adverted to, and that reasonable facilities are afforded the public. I do not think that that is a discretion to give the railway companies at all.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Sections 4 and 5 agreed to.
SECTION 6.
(2) In the case of every railway line to which this Part of this Act applies and over which no specified service of trains is required by the preceding sub-section of this section to be run, it shall, from and after the passing of this Act until otherwise provided by an order under this Part of this Act, be obligatory for the company owning such line to run over such line a service of trains giving facilities for transport of passengers and merchandise not less in quantity or convenience than the facilities for such transport given by the service of trains run over the said line during the month of October, 1931.
I move amendment No. 4:—
In sub-section (2), page 3, line 22, to delete the word "and," and in line 23 after the word "merchandise" to insert the words "and mails."
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 5:—
In sub-section (2), page 3, line 25, after the word "during" to insert the words "the last seven days of" and to delete the word "October" and substitute the word "November."
We have had it represented to us that the time tables of the Great Southern Railways Company were altered in the month of November and we want this suggested amendment to meet that alteration.
Is it not a fact that the last seven days of the month of November would probably be the period of the year in which the railway service would be at its lowest, when the number of trains run and other services provided would be at the very lowest point? Is it intended that that should represent the limit of the company's obligations under the Act in respect of provision of services?
I am sure the Deputy has the scheme in his mind, and if he has he will see that the amendment is not unreasonable. The scheme is this: Where there is an obligation to run a service, then we say in the first sub-section that all the services mentioned or required would have to be run. It also says where services are not required by statute, we are imposing a new obligation, and we take a particular period. It is right to say that that is a point at which the railway services will be at their lowest. That is so, but when we are imposing new services we do not think it is unreasonable. The distinction between the services run in the period covered by the amendment and during the month of October is not very important.
Amendment agreed to.
Question proposed: "That Section 6, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
On the Second Reading I raised the point about the Minister requiring the railway companies to run certain statutory services upon those baronial lines. I tried to point out that if it were found uneconomic to run these statutory services and that alternative accommodation in some case by buses could be found equally useful for the service, and very much more economical, the Minister should be given power to sanction such alternatives. I raised that point on the Second Reading. Has the Minister agreed to it?
The scheme is really what the Deputy has outlined. Section 6, taken by itself, gives a wrong impression of what the future will be. Circumstances may stabilise. We start off with obligatory statutory services; otherwise we start off with services actually in operation at a particular date. Then we come to another service, and say that the order made might relieve the railway company from the obligation to run a particular service.
Will that include the statutory service on a baronially guaranteed line?
Yes. Section 7 provides for that. They are made obligatory for the first time in sub-section (1) of Section 7.
Section 6, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 7.
(1) The Minister may, by order made on the application of a company owning a railway line to which this Part of this Act applies, relieve such company from any obligation imposed on such company by or under this Act of running a particular service of trains over such railway line and, in lieu thereof, shall by such order impose on such company the obligation of running over such railway line the modified service of trains specified in such order.
(3) Whenever the Minister makes an order under this section imposing on a company the obligation of running over a railway line owned by such company a modified or reduced service of trains, it shall, from and after the coming into operation of such order until otherwise provided by a subsequent order under this Part of this Act, be obligatory for such company to run over such railway line the modified or reduced service specified in such order.
I move amendment 6, which stands in the name of Deputy J.X. Murphy:
In sub-section (1), line 29, to delete the words "by or under this Act" and substitute the words "by statute, statutory order or statutory agreement."
This is a drafting amendment which seeks to relieve the company of statutory obligations imposed by the Bill.
That is consequential on a previous amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 7:
In sub-section (3), page 3, lines 42 and 46, to delete the words "or reduced" where they occur in those lines.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 7, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 8.
(1) The Minister may, by order made on the application of a company owning a railway line to which this Part of this Act applies, authorise such company to cease, as from the coming into operation of such order until otherwise provided by a subsequent order under this Part of this Act, to run any trains over such railway line.
(2) The following provisions shall have effect in relation to an order made under this section, that is to say—
(a) the Minister shall not make such order unless he is satisfied that, having regard to the alternative transport facilities which are or will be available in the district served by the railway line to which such order relates, adequate transport facilities will be available to the public in such district notwithstanding the cesser of the running of trains over such railway line;
(b) from and after the coming into operation of such order and unless or until such order is revoked by a subsequent order under this Part of this Act, it shall not be obligatory under this Act or otherwise for the company owning the railway line to which such order relates to run any trains on such railway line;
(c) such order shall not relieve from or affect any liability of the company owning the railway line to which such order relates to maintain all bridges, level crossings, fences, drains, and other works constructed and maintained for the use, accommodation, or protection of the public generally or of any section of the public or of the owners or the occupiers of particular lands.
I move amendment 8:
In sub-section (2) to delete paragraph (a).
The object of this amendment is to relieve the company of what seems to be a hardship. They cannot give up an unremunerative service unless they apparently establish an alternative service which may be itself a losing service. It seems to me to be from the frying pan into the fire. Perhaps the Minister would look into it. The condition is that the Minister shall not make any order until he is satisfied that the alternative transport available would be adequate transport. That might throw it on the railway company itself to provide the alternative transport.
I have a very strong objection to the amendment. The scheme is that we stereotype certain services. We allow applications to be made for modification or cesser of the services. We say the Minister shall not make such order unless he is satisfied that there are adequate alternative transport facilities in the area. These alternative transport facilities may be provided by the railway company or by somebody else. We think it would be wrong to allow the railway company to discontinue running a line on which public money has been spent and leave the district entirely unprovided for. The hardship is only to be thought of in connection with an area where nobody will run any service but where there was previously public money spent on the building of a railway. I think these cases are not likely to occur. The amendment would allow the railway company to close down such a line whether or not there were adequate transport facilities available for the people in the area.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment 9:
In sub-section (2), page 4, to add at the end of the sub-section a new paragraph as follows:—
"(d) from and after the coming into operation of such order and unless or until such order is revoked by a subsequent order under this Part of this Act, so much of section 47 of the Railway Clauses Consolidation Act, 1845, as makes it obligatory on a railway company to employ proper persons to open and shut gates at a level crossing shall not apply to any level crossing on the railway line to which such order relates if and so long as all the gates of such level crossing are kept and secured in such position as to permit the free passage of road traffic across such line at such crossing."
This amendment is to make it clear that where a cesser order has been passed allowing a railway line to be closed, the railway company will not be under any obligation to employ a proper person to open and shut the gates at any level crossing to which such order relates, if and so long as the gates of such level crossing are kept and secured in such a position as to permit of the free passage of road traffic. In other words, if a railway company is allowed to close down a branch line they need not be obliged to keep people there to open and close the accommodation gates.
Amendment agreed to.
Is the Minister satisfied that "adequate" transport facilities are the only things that should be taken into account when he is determining whether an application to close some of these lines should be granted or not? There might be adequate transport facilities that would be by no means as cheap as the facilities that were there. It is impossible, for instance, that a road service from Tralee to Dingle would be as cheap as railway transport. At least from what I have gathered with regard to that line it would be very hard to see how a road service could be run as cheaply. As the section stands at present, all the Minister is required to take into account is whether adequate transport facilities will exist when the line has been closed. There is to be no question as to whether these facilities will be less of a tax on the people or whether they will be a greater tax on the people than the railway was. It seems to me in view of the talk we hear in this House as to the importance of keeping production costs low that there might be a great danger if a line is closed that the adequate transport facilities might be a great deal dearer than previously.
The point is the application of the word "adequate." That is unless the Minister is satisfied. It is in the discretion of the Minister. I think the word "adequate" must relate to the cost and the frequency of the service to be given. Two items must be taken into consideration. I do not think at all that the service will have to be ruled out as being inadequate simply because it was dearer than the previous service. The previous service may have gone out of existence because it was uneconomic and you cannot insist on having a new service given at a rate which the previous service had found to be unremunerative. The whole thing will have to be balanced by the economics of the district. The word is wide enough to cover the frequency of the service at the rate at which the service is to be given.
Is the Minister satisfied that the word "adequate" embraces these conditions?
Yes.
