Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 6 Apr 1933

Vol. 46 No. 17

International Convention. - Railways Bill, 1933—Committee Stage (Resumed).

Question again proposed: "That Section 5, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

Arising out of last night's discussion I wonder if the Minister could now give us some indication of what was intended under this section. He stated last night that it was intended definitely that the standard revenue should, when refixed, bear some relation to the new situation created by the capital reconstruction. The only phrase which the Railway Tribunal would have to direct them in that consideration are the terms of reference, "shall adjust and vary the said standard revenue to such extent (if any) and in such manner as appears to the Railway Tribunal to be just and equitable in consequence of the reconstruction of the capital of the company." I gathered from the Minister's phrase that it would not be his view of a just and equitable reduction of the standard revenue to have it cut down to meet the full diminution of the capital set out in the schedule. If it is not that, would he consider the advisability of indicating the point of view and getting that expressed rather more clearly in the section. These will be the only terms of reference that the Tribunal will have before them hereafter when it comes to fix the new standard revenue. Apparently it is not the old standard revenue of three years calculated accounts, and apparently not the other standard related to the payment of the stockholders and reduced to the full amount of the reduced payments to be made hereafter. If it is somewhere in between, will the Minister tell us where it would be?

I had the section examined and it is quite clear that it carries out what it is intended to achieve. I did not say that it was not my view that the reduction in standard revenue should be proportionate to the reduction in capital. Under the terms of the section a general reduction should take place. I think there should be a reduction in the standard revenue in consequence of the reorganisation of the company's finances, and it is for the Railway Tribunal to say what reduction would be equitable. The Deputy is incorrect in saying that the original standard revenue fixed under the Act of 1924 had no relation to the company's capital. It had relation to revenue in the three years which are fixed in the Bill as years in which the company is considered to have earned revenue capable of giving a normal return on the capital of the company as it existed then, and in addition to taking into account the revenue of the company in those years they had to take into account capital expenditure incurred since then and additional capital raised.

Only the new capital since 1913.

Quite. The return in 1913 was considered to have yielded a normal return.

There is no mention of that.

I am assuming that the reason why these three years were taken is that they were years in which the railway company were considered to have earned revenue which gave a normal return on the capital then existing, and in addition the Tribunal had to take into account the additional capital raised in the meantime and the additional capital expenditure incurred, and fix the standard net revenue having regard to all these considerations. The reorganisation of the company's finances, involving a reduction of the total capital liability, brings a new factor into account and, because of the new factor, we say to the Railway Tribunal: "Reconsider the standard net revenue which you fixed in 1924 in consequence of this reorganisation of the company's finances and fix the standard net revenue which is held to be fair and equitable in the new circumstances." That is what the section purports to do and that is what it does, in fact, achieve.

Would the Minister consider what will happen if the railway company take it into their head to raise fresh capital? Is there any facility provided by the Bill for the Railway Tribunal to reconsider again what the standard revenue will be?

The only thing that this Bill does is to ask the Railway Tribunal to reconsider the standard revenue having regard to the changes effected by the Bill. In all other matters the Act of 1924 holds good.

Have they any power——

I am not going to advise the Deputy on the Act of 1924. He can read it himself.

The Minister is too fond of that kind of reply. His business here is to inform the Dáil on the legislation he is trying to put through. That is what he is there for and, if the Dáil had any sense, it would not pass legislation until he had explained it. This Section 5 directs the Railway Tribunal to re-examine the question of the standard revenue in the light of the reduction of capital that is being made. I want to know, in the event of their doing that now, have they power under this or any other Act to consider it again and to fix it again, if the railway company sets about raising fresh capital in the future, or if they fix it under this Bill, will they require some further authority to fix it a third time in the event of fresh capital being raised?

The Act of 1924 provides that the Railway Tribunal may review the standard revenue at the periodic review of charges which the Act provides for.

The Minister has just found that out.

The Deputy should read the Bill before he talks about it.

Under the review, what may they take into consideration?

Any excess in revenue over the standard net revenue.

The precise question asked was as to the remuneration of fresh capital, and that is a different matter.

Can they examine the standard revenue a third time without fresh authority from the point of view of raising new capital? I do not think the Minister knows.

Certainly, the Deputy does not know.

I do not, and that is why I am asking the Minister.

I am explaining to the Dáil what this Bill does, and I am not discussing the 1924 Act or any of the defects of the 1924 Act. This Bill provides for a change and, if the Deputy wants to discuss this Bill, I think he should confine himself to it.

There is no good in the Minister shaking his gory locks at me. Here is a Bill which gives them authority and directs them to do a certain thing—to cut down standard revenue in the light of the capital reduction. I am asking the Minister, before he directs them to do that, if there is any means available to the Railway Tribunal or to the railway company to raise their standard revenue again in the light of capital reconstruction without reference to revenue at all?

There is? That is all I want to know. The Minister could have said that ten minutes ago.