It is a very strained meaning for the word. With regard to what the Minister further said that he could not be constrained against giving an order for the closing of a line by reason of the possibility of the rate being dearer, does not that create a new situation altogether with regard to the railways? Would not that justify the proposal made by Deputy Alton that they should be entitled to close down a line no matter what the inconvenience to the public may be? Surely the big consideration with regard to whether any line will be closed or not is what it is going to mean to the public served by the line, whether it is to mean inconvenience and to greatly increase the costs, particularly to those producing in that area. I am surprised to hear the Minister suggest that he would not necessarily be constrained by any possibility of dearer rates and bigger costs for carriage of goods prevailing in the district in consequence of such order being granted.
I have two observations to make. One is that I object to Deputy Murphy's amendment moved by Deputy Alton on the grounds that this Bill gives the railway company discretion to close down a line. It does not. It gives that discretion to somebody else, to somebody not interested. The railway company would be interested. The amendment would give power to close whether the service is adequate or not. That should not be left to the decision of the railway company. I stand by what I have said previously. It is merely that because a service replacing a railway service is to cost more that it should not be ruled out. That is the suggestion. Nobody can say because people in an area chanced to get a service which was proved to be economic that somebody is bound to continue that irrespective of the economics of the situation.
There is no question that the railway company before having such an order granted must prove that it was uneconomic to have to continue running it. There is no provision there of that kind.
There is a provision that the Minister must be satisfied that the new service is adequate.
Section 8, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 9.
Amendments 10 and 11 on the Order Paper read:
10. Before Section 9 to insert a new section as follows:—
"Whenever an order is made by the Minister under sections 7 and 8 of this Act and, as a result of such order, any employee or servant of the railway company which applied for such order becomes disemployed, such railway company shall pay to such employee or servant compensation at such rate and in such manner as the Minister may by order prescribe."—(Deputy Lemass.)
11. Before section 9 to insert a new section as follows:—
"Every existing officer or servant of a company owning a railway line, whose office or situation is abolished, or whose services become unnecessary, or whose remuneration or emoluments are reduced, or, who otherwise suffers any direct pecuniary loss as a result of an order made under sections 7 or 8 of this Act, shall be paid compensation for any such loss by the said company on the terms and in accordance with the procedure prescribed in the Third Schedule to the Railways Act, 1924, which, for the purposes of this section, shall be deemed to be operative."—(Deputy Davin.)
My amendment is similar in purpose to amendment No. 11 in the name of Deputy Davin and perhaps they may be discussed together. Personally I am not concerned which amendment is adopted if the principle embodied in both is translated into the Bill. I think the Dáil should decide that whenever an order is made by the Minister to close down a railway line, or to reduce the services which the railway company is required to maintain over part of its line, any employee or servant who loses his employment or whose remuneration is reduced in consequence of that order should be given compensation. That is the principle contained in both amendments, and I think it is one that must commend itself to every member of the Dáil.
For some time past there is probably no Deputy who has not had representations made to him by persons who were for a very long time in the service of the railway company, and whose services were recently dispensed with. They now find themselves, probably for the first time in their lives, without work and without the training that would facilitate them in getting work in any other branch of industry. Not merely did a number of these people lose employment, but they did not secure what similar workers in other occupations would have been entitled to secure, benefit from the Unemployment Insurance Fund. Railway workers were exempt from the provisions of the Unemployment Insurance Acts on the ground that they were to be regarded as being in permanent employment and not liable to unemployment. When conditions changed and their services were dispensed with, they found themselves in the position that they had nothing whatever to fall back upon, except whatever assistance might be available out of the rates struck by local authorities for the purpose of providing home assistance. If, as a result of the passage of this Bill, and of the operation of orders made by the Minister under it, an additional number of railway employees are to be dispensed with, I think the Dáil should take the attitude that the railway company which employed them should pay them compensation for the loss of that employment.
I think comment might be made on the different treatment which this Bill proposes should be meted out to the employees and servants of the company and to that proposed to be given to the redundant directors of the company. In one case workers have been dispensed with without compensation and with no unemployment insurance benefit. What is to happen to them? In the other case a redundant director is to be allowed to hold office and to draw fees until he dies or retires, in which case the position he occupies will not be filled. This consideration for directors is probably much less needed than a part of the same consideration would be by the workers. Most of these railway directors are people who have not got all their eggs in one basket. If they cease to be directors of the company and to draw the fees attached to their directorships they would not have to starve. They could fall back upon other sources of income. The workers of the company have only one source of income, and when they lose that they are brought face to face with destitution.
I think that the Dáil would be responsible for a great injustice if it allowed this Bill to pass without making the provision that Deputy Davin and I suggest, namely that the railway company which had the benefit of the services of these people should be required to compensate them in some way for their loss of employment when their services were no longer needed. It may be said that the railway company are no longer in a prosperous condition. We know that. But that fact has not removed from them the obligation, which appears to us to rest upon them, to see that the men who have given them loyal and faithful service for a number of years should not be cast upon the scrap heap when, as a result of competition, or anything else, particular parts of the railway service have to be dropped. I strongly urge that the amendment with these proposals be embodied in the Bill before it passes through the House. I hope the Minister will favourably consider it and that the members of his Party will support it.
I suggest to Deputy Lemass that the amendment in my name more definitely prescribes the conditions under which compensation is to be paid than the wording in his amendment would suggest.
I will accept the Deputy's amendment.
The intention is certainly the same, and I hope the House will agree that if the Minister should be given power to close down branch lines of a company upon which servants have been employed from anything up to forty-five years it will also insist on the Minister making proper provision for the payment of compensation to those who will lose their employment as a result of such order. I think compensation for the loss of employment should be accepted by every Deputy who, as a result of the passing of legislation of this kind, takes responsibility for depriving citizens of their livelihood. The Treaty made provision for the payment of pensions and compensation to civil servants and to those who served in the Royal Irish Constabulary up to the time the Treaty was accepted by the people. Members of the Royal Irish Constabulary who resigned as a result of their national sympathies during the pre-Truce period also received, as the result of the Superannuation Act of 1923, pensions for having surrendered their employment in the interest of the country.
The House has also made provision for the payment of pensions and gratuities to soldiers and officers in the National Army who were disbanded after having served during a certain critical period. The principle of the payment of compensation to those who lost their employment has been accepted by this House on many other occasions. I think it is unnecessary for me to elaborate at great length the case that can be made for compensation for those who will undoubtedly lose their employment as a result of the operations of this section of this Bill. Unless the Minister accepts the principle of this section and prescribes the conditions under which the payment can be made I intend to ask the House to divide on the issue.
While one has a very considerable amount of sympathy with those whom Deputy Davin and Deputy Lemass have spoken for, we cannot let that sympathy carry us too far. In connection with railways it has to be pointed out that alternative methods of transport have grown up. Transport by road, and in some cases by sea, is a cheaper alternative. Except we can get the railways to adapt themselves in some way to compete with these alternative services, bad as their condition is at the moment, it will be very much worse in the near future. When considering a matter of this kind we must remember that we are dealing with a very difficult problem. Our biggest industry is agriculture, a very large proportion of the product of which is sold in other countries. The welfare of that industry depends very largely, if not entirely, on its ability to compete against all comers in the great markets of the adjoining country. It is essential in the interests of the industry that we should have cheap transport. Nobody who studied the question will disagree with that. Cheap transport is essential to the welfare of the industry. If, by reason of certain factors that have arisen in connection with transport, the railways are unable to lighten their burden, and in that way to discharge their obligations, they are going to be wiped out altogether. In other words, if it is too expensive to carry the produce over the railways then that produce will be forced over the roads. Alternative cheaper methods would be adopted, and the railways left high and dry. Have Deputies considered what the situation will be in that case?
Supposing the railways are forced into the position that they have to liquidate, what condition would they be in? Is that going to meet the situation? It is not at all an unlikely contingency. In debating this proposal we are going to take a step that will neither help the industry by which this country is very largely maintained nor will it be to the interest of the workers concerned, because if the railways are forced into this position not alone will the people at present employed be thrown out of employment but a great many with contracts—I mean those with pensions—may find that under the altered circumstances the pensions may not be forthcoming. These are all problems that arise out of proposals of this kind. I would ask the Minister before he considers adding to the burden of the railways, to visualise what the possible alternatives to that policy are.
There are a few points of view definitely in conflict in this matter. They have been stated by Deputy Lemass, Deputy Davin and also by Deputy Good. I share to a great extent Deputy Good's views on this matter. In a great many instances I think the railway company will see fit to pay compensation. I object to putting it on them as an obligation. At any rate, I hope they will see their way where the service is not remunerative to any great degree, but not entirely unremunerative, and where they have substituted a more or less remunerative bus service, to carry the cost of compensation on that service if it is not too high. There are branch lines which have been beaten by other methods of transport and become definitely obsolete. I hold that the carrying of any of these amendments would mean that the branch lines would not be closed. I think it would be better business for the railway company to keep on an unremunerative branch line rather than to close it and to run bus services in which they will not get much profit and have to carry on their backs the burden of compensation for people put out of employment. The district, to a certain extent, will bear the cost of compensation. The railway company will be providing in the main the alternative road services, and it will be for them to take it out of the transport users in the area. Alternatively if they do not do that, and Deputy Lemass thought it should not happen, the railway company will say they will carry the burden of compensation not on the areas served by the alternative bus service but on the main lines. The main lines are sufficiently weak economically without an extra burden, and if the main system crashes through, all this heavy burden having been thrown on them, the railway workers as a whole are going to be in a worse position. We had that exemplified by what occurred in County Donegal, where a railway system was forced out of commission.
There was no attempt made there to get away from the rigid conditions of service of the railway workers, no attempt to spread the burden. The result was the railway had to close down and when it reopened it only took on about 50 per cent. of the people who had formerly been employed. If we insist on making the railway companies carry on these unremunerative branch lines the position of railway workers will not be any better, but much worse than at the moment. Deputy Lemass referred to the directors. The directors, of course, are in an entirely different position. First of all, we do not insist on any payments being made to the directors. Casual vacancies may be brought about in different ways. We do not insist on directors being retained above the minimum number. The shareholders are the proprietors of the business at the moment and if they insist on a lesser number of directors being employed we would be quite willing to meet them. We are not imposing any obligation and the position is not at all analogous to that of Civil Servants under the Treaty. What happened there was a completely new situation came about. The ordinary run of life for these people was interrupted and it was felt that some advertence should be paid to that fact and that compensation should be paid to them.
The question of amalgamation was an entirely different thing too. There was definite State action bringing about the amalgamation and bringing it about on the basis that the railways, when amalgamated, were going to be in a much stronger position financially, that they were going to have the way made easy to them to effect certain economies and that the second situation was going to be much better than the former one. In these circumstances, where the State was bringing about the dismissal of certain people and the railway company were being put in a better position to bear the burden, it was equitable that this burden should be put upon them. What has happened here is that competition has forced a lot of branch lines to close down. We say that an order may be got to close down a branch line, but only after a public inquiry, and where the circumstances show that the railway service has in fact become obsolete, that it has been wiped out by a better service in competition with it.
What will be the position of the men who were dismissed in case the line is re-opened?
The Deputy must realise that if at all it will be very rarely that a line once closed will be ever re-opened. We have to take certain precautionary measures in regard to the outside chance of a railway line once closed being restored. If a railway line is closed down the possibility of its ever being re-opened is very small indeed.
So that this is a railway closing down Bill.
It is a Bill which will enable, after public inquiry and consideration of all the circumstances, the closing down of a certain number of unremunerative branch lines.
We know what you mean now all right.
I do not think the Deputy does yet.
What does Section 9 mean?
The section is plain. After an inquiry an order may be granted, but the line has to be kept in reserve. That is, I think, a little bit away from this amendment.
The Deputy forgets that if the company does not earn a dividend it will close itself.
That is the point I have been making. I want the Deputy to advert to what he is doing in this amendment. "Whenever an order is made by the Minister under Sections 7 and 8," is the phrase used by Deputy Lemass. Deputy Davin's phrase, although vaguer, brings in these lines on which there is no obligation to run any service. We say that if any man is put out of work or adversely affected in any way by a closing order then compensation has to be paid, but on the main line compensation has not to be paid. The terms of the Amalgamation Act were clearly that compensation would only be paid to such people as could prove that the change in their circumstances, whether it was dismissal, reduced pay, worse hours or anything like that, was directly due to amalgamation, but no compensation would be payable where the change was brought about by competition. This is looking to competition which has made certain types of lines obsolete. After public inquiry and after getting the views of the people of the locality the Minister is going to make an order closing down a certain line. Notwithstanding all that, the contention is that there has to be compensation paid, although the same railway company, if it comes before the Railways Tribunal, either for the singling of the line, which may lay off a certain number of men from the maintenance point of view, or the closing down of a line if they can prove they are still giving reasonable facilities, can then close down the line and the men who are thrown out of employment are not to be given any compensation. That surely is a very big defect in the whole scheme. It goes to the root of the whole thing. I do not think that any Deputy in this House is going to go to the extent of saying that any man who goes out of employment, whether his disemployment is due to amalgamation or competition, ought to be compensated. That is the effect of this amendment.
To a large extent, is it not true that the railway company is competing with itself?
It may be, but it does not necessarily follow that it will be. Somebody may come along and give what is considered to be an adequate service. The position is that Deputies want to stereotype the railway personnel at the point it is at at the moment, and to say that any man who goes off from this time has to be compensated. You may persuade a certain number of people to vote for that, but to my mind you are going to bring about the County Donegal conditions all over again. The railway company may have to close down, and when they re-open they will re-open with 50 per cent. of the employees.
Mr. Bourke
I would like to ask the Minister whether the men who were dismissed from the different workshops recently are entitled to compensation.
May I point out to the Minister that there is more in this matter than what he has actually outlined? It is not the case of a railway branch line being closed down owing to competition. Power will be vested in the railway company to run an alternative system—for instance, a passenger bus service. In other words, it means that, although the passenger traffic is up to normal, the company will be allowed to close down a particular line and substitute for it a bus service, with the result that many railway employees, some of them having long service, are going to be rendered redundant and thrown out of work. Where a branch line is going to be closed down we do not find any directors being rendered redundant because of that fact. It might be said that the directors had invested their money, but the railway employees have invested their lives in the business. It is their livelihood. If a branch line closes down and the company opens a bus service, the Minister should make a stipulation that no man will be dismissed until such time as a vacancy occurs in the road service, so that he can be absorbed. The company should not be entitled to get rid of their employees and to bring in new men to run bus services in a cheaper way. They should agree to some stipulation that will safeguard the railway employees who may be rendered redundant. It is not a question of competition, but of an alternative service being run by the railway company. Their passenger service may be up to normal.
Deputy Bourke inquired as to whether men who had been dismissed from workshops were entitled to compensation. The workshop men in the conditions he speaks of would not be entitled to compensation.
Mr. Bourke
Up to twelve months ago such men were compensated by way of pension. I think it is very hard now that men who have given from 20 to 50 years' service should be thrown on the rates. The Minister should consider the position of the wives and children of these unfortunate men.
Deputy Cassidy made one point which is entirely new. He asked that where men are put out of employment by reason of the closing down of a branch line, in special circumstances, I should see that these people would get the first chance of employment. He goes further and says that no man should be put off the line until a vacancy would occur in the road service. That clearly could not be carried out. This part of the Bill looks to the baronially guaranteed lines. It also looks to lines not baronially guaranteed which have a statutory obligation on them to run a service. It also looks to other lines on which we impose for the first time an obligation to run a service. I am making a discrimination in regard to baronially guaranteed lines, where by previous statute compulsion was put on the railway company to run services. In those circumstances, where the railway company becomes the proprietor of the alternative road transport service, I would certainly make it my business to see that as many men as possible of the branch line services would be put into employment, but that is the most I could do. One has got to bear in mind that quite a number of these men will not be capable of taking up service on the road section. I imagine that will be the case. If so, it would be almost impossible to insist that these men should get employment. I certainly would indicate this point of view. I would approach the railway company in the circumstances I have mentioned with a view to getting them to act in the most sympathetic way towards these men, but I would not put it upon the railway companies as an obligation that they should either employ these people or pay them compensation.
May I point out that a similar promise was not fulfilled in the case of the Londonderry and Lough Swilly Railway? I would press the Minister to go further and say that where a railway line is closed down owing to the running of an alternative service, the men should be paid adequate compensation for the years of their lives that they have invested in the railway company.
I do not see any great probability of a line being closed down in the circumstances to which the Deputy referred. If the local inquiry does not show that there is a falling off in the passenger receipts I do not see any case for a closing order being made at all.
What about the Lough Swilly Railway Company? That is a parallel case.