Might I submit to the Minister that, instead of having the section read "as soon as conveniently may be after the passing of this Act", he might allow a period during which there would be no reconsideration of standard revenue or reconsideration of standard charges. The first two or three years will be years of transition——

I would draw the Deputy's attention to the fact that the section has been amended by amendments 13 and 14 which will achieve the purpose he has in view.

I should like to impress on the Minister the importance of this section. I cannot yet understand his argument. He says that the standard revenue for the future is going to be determined in a new way. I think that, in order to hinge on the new consideration to the old standard revenue, he has got to make the rather forced argument he made here to-day and it is very difficult for any construction of the statute to argue as he did. He said that, no doubt, the revenue as fixed in the 1924 Act bore some relation to the dividends paid.

It obviously did.

It obviously did not under the Act.

Why were these other paragraphs put in about additional capital expenditure or additional capital raised?

Additional capital raised since when?

Since 1913.

Since 1913, and not said to have been adequately remunerated—there is a certain sub-section which deals with that—on the day which we were taking as the appointed day, so to speak, for the calculation as to the standard revenue. I think that the Minister would have serious doubts—to put it no higher than that—thrown on the construction he has attempted to put on the paragraph. Surely it can be so explained to a layman's mind in this way. A term of reference was given to the Railway Tribunal with regard to the standard revenue. It was clear and distinct as to what the criterion was, and the criterion was not—I will put it in this negative way—the sums paid out in dividends to the various stock holders in certain years, but simply this: "The annual aggregate net revenue for a named three years of account."

And more than that.

There are smaller things about additional capital, but they are really not of any value in this argument.

They indicate why these three years were taken.

Why do they?

Because, in that year, the capital as it existed in 1913 was adequately remunerated.

I do not agree that that is the argument that falls from the third of these lettered subparagraphs. Even assuming that it was, his whole argument is based on an assumption, he asks the Railway Tribunal to make from certain paragraphs, but surely there is a precise term of reference given to them in the first sub-section of Section 53—the annual aggregate net revenue in three years.

And other considerations.

They are very minor and could the Minister say how much of the £1,100,000 was fixed on the basis of the three years of account and how much on the basis of the additional remuneration?

It does not matter on the point at issue now. It does matter to this extent, that it indicates that, in taking these three years of account, the Railway Tribunal were to have regard to the capital of the company in those three years, and then to make allowance in the standard net revenue for any changes that took place in the meantime.

That is, again, this effort at construction. The clear term given to them in the subparagraph, the real rule given to them, is the three years of account— the aggregate annual net revenue for those three years. Anything else that follows is merely by way of minor addition or exception to the thing and we are supposed to tag on to that exception what is going to be in the future the real principle. Is that not so? The real principle for the future is going to be the adequate, or, in the new circumstances, the deemed adequate, remuneration of the capital. That is what is going to be the principle for the future. The change-over is effected by saying to the Railway Tribunal, under the powers in this measure when the Dáil has passed it: "There is a capital reconstruction. Will you revise your standard revenue in accordance with that?" I say that, if they do take the Minister's argument that the original object—no matter how they fix it—of taking the standard revenue at any figure was to have remuneration given to the stockholders, then, they are bound, I think —and I wonder would the Minister correct me if I am wrong in any of the points—to go back and say that that £1,100,000 had paid all the guaranteed 4 per cent. and other percentage to all the people who were guaranteed and it did, in fact, pay something like 3 or 4 per cent. to the ordinary stockholder. They have to accept the Minister's argument if they are to get away from the merest calculation as to what was earned in certain years and they have to look at the purposes to which those moneys were applied and say, "Very good. All the stockholders guaranteed were paid their guaranteed preference amounts but the ordinary people were paid 3 per cent., 3½ per cent. or 4 per cent." Now we are asking them to say what is just and equitable seeing that the capital has been reconstructed. What else should they do in those circumstances than say, "Four per cent. used to be paid on the guaranteed preference stock. That has been reduced by half; therefore, we will apportion 2 per cent. over the old sum or 4 per cent. over the new, and reduce the standard revenue by cutting it down completely and entirely according to the diminution of the capital here." Does the Minister intend that? He said last night that he did not—that he is not, at any rate, giving those orders. I think, in fact, he is giving those orders; once they get over the preliminary hurdle of bringing this matter before themselves at all they then have to go fully into the matter, and the only basis of argument they can have for reduction of the standard revenue is to say: "Reduce in accordance with the reduction in the capital."

That is not in the section.

What is in the section?

It is quite clear that it was intended——

I am going to read the section. What is intended?

What is in the section?