On the Londonderry and Lough Swilly line, the passenger receipts had fallen to a vanishing point.
The Company are operating an alternative road service.
If I had given a guarantee like what I have given here I probably would have made certain representations to them. The conditions the Deputy spoke of did not hold up there. The passenger receipts had not merely fallen, but they had almost disappeared entirely. I repeat what I said about the conditions on a baronially guaranteed branch line; where the railway company becomes the owner of the alternative road transport service then I would put it to them that they should employ as many as possible of the men who are being put out of work. I certainly think that would be a consideration that they should advert to.
Could not the Minister make representations in regard to those already unemployed on the Londonderry and Lough Swilly Railway?
I do not mind looking into that again.
Are we to expect the same results from this guarantee as we got in the case of the Cork Tramway Company? The position is that the railway companies have a large number of employees who have given from 20 to 30 years' service. They are under a certain obligation to these employees. Perhaps in ten years they would be obliged to pension them. In order to get rid of their obligations now they are going to turn around and run alternative bus services. They can put in young men and thus get rid of their unfortunate employees without compensation. We heard any amount of lip sympathy in connection with the Cork tramwaymen. They were to be absorbed in the bus service, but they are not absorbed yet. They are still walking the streets of Cork unemployed, owing directly to legislation brought in here by the Minister.
We are going to be faced with the same position in regard to the railwaymen. If they are not going to be a burden on the railway company they are going to be a burden on the farming community, who will have to provide home assistance for them. The company can afford to pay off their directors very well after giving one or two years' service, and they can afford to pension off their higher officials, but when it comes to the ordinary employees they will allow them to become a burden on the State. Now is the time to see that these people do not become a burden on the State. We have before us what happened in Cork in the case of the change over from the tramway system to the motorbus system. I think now is the time to see that the railway company are compelled to stand up to their obligation.
The Minister, in opposing this amendment, has let the cat out of the bag. He has made it quite clear now that any branch line that will be closed down as a result of orders which may be made by him under certain sections of this Bill will be closed down never to re-open. What is going to happen in most of the cases where these branch lines will be closed down? The railwaymen with service up to about 45 years in some cases will be replaced by the bus service people. I would like to ask the Minister—and I hope he will answer before this matter is finally disposed of—what branch lines he has in mind as having certain claims to be closed down if and when he gets the powers asked for in this Bill? Where these branch lines are likely to be closed down will he say whether the bus service which will have to provide an alternative service for the travelling public is controlled alone by the Irish Omnibus Company, which has been purchased out of revenue provided by the railway companies' shareholders?
The Minister talked about the difference in the position now and when the Railways Act came into operation in 1924, and the prosperous position which the company was in at that particular period as compared with the financial position it now occupies. Would the Minister, for the same reasons in the case of the State, or would Deputy Good for the same reasons, say that because the Minister for Finance has not been able to balance his Budget that the pensions that the Royal Irish Constabulary or civil servants received under the Treaty should be reduced or cancelled? If there is a reason why the railway company should be allowed to get out of their obligations because as a result of mismanagement they are not able to meet them, then there is the same case for the cancellation or reduction of pensions, because the Minister for Finance is not able to balance his Budget.
The State does not get its income from competition in trade.
The competition which has led up to the closing of these branch lines is due to the fact that the Minister allowed uncontrolled road services to compete under conditions laid down by themselves. Can the Minister, for instance, visualise a time when the ratepayers of a locality may say that they are not going to pay for the damage to those roads? Can he visualise a time when the services themselves will become uneconomic and when it may be desirable to have the branch line reopened? I think he has been advised by somebody in this case who has got the road mind on the subject. We will put this amendment to a vote of the House and let Deputies afterwards go back to their constituents, including the railwaymen, and give their reasons for their attitude on it.
[An Ceann Comhairle took the Chair.]
Amendment put.
The Dáil divided: Tá, 54; Níl, 63.
Tá
- Aiken, Frank.
- Allen, Denis.
- Anthony, Richard.
- Blaney, Neal.
- Boland, Gerald.
- Boland, Patrick.
- Bourke, Daniel.
- Brady, Seán.
- Briscoe, Robert.
- Buckley, Daniel.
- Carney, Frank.
- Carty, Frank.
- Cassidy, Archie J.
- Clancy, Patrick.
- Clery, Michael.
- Colbert, James.
- Cooney, Eamon.
- Corkery, Dan.
- Corish, Richard.
- Corry, Martin John.
- Crowley, Tadhg.
- Davin, William.
- Derrig, Thomas.
- De Valera, Eamon.
- Everett, James.
- Fahy, Frank.
- Flinn, Hugo.
- Gorry, Patrick J.
- Goulding, John.
- Harris, Thomas.
- Hayes, Seán.
- Hogan, Patrick (Clare).
- Houlihan, Patrick.
- Jordan, Stephen.
- Kennedy, Michael Joseph.
- Kent, William R.
- Killilea, Mark.
- Lemass, Seán F.
- MacEntee, Seán.
- Moore, Séamus.
- Morrissey, Daniel.
- Murphy, Timothy Joseph.
- O'Connell, Thomas J.
- O'Dowd, Patrick Joseph.
- O'Kelly, Seán T.
- O'Reilly, Matthew.
- O'Reilly, Thomas.
- Powell, Thomas P.
- Ryan, James.
- Sexton, Martin.
- Sheehy, Timothy (Tipp.).
- Smith, Patrick.
- Walsh, Richard.
- Ward, Francis C.
Níl
- Alton, Ernest Henry.
- Beckett, James Walter.
- Bennett, George Cecil.
- Blythe, Ernest.
- Bourke, Séamus A.
- Brennan, Michael.
- Brodrick, Seán.
- Carey, Edmund.
- Collins-O'Driscoll, Mrs. Margt.
- Conlon, Martin.
- Connolly, Michael P.
- Cosgrave, William T.
- Davis, Michael.
- Doherty, Eugene.
- Dolan, James N.
- Doyle, Peadar Seán.
- Dwyer, James.
- Esmonde, Osmond Thos. Grattan.
- Fitzgerald, Desmond.
- Fitzgerald-Kenney, James.
- Good, John.
- Gorey, Denis J.
- Hassett, John J.
- Heffernan, Michael R.
- Hennessy, Michael Joseph.
- Hennessy, Thomas.
- Hennigan, John.
- Roddy, Martin.
- Sheehy, Timothy (West Cork).
- Thrift, William Edward.
- Tierney, Michael.
- Vaughan, Daniel.
- Henry, Mark.
- Hogan, Patrick (Galway).
- Jordan, Michael.
- Kelly, Patrick Michael.
- Keogh, Myles.
- Law, Hugh Alexander.
- Leonard, Patrick.
- Lynch, Finian.
- Mathews, Arthur Patrick.
- McDonogh, Martin.
- MacEoin, Seán.
- McFadden, Michael Og.
- McGilligan, Patrick.
- Mongan, Joseph W.
- Mulcahy, Richard.
- Murphy, James E.
- Nally, Martin Michael.
- Nolan, John Thomas.
- O'Connor, Bartholomew.
- O'Higgins, Thomas.
- O'Leary, Daniel.
- O'Mahony, The.
- O'Reilly, John J.
- O'Sullivan, Gearóid.
- O'Sullivan, John Marcus.
- Redmond, William Archer.
- Rice, Vincent.
- White, John.
- White, Vincent Joseph.
- Wolfe, George.
- Wolfe, Jasper Travers.
Tellers:—Tá: Deputies Davin and G. Boland; Níl: Deputies Conlon and P. S. Doyle.
Amendment declared lost.
I beg to move amendment 12:—
"In sub-section (2) to delete paragraph (b)."
I do not think the Minister should be given the power which he seeks in paragraph (b). In view of the speech he made in opposing the previous amendment I can now quite understand the mind that lies behind this whole section. The Minister practically admitted in that speech that he cannot see any set of circumstances which would justify the re-opening of a line closed down. Notwithstanding that he asks the House to give him the window-dressing powers conferred by this section.
Can the Minister not visualise a position when, as a result of the cutting up of roads, protests made by the ratepayers and the possibility of the alternative road service becoming unsafe and uneconomic, he might be compelled to re-open a line which had been closed down by order following an inquiry? Is it not possible that the further increase in the petrol duty imposed by the Minister for Finance may mean that the road services will become uneconomic and the people running the alternative road service will be forced out of existence? I do not like the wording of the sub-section, particularly in view of the Minister's speech on a previous amendment. I ask the House to accept this proposal for the deletion of the paragraph.
The Deputy apparently has not understood my speech on this section. I said I could hardly visualise circumstances in which a railway company would have to re-open a branch line once it was closed. I say that again. Nevertheless, this section is not mere window-dressing. Suppose a railway company gets an order to cease running a particular service on the grounds that they are going to establish an adequate alternative service. Suppose afterwards they decide that they are not going to continue this previously judged adequate service. What power have we to make them continue this service unless what is in this section?
I hold that the section will not be put into operation, but at the same time I hold the threat of it is necessary. The Deputy who wants these branch lines re-opened is now moving to take away from the section the only part of it that is really valuable. If we cut out paragraph (b) what will the section mean?
The following provisions shall have effect in relation to the making of revocation orders under this section, that is to say:—
(a) the Minister shall not make a revocation order without giving notice of his intention to make such order to the company affected by the original order intended to be thereby revoked and affording such company an opportunity of making representations to him in regard to such intended revocation order.
Notice is given to the company affected and the company gets an opportunity of making representations. The Deputy now moves to cut out paragraph (b) and, if that is cut out, the section will then be completed with paragraph (c), which says:—
a revocation order shall operate to revive and reinstate every obligation imposed by this Part of this Act or an order thereunder which was in operation immediately before the making of the original order and was expressly or impliedly relieved against or removed by such original order.
I suggest the Minister should accept the amendment. The Minister says he can envisage a situation in which the railway company will provide an alternative service, namely, a bus service, if a branch line be closed down. He cannot visualise a situation in which the company would ask to re-open the line. I will submit one example to the Dáil. The Great Northern Railway Company have, during the last few years, been running a bus service. Having run the bus service for a considerable time, they found last year that on that bus service they lost approximately £12,000 or £13,000. They found that as far as the road services were concerned they were uneconomic. Let us say that the company decides to close down a certain section of the line. If the Great Northern Railway Company were to continue the road service for a number of years at a loss they might find it necessary to reopen a branch line that at another time they considered it advisable to close.
I can foresee the very same thing occurring so far as the Great Southern Railways are concerned. It is quite possible that they would consider a road service more economic for a particular route, not perhaps because of a falling off of traffic, but for general reasons and, after running that bus service for a period, they might then consider it necessary to make an application in order to take the buses off the road and re-open the railway line. If the Minister gives this matter more serious thought I think he will see that there is quite a lot of sense and reasonableness in it.
If the section goes through as it stands it will not be possible, in my opinion, for the Minister to make a revocation order which the railway company may ask for unless this position has been created, that the alternative transport facilities have ceased to be available. If the railway company making the original application and obtaining an order closing the line provide alternative transport services and if, after a time, they decide upon a change of policy—if they decide to get back to the original position, re-open the line and cease running the alternative service—if this sub-section remains the Minister cannot make á cancellation order.
Why?
The Minister cannot make such an order unless, by reason of the alternative services having ceased to be available, there are not adequate transport facilities in the district.
The Deputy envisages circumstances in which the railway company will keep on an uneconomic service.
I am envisaging circumstances in which the railway company may decide to get back to the original position, re-open the line and drop the road service. They will ask the Minister for an order permitting them to do that. The Minister could not give them that order unless they take up this attitude, that they stop the road service and, for a period, leave the district without transport facilities.
The Deputy has made the point that under the section I cannot revoke an order, but that does not finish the railway company. The railway company can reinstitute a service without a revocation order being given by me. They have not to get permission from me to reopen the line. I want to limit the enforcement of an obligation on them to resume rail services on a particular line. I do not want to do that except the alternative road service which they have provided has ceased to the point of not being, to my mind, an alternative service. I consider I should then have the power to say to the railway company: "If you do not continue to run a road service that is adequate to the needs of the community, I will insist on you resuming the rail service," and the only way is by a revocation order. If the company want to do it they can.
In that case I would like to go back to amendment 9. I can see difficulties arising in that connection because we agree that where this order is made permitting the railway company to cease running the service the company is exempted from certain obligations in regard, for instance, to the employment of men at accommodation crossings. The position now apparently is that the railway company can run trains upon that line, even if an order is made, but yet they are exempted from these obligations.
Let us say the railway company want to resume a service. They have already got the cesser order and they have been relieved of the obligation of having these men at accommodation crossings. The Deputy envisages the situation when they want to resume, but do not want men at accommodation crossings. How often is that likely to arise?
Amendment put, and declared lost.
Section 9 agreed to.
SECTION 10.
Amendment 13: To delete sub-section (3)—(Deputy J.X. Murphy).
This amendment seems to me to be out of order. The effect of it would be to put a charge on public funds.
If I may, I would propose to delete the section.
The Deputy can vote against the section.
Question proposed: "That Section 10 stand part of the Bill."
On the section, I think the word "may" in the third line of sub-section (1) should be deleted and the word "shall" substituted. An application is made to the Minister to close down a railway line on the grounds that alternative transport facilities are available. In such a case a public inquiry should be held for the purpose of getting the views of local traders and others affected by the closing down of the line. I hold it is important that their views concerning the adequacy of the alternative service should be obtained. Under the section as it stands it is optional with the Minister to say whether a public inquiry shall be held. I do not think it should be optional. I think it should be compulsory, in every case where it is proposed to make an order closing down a railway line, that a public inquiry be held before which traders and others interested could make representations.
There was no amendment put forward proposing to substitute the word "shall" for "may." Had such an amendment been proposed I would have opposed it. I think a certain amount of discretion ought to be allowed. In the main, I think circumstances will compel the Minister to hold an inquiry in the case of any important application. I think that a certain discretion ought to be given.
With regard to sub-section (3) I would like to know from the Minister what sort of a public inquiry he contemplates should be held. Will it be of such a character as to cause a good deal of expense? It seems to me that such an inquiry may be very expensive if witnesses representing various interests are to be summoned on both sides. It would be rather hard on a railway company when it makes an application for a cesser order that it should have to bear the cost of a public inquiry. I do not think that such a burden should be placed on it. I would like to know from the Minister if he proposes to have an inquiry in every case.
Very nearly.
In such circumstances is it possible that the Minister for Finance would ever give his sanction to the proposal that the State should bear the cost of the inquiry instead of the railway company? It seems to me to be rather hard that this extra expense should be placed on the railway company.
In support of what Deputy Alton has said, it appears to me that sub-section (3) on the face of it is manifestly unfair. Even if the railway company proves its case the Minister is taking power under the sub-section to say that it shall have to bear the cost of the inquiry. To me that does not seem fair. Even though you are dealing with a railway company they are surely entitled to a little fair play. To make them pay in a case like this does not seem to me to be playing the game. The sub-section contains a principle which is without precedent. It is one that I hold ought not to be accepted by the Minister, and I think the sub-section ought to be deleted.
The purpose of the sub-section is to relieve the railway company of an obligation that they represent is becoming too onerous for them. Under the sub-section relief will be sought by the railway company and the relief, if granted, will be entirely to the benefit of the railway company. There are certain phrases in the sub-section which are intended to meet exceptional cases. It is provided that the Minister for Finance may "otherwise direct." It is clear that the Minister for Finance can only otherwise direct in this sense, that he will bear the cost of this from State funds. Under a later sub-section the person holding a public inquiry may order the costs incurred by certain people to be paid by certain other people. There is a certain amount of power given to meet exceptional circumstances, but in the main the relief will be given to the railway company and they ought to pay. I should say that the expenses will be very small, unless action is taken on the part of the railway company in the sense of bringing a big number of people, thereby making the expenses heavy. In the main, as I have said, the expenses will be low, although I believe that in the majority of cases an inquiry will be held.
Section put and agreed to.
SECTION 11.
In this Part of the Act— the word "director" does not include a director nominated under the Railways (Directorate) Act, 1924 (No. 61 of 1924).
Mr. O'Connell
I move amendment 14:—
To delete lines 12 and 13.
I regard this amendment as a very important one. The Railways (Directorate) Act of 1924 gave the right to an English railway company, the L.M.S., to appoint a director on the Board of the Great Southern Railways. When that Bill was introduced here it was very strongly opposed at the time by the Labour Party. In their opposition they had the support of the present Minister for Local Government, the Parliamentary Secretary for Posts and Telegraphs, of Deputy Esmonde, Deputy Gorey and other members of the House.
Were there any defections from the Deputy's own ranks?
Mr. O'Connell
Such things do occur occasionally, but members get sense. When introducing the Bill the point was made by the Minister that it was brought forward in order to implement some kind of an agreement or contract that had been reached between the L.M.S. and the Board of the Great Southern Railways. It appeared there was some outstanding arrangement between the L.M.S. and the old Dublin South Eastern Railway Company under was some concession which they which they lent £100,000 to the Dublin South Eastern Railway Co., and there was some concession which they claimed to be worth £20,000. At any rate, it was variously estimated at £10,000, £15,000, or £20,000, and because of that they had the right to nominate a director on the Board of the Dublin South Eastern Railway Company. That was some private arrangement they had between themselves.
The Minister came here in 1924 and got a special Act passed empowering this English railway company to have a director on the Board of the Great Southern Railways. At the time the Minister scoffed at the idea that this director, who would be one in fifteen. would be able to exert any great influence on the policy of the Irish railways. That Bill was opposed at the time from the point of view of the national status of the country. It was opposed also on the grounds that, as a matter of fact, there would be interference, and very great interference, in matters of policy by the particular director who, as was known at the time, was going to be appointed. The idea was scoffed at then, but the events of the past seven years have borne out to the fullest what was said by the opponents of the measure in regard to what was going to happen. It is known now, and perhaps best of all to the Minister himself, that the representative of the L.M.S. who is now director on the Board of the Great Southern Railways, has exercised a great influence. To borrow the terminology of Deputy Séamus Bourke, he has exercised a malign and potent influence on the affairs of the Great Southern Railway. That is common knowledge amongst people who are acquainted with railway affairs. Some of those who spoke in favour of the Bill at the time said "Oh, this particular director will be there only for the purpose of looking after the interests of the L.M.S." But that has not been so. The particular person appointed to that position has been most active in the management of the affairs of the company—in creating trouble, as Deputy Corish reminds me—and in directing the policy of the company. When the company acquired indirectly the I.O.C. bus company, this particular gentleman was made chairman of that company. We know what one of the developments was in regard to that company, and how at length he was compelled to retire from the chairmanship of it. Now, when they have acquired another carrying company, this gentleman is again made chairman of it, and in addition to the £7,000 a year pension which he has from his own company he gets £14,000 a year as chairman of this company.
£14,000 a year?
Mr. O'Connell
Did I say £14,000? I should have said £1,400. My slip, I think, is excusable when I remind the House that this particular gentleman is one who thinks in thousands. Very grave objection was taken to his appointment at the time. As I mentioned already there was only the question of something like £100,000 capital involved out of the total capital of £25,000,000 or £26,000,000 invested in the Irish railways. Objection was taken that he should be appointed as one of the fifteen directors. Now we are told that the number of directors is going to be reduced, that eventually the number will be eight. But this particular director will still continue to hold office. That is why I am moving to have the two lines in the section deleted. They are put in to say that no matter what director may be interfered with, this particular representative of this English railway company will not be interfered with. Even if a vacancy happens to be created in his case, this company would still have the right to appoint a representative.
Whatever case may have been made in 1924, and we do not agree that there was any justification in 1924, there is none now. This railway company, after doing its best to prevent the amalgamation of the railway companies here, practically held a pistol to the Minister's head at the time and threatened that they would seek to recover their £100,000 if they did not get this particular concession. It appears that they got this privilege. I believe, and those specially acquainted with railway conditions believe, that the £20,000 they were supposed to get out of the agreement cannot be recovered now because it was based on an arrangement about traffic receipts which have largely disappeared. I can see no justification for continuing this arrangement and making this man's position absolutely secure. No matter how the directorate may be reduced, this representative is going to continue and his power is going to increase, because whereas before he was one in fifteen he is now going to be one in eight.
The Deputy is arguing not against the principle of the Railway Directorate Act at all but against an individual. You have to take into consideration the other side of the bargain. There was an arrangement made and the Railway Directorate Act was in the way of implementing that particular agreement. If that is broken it means that the Great Southern Railway Company will have to pay back this £100,000 plus arrears of interest accumulated since 1906, and in addition they will lose what they estimate is worth £20,000. I do not think it fair to put that burden on them in the present circumstances. There is one man out of a Board of nine. I do not think that person is going to be so full of power as the Deputy imagines. I think any speeches made on that point would be more of criticism of the other directors. The way to amend it is to attend to it through the directorate.
I think Deputy O'Connell has put up an irrefutable case as to why his amendment should be carried. As Deputy O'Connell has pointed out, the London and North Western Railway, now merged in the London, Midland and Scottish, lent £100,000 to the Dublin and South Eastern Railway Company. That money was lent in the ordinary way. They were supposed to pay interest. As Deputy O'Connell suggested there is no justification as to why the London, Midland and Scottish Railway Company should have a director on the Great Southern Railway Company. It might be pointed out, in so far as that £100,000 is concerned, it is only altogether one two hundred and sixtieth of the total capital of the Great Southern Railway, which is approximately £26,000,000. Nevertheless they have one out of fifteen on the Board of Directors. However, if this Bill is passed as the Minister lays it down it means that they will have a stronger representation than hitherto.
It was pointed out by the Minister that the particular director he had nominated would only hold a watching brief on behalf of the London, Midland and Scottish Railway, but I think the Minister realises to-night that not alone does he hold a watching brief, but he is actually dominating the whole situation as far as the Great Southern Railway Company is concerned. He is there purely and simply to look after the interests of the London, Midland and Scottish Railway. He is drawing a pension from the London, Midland and Scottish Railway of £7,000 per annum; in addition he has £1,400 as chairman of Wallace's, with which he was connected. In addition to that he has £800 a year as director of the Great Southern Railway Company. I would point out to the Minister that he is not there in the interests of the Great Southern Railway or of the trading and travelling public. He is there to manipulate the through rates and to look after the railway company of which he was general manager.
I suggest, seeing that amalgamation has been agreed upon, that the directors should be men who have the interests of the shareholders and the employees of the Great Southern Railways at heart and not a director whose principal aim and object is to manipulate things not in the interests of the shareholders and employees, but in the interests of a foreign railway company.
Mr. O'Connell
The Minister has suggested that I was opposed to the principle of the Railway Directorate Act.
No, that your argument had not been in fact directed against it, but only against an individual.
Mr. O'Connell
The principle is as unsound to-day as it was in 1924, but I did point out that it was prophesied in 1924 what was likely to happen. I was pointing out in fact what did happen. Now the Minister has put up as his principal argument that the railway company would have to pay that sum. Is he so sure of that? A demand may be made on them for this £100,000. That is the plot that is being worked and the pistol held at the head of the railway company and the Minister. We do not know exactly what were the exact terms on which this £100,000 was given, but there is very good reason to believe that it would be affected in some way by the change which has come about since the money was lent. In any case this concession, which was valued at from £15,000 to £20,000, would undoubtedly be affected by the loss in traffic. Surely it is not of that value to the Great Southern Railway now?
It is clear to me in any case that the London, Midland and Scottish are anxious to have this particular representative here to influence railway policy here in the interests of an insurance company. On that principle alone I think it is wrong. I think that it might be well worth while for the country to pay back the £100,000 to get rid of that influence. We know what that influence has meant in the past to the development of railway affairs in this country. It has always been in the interests of imports rather than developing the internal carrying trade. It might be well worth getting rid of that director and facing the problem of having to pay back whatever it might be decided would be the just thing to pay back in these circumstances. I do not think the suggestion that that burden might be put on the railway company is a sufficient justification for the continuance of a representative of an English company on our board of directors here. I am still strongly opposed to it, especially as under this Act we are giving the representative a greater power proportionately than he had under the old arrangement.
Question put: "That the words proposed to be deleted stand."
The Committee divided: Tá, 63; Níl, 52.
Tá
- Alton, Ernest Henry.
- Beckett, James Walter.
- Bennett, George Cecil.
- Blythe, Ernest.
- Bourke, Séamus A.
- Brennan, Michael.
- Brodrick, Seán.
- Carey, Edmund.
- Collins-O'Driscoll, Mrs. Margt.
- Conlon, Martin.
- Connolly, Michael P.
- Cosgrave William T.
- Davis, Michael.
- Doherty, Eugene.
- Dolan, James N.
- Doyle, Peadar Seán.
- Dwyer, James.
- Esmonde, Osmond Thos. Grattan.
- Fitzgerald, Desmond.
- Fitzgerald-Kenney, James.
- Good, John.
- Gorey, Denis J.
- Hassett, John J.
- Heffernan, Michael R.
- Hennessy, Michael Joseph.
- Hennessy, Thomas.
- Hennigan, John.
- Henry, Mark.
- Hogan, Patrick (Galway).
- Jordan, Michael.
- Kelly, Patrick Michael.
- Keogh, Myles.
- Law, Hugh Alexander.
- Leonard, Patrick.
- Lynch, Finian.
- Mathews, Arthur Patrick.
- McDonogh, Martin.
- MacEoin, Seán.
- McFadden, Michael Og.
- McGilligan, Patrick.
- Mongan, Joseph W.
- Mulcahy, Richard.
- Murphy, James E.
- Nally, Martin Michael.
- Nolan, John Thomas.
- O'Connor, Bartholomew.
- O'Higgins, Thomas.
- O'Leary, Daniel.
- O'Mahony, The.
- O'Reilly, John J.
- O'Sullivan, Gearóid.
- O'Sullivan, John Marcus.
- Redmond, William Archer.
- Rice, Vincent.
- Roddy, Martin.
- Sheehy, Timothy (West Cork).
- Thrift, William Edward.
- Tierney, Michael.
- Vaughan, Daniel.
- White, John.
- White, Vincent Joseph.
- Wolfe, George.
- Wolfe, Jasper Travers.
Níl
- Aiken, Frank.
- Allen, Denis.
- Anthony, Richard.
- Blaney, Neal.
- Boland, Gerald.
- Boland, Patrick.
- Bourke, Daniel.
- Brady, Seán.
- Briscoe, Robert.
- Buckley, Daniel.
- Carney, Frank.
- Carty, Frank.
- Cassidy, Archie J.
- Clancy, Patrick.
- Goulding, John.
- Harris, Thomas.
- Hayes, Seán.
- Hogan, Patrick (Clare).
- Houlihan, Patrick.
- Jordan, Stephen.
- Kennedy, Michael Joseph.
- Kent, William R.
- Killilea, Mark.
- Lemass, Seán F.
- Moore, Séamus.
- Murphy, Timothy Joseph.
- Clery, Michael.
- Colbert, James.
- Cooney, Eamon.
- Corkery, Dan.
- Corish, Richard.
- Corry, Martin John.
- Crowley, Tadhg.
- Derrig, Thomas.
- De Valera, Eamon.
- Everett, James.
- Fahy, Frank.
- Flinn, Hugo.
- Geoghegan, James.
- Gorry, Patrick J.
- O'Connell, Thomas J.
- O'Dowd, Patrick Joseph.
- O'Kelly, Seán T.
- O'Reilly, Matthew.
- O'Reilly, Thomas.
- Powell, Thomas P.
- Ryan, James.
- Sexton, Martin.
- Sheehy, Timothy (Tipp.).
- Smith, Patrick.
- Walsh, Richard.
- Ward, Francis C.
Tellers:—Tá: Deputies P.S. Doyle and Conlon; Níl: Deputies Cassidy and G. Boland.
Question declared carried.
Section put and agreed to.
Section 12 agreed to.
SECTION 13.
(1) If the number of directors of the company at the passing of this Act is more than eight, then, notwithstanding anything in the scheme or in Part II of the Second Schedule to the Principal Act, the following provisions shall have effect, that is to say:—
(a) the legal number of directors shall be and, until reduced by the operation of the next following paragraph, continue to be a number equal to the number of directors of the company at the passing of this Act and no greater number; and
(b) until the legal number of directors is by the operation of this paragraph reduced to eight, the legal number of directors shall, whenever and so often as a casual vacancy occurs amongst the directors, be reduced by one and accordingly such casual vacancy shall not be filled;
(c) as on and from the date on which the legal number of directors is, by the operation of the next foregoing paragraph of this sub-section, reduced to eight, the legal number of directors shall be eight and no greater number.
(2) If the number of directors of the company at the passing of this Act is not more than eight, then, not withstanding anything in the scheme or in Part II of the Second Schedule to the Principal Act, the legal number of directors shall be eight and no greater number.
(3) Paragraph (5) of Section 34 of the scheme shall cease to have effect.
I move amendment 15:
Before Section 13 to insert the following new section:—
On and after the date of the passing of this Act the legal number of directors of the company shall, notwithstanding anything in the scheme or in Part II of the Second Schedule to the Principal Act be eight and no greater number.
The purpose of the amendment is to effect a reduction in the number of directors of the Great Southern Railways to eight, instead of doing it in the manner suggested by the Minister, that casual vacancies which arise from time to time should not be filled until, over a number of years, the desired reduction has been achieved. I propose, instead of this elaborate procedure which the Minister suggests that we should enact that as and from the passing of this Act the number of directors shall be eight and no more than eight. It seems to me that that is the proper procedure to adopt, and as it corresponds with the procedure adopted in the case of the ordinary railway workers, I do not see why any special privileges should be given to directors.
The only point I have to make is that the conditions applicable to directors are not conditions applicable to workers. The directors can be kept on by the shareholders. It is a matter for the shareholders whether they will reduce this number by degrees. Deputy Davin, if he were here, would tell the Deputy that quite a number of these directors are aged men—he thinks too aged— and that their term of office is not likely to be very long.
It is not correct to say that the railway company can retain a greater number of directors than eight, after the number has reached eight. The Minister proposes that the number shall be eight and know greater number after the eight has been reached by the process of retirement or elimination of some other kind over a number of years. I see no reason why this method should be adopted, or why we should not enact now that the railway company shall have eight directors and no more. Let them decide amongst themselves who the eight directors are to be.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On behalf of Deputy J. X. Murphy I move amendment 16:
In sub-section (1) (c), line 39, to delete the words "eight and no greater number" and substitute the words "not more than eight and not less than six, of which three shall form a quorum."
The section as it stands says that the number of directors shall be eight and no greater number. No lower limit is set. The amendment sets a lower limit and also fixes a quorum, which seems to be desirable.
The only purpose I see in this is that it allows for certain emergencies that may happen, say, for the filling of casual vacancies. I think that the amendment was put down without advertence to the fact that a certain other Act has to be read with this Act. The Companies Clauses Consolidation Act, 1845, which is incorporated in the amalgamation scheme, allows for the filling of casual vacancies and, therefore, the amendment is definitely unnecessary.
As regards the quorum?
That point is attended to in that way.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment 17 not moved.
Section put and agreed to.
Sections 14 and 15 agreed to.
SECTION 16.
I move amendment 18:
To delete Section 16 and to insert in lieu thereof a new section as follows:—
(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in Sections 127 to 131 of the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act, 1845, a railway company may at any time sell or lease in such manner and on such terms as it thinks proper any land not required for the purpose of its railway.
(2) The said Sections 127 to 131 of the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act, 1845, shall not apply to any sale or lease of land by a railway company under this section.
(3) Land forming part of or used for the purposes of a railway line on which the running of trains has ceased under an order made under Part II of this Act shall not, merely by reason of such cesser, be land not required for the purposes of a railway within the meaning of this Act.
The new section is simply re-enacting in a clearer form what was contained in the previous Section 16.
Amendment put and agreed to.
New Section 16 ordered to be inserted.
The following amendment stood in the name of Deputy J.X. Murphy:—
19. Before Section 16 to insert the following new section:—
"Notwithstanding any statutory provision to the contrary the company may from time to time sell, lease, let or otherwise dispose of any lands, hereditaments or premises owned or held by them and not required for the purposes of the undertaking."
Deputy Davin to move for Deputy Murphy.
On whose authority do you mention my name?
There is a letter to the Ceann Comhairle from Deputy Murphy asking him to allow Deputy Davin to move the amendments in his name.
Deputy Murphy has not spoken to me.
I formally move the amendment on behalf of Deputy Murphy.
It is the same thing as the amendment which I have just got carried.
Will the Leas-Cheann Comhairle read the letter that he has mentioned? I was not aware that you were in possession of a letter from Deputy Murphy to that effect. Nobody supplied me with the information previously, and I have not spoken to Deputy Murphy on the matter.
I do not know anything about that. There is a letter on the desk before me, addressed to the Ceann Comhairle from Deputy Murphy.
I think I should have been shown that before I was called upon to act on his behalf.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 17 agreed to.
SECTION 18.
(1) No road transport business carried on by a railway company shall be deemed to be part of the business of such company for the purpose of any agreement between such company and the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs entitling such company to send telegrams free or at a reduced rate.
(2) All road transport business carried on, directly or indirectly, by the Great Southern Railways Company shall be deemed to be business ancillary or subsidiary to the railway of that company, and accordingly charges made by that company for carriage by road transport shall not be subject to the jurisdiction of the Railway Tribunal.
I move amendment 20:
In sub-section (2), line 51, to delete the words "or indirectly."
I am moving for the deletion of the word "indirectly" because I thought the object of the Bill was to make it impossible in the future, provided, of course, the railway companies would agree, to have railway and road services, whether goods or passenger, under the control of one body. The wording of the Bill as it stands apparently contemplates the continuance of the method of running road services indirectly by the railways. If there was an excuse for it before there is none now, as the Road Transport Bill and this Bill give the company the fullest powers to use their resources for road services in the name of the railway without any subterfuge. Under the existing method whereby the railway companies run goods and passenger road services they have separate directorates, separate officers, and in some cases separate workshops. That means unnecessary duplication and additional expense that need not be incurred if the word indirectly is cut out of the section as it stands. It is with the object of enabling the company that controls all these road services and whose directors are on the railway board as well as on the board of Wallace and the board of the I.O.C. to bring all those services owned and controlled by the railway either directly or indirectly under one board.
The amendment does not do what the Deputy wishes. The only thing the Deputy does is to delete the words "or indirectly" where they stand in sub-section (2) of Section 18. The only effect then will be that all road transport business carried on directly by the company shall be deemed to be business of a particular type. The only change is that it shall not be subject to the jurisdiction of the Railway Tribunal. The only effect is to make a distinction between indirectly run and directly run services, in so far as they will be capable of being brought under the jurisdiction of the Railway Tribunal. It does not prevent the company having services which they will have in this indirect fashion. The Deputy has failed in his purpose if that is his purpose.
That is the intention of the amendment.
Then it is the wrong section and it is the wrong Bill.
[An Ceann Comhairle resumed the Chair.]
I ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment 21.
In sub-section (2), page 6, line 52, immediately after the word "shall" to insert the words "for the purposes of section 53 of the Principal Act."
It is purely a drafting amendment.
Amendment agreed to.
Question proposed: "That Section 18, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
I want to get some indication as to the effect of sub-section (2) of Section 18. One of the reasons the Railway Tribunal was established was to prevent discrimination between trader and trader and town and town by the railway company. If the Bill works out as the Minister contemplates in the establishment of a transport monopoly in particular places by the railway company it might be possible that some such discrimination might be practised and different rates charged to different traders in the same town or rates might be charged in respect of two towns for the purpose of diverting traffic from the one to the other.
Under such circumstances would it not be advisable that the Railway Tribunal should have powers to interfere? If the sub-section goes through as it stands it will have no such power. But it seems to me that circumstances may arise to make it desirable that the Railway Tribunal should have power to interfere in respect of rates and charges.
What the Deputy says is correct. At the moment there is a definite safeguard against undue preference being given. For the future the road vehicles of the railway company, as the road vehicles of any other private company, will be in a position to charge any rates they like, and we want to establish them on the footing that they will have to be in competition with other road services. We want to put them in exactly the same condition, but we still keep up the regulation with regard to passengers.
I can see the possibility of that situation having to be dealt with by further legislation.
It may have to be. We may get to the point when the three companies in the main will get a monopoly of the goods traffic on the road. Then this will have to be attended to, not now.
Section 18, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 19.
(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in section 3 of the Railway Companies (Accounts and Returns) Act, 1911, the Minister may, if and whenever he thinks proper, by order made on the application of a railway company or without any such application alter (by addition, omission, or variation) the First Schedule to that Act.
(2) Whenever the Minister makes an order under this section altering the First Schedule to the said Act, the said Act and the said Schedule there to shall have effect, subject to and with the alteration made by such order.
Mr. O'Connell
I am not moving amendment 22. I am taking the decision arrived at on Section 14.
Amendment 22 not moved.
I formally move amendment 23.
Before Section 19 to insert a new section as follows:—
The provisions contained in Section 47 of the Railways Clauses Consolidation Act, 1845, in respect of the employment by the company of persons to open and shut gates shall apply only in the case of crossing gates which are situate at a place where, at the time of its construction, the railway crossed a turnpike or public carriage road on the level. Any obligation assumed by the company, other than by the terms of a contract in writing, to employ or provide the services of persons to open or shut accommodation gates, or crossing gates other than gates to which the provisions of the said Section 47 as amended by this section apply, is hereby terminated.
This is the most contentions amendment that has been moved. If it were carried it would require that the accommodation at every crossing would have to be examined to see in what condition it was. It would impose a most extraordinary amount of difficulty and trouble.
I withdraw that amendment. I thought the Minister might find something instead of it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment 24:
Before Section 19 to insert a new section as follows:—
The Railway Tribunal shall have power on the application of any party thereto to very or rescind all or any of the terms of any agreement or arrangement such as is referred to in Section 61 of the Principal Act if, in the opinion of the Railway Tribunal, the general conditions under which the agreement or arrangement was arrived at was so materially altered as to render the continued enforcement of the same or any portion thereof an undue hardship on either party, or prejudicial to the interests of the public in the district of Saorstát Eireann affected by such agreement or arrangement, or on such other grounds as to the Railway Tribunal shall appear adequate.
This is merely moved for the purpose of finding out whether, in the opinion of the Minister, the Chairman of the Railway Tribunal has power to hear parties in support of cases for the variation of existing agreements. There was a feeling that although the company had the right to go to the Tribunal, that the Chairman or the Tribunal has not power to vary existing agreements and hear the case made for and against.
The amendment is much more restrictive than Section 61 of the Principal Act which it seeks to amend. Under Section 61 of the Principal Act an application can be made by any interests or by any body in the neighbourhood. Under this amendment application could only be made by one party to the agreement. The amendment therefore restricts the original section. Already there is power under the Principal Act on the part of any representative body of traders in the locality to come before the Tribunal. The Bill is much wider than the amendment.
I was surprised to find Deputy Davin moving this amendment. His amendment limits the power to have these agreements amended, varied or rescinded by the application by any party to such agreement, that is the railway companies or the transport companies; whereas in the Act of 1924 Section 61 provides that other bodies such as harbour commissioners, representative bodies of traders and others in the locality affected may make representations to the Railway Tribunal to have the agreement altered or to have a rescission made. I feel sure when Deputy Davin understands the purport of the amendment that he will withdraw it. It is not in the interests of the public.
The Minister has, under the section of the Act of 1924, to satisfy all parties. I do not see the necessity for this amendment at all. Still I would like an assurance from the Minister that if he does accept this amendment—I hope he will not and that Deputy Davin will withdraw it—that he will give an assurance that the interests which so far have been protected will be continued to be protected.
They are protected under Section 61 of the Principal Act and I propose to abide by that.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
SECTION 19.
(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in section 3 of the Railway Companies (Accounts and Returns) Act, 1911, the Minister may, if and whenever he thinks proper, by order made on the application of a railway company or without any such application alter (by addition, omission, or variation) the First Schedule to that Act.
(2) Whenever the Minister makes an order under this section altering the first Schedule to the said Act, the said Act and the said Schedule thereto shall have effect, subject to and with the alteration made by such order.
I would suggest to the Minister that he is introducing a precedent of a very unusual kind. Under the existing law certain forms of account and materials necessary for these accounts on the part of the railway company are provided by statute. It is now proposed to hand over to the Minister power to repeal, alter or modify that section. I suggest that it is an unusual step to hand over to the Minister what could only be done by the Oireachtas. I put it to the Minister that the whole of Section 19 could be usefully deleted.
The only point is that the power that I have with regard to the amalgamated company I have not with regard to other companies which operate here. I want both to be on the one footing.
Section agreed to.
Bill ordered to be reported.
The Dáil went out of Committee.
Bill reported with amendments.
Report Stage ordered for Thursday, 17th December.