What is in the section is to make such reduction as is just and equitable, but it is not to be framed on the basis of the calculation merely as to what was earned in certain years and it is not to be on the basis of the purposes to which the money was applied in those years—and the amount of money is now reduced because the amount of the stock has been reduced —it is to be something in between. Surely it is for this House to tell them what it ought to be. We tell them: "Whatever you think is just and equitable." The Minister should put himself in the position of the Railway Tribunal when they get this matter brought before them. If he says: "I will not have a reduction corresponding to this stock" is that not by implication passing judgment that the reduction is not just and equitable? Does the Minister think that the Railway Tribunal will take on themselves the odium of making that decision? I do not think they will. I think, in fact, what this means—or what, in practice, it is going to work out at— is the reduction of the old standard revenue according to the reduction of the stocks as made, and accurately according to that reduction. The Minister says he does not intend that. Is it not for this House to give a direction? We have done a far bigger thing. We have said that the 4 per cent. debenture stockholder is not going to get 4 per cent.—that he is only going to get three pounds odd. We say that the 4 per cent. guaranteed preference holder is not going to get 4 per cent.— that he is only going to get 2 per cent. When we brazenly do so much why should we not say to the Railway Tribunal: "You are to modify the standard revenue in accordance with certain precise terms of reference which we give you?" The Minister's whole purpose has been that for the future the new transport organisation is not going to be conducted by people with their eyes set mainly upon the payment of dividends, and that is his explanation of the reduced capital proviso. Why not carry that to the only point where it will save the railways anything? Why not carry it into this term of reference to the Railway Tribunal, saying to them: "You are to reduce by so much?" I think it is a definite blot upon the Bill to leave it in this vague wording—whatever seems to them to be just and equitable in consequence of the capital reconstruction.

Section 5, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 6.
(1) Within three months after the passing of this Act the Company shall prepare and submit to the Minister a scheme (in this Act referred to as the postal voting scheme) whereby every election of a director of the Company which would, but for this section, be required by law to be made by the votes of members of the Company given at an annual general meeting of the Company shall be made by the votes of members of the Company given by means of ballot papers sent or delivered by such members by post or otherwise to the Company or to a returning officer on behalf of the Company.
(2) When the postal voting scheme is submitted to the Minister by the Company under this section, the Minister shall, as he shall think proper, either by order confirm such scheme without modification or make such modifications in such scheme as he shall, subject to the provisions of this section, think proper and by order confirm such scheme as so modified.
(3) Without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing provisions of this section, the postal voting scheme as confirmed by the Minister under this section shall provide for the following particular matters in relation to every election held under such scheme, that is to say:—
(a) the method of nominating candidates for election at such election;
(b) the appointment of a returning officer for the purposes of such election;
(c) the furnishing by the Company to the members of the Company of ballot papers for the purposes of such election;
(d) the returning of such ballot papers by such members by post or otherwise to the Company or to such returning officer on behalf of the Company;
(e) securing that each member of the Company shall be entitled to give at such election the like number of votes as he would have been entitled to give at such election if this section had not been enacted and such election had taken place at an annual general meeting of the Company;
(f) securing that representatives of the members of the Company may be present at and, if they so desire, take part in the scrutiny and counting of the votes given at such election;
(g) providing that the result of such election shall be published at the annual general meeting of the Company at which such election would have taken place if this section had not been enacted, and securing that such election shall be held and completed at such time as will enable the result thereof to be so published.
(4) The Minister shall, by the order confirming the postal voting scheme under the section, appoint the day (not being later than twelve months after the passing of this Act) on which such scheme shall come into force.
(5) At any time after the postal voting scheme has been confirmed by the Minister under this section, the Minister may, either in consequence of representations made to him by the Company or on his own motion after one month's notice to the Company, by order amend (by addition, omission, or variation) such scheme in such manner as he shall, subject to the provisions of this section, think proper.
(6) On and after the day on which the postal voting scheme comes into force under this section, every election of a director of the Company which, but for this section, would be required by law to be made by the votes of members of the Company given at an annual general meeting of the Company shall take place and be held under and in accordance with such scheme, subject to such (if any) amendments or variations of such scheme as may for the time being be in force under this section.

Section 6 deals with the election of directors by postal vote. Amendment 16, in the name of Deputy Thrift, seems to be an alternative scheme for the election of directors. The matter might be decided on the question: "That Section 6 stands."

Except that it prevents other amendments being moved later.

That is so. Amendment 16.

I move amendment No. 16:—

Before Section 6 to insert a new section as follows:—

(1) The provisions of sub-section (4) of Clause 34 of the Great Southern Railways Amalgamation Scheme, dated 1st January, 1925, shall henceforth apply to the election of a director as if the words "thirty days" were therein substituted for the words "ten days".

(2) No proxy sent out by the directors for the general business of the Company shall be available for the election of directors.

(3) A list of candidates who have duly submitted their names for election as directors shall be sent by ordinary post to the shareholders of the Company not less than ten days before the date fixed for the meeting at which an election of directors is to take place. The names of the retiring directors shall be indicated on the list.

It is perfectly obvious that if shareholders are to get ten days' notice of the election of a director, the company must have some time to prepare the machinery and send out the circulars. I do not know how the Minister proposes to deal with that aspect of the matter, because in any case it would seem to require some modification. I therefore formally move amendment 16.

I am not quite clear what the Deputy's point is. I am moving, later on, certain amendments designed to secure modification in the election scheme originally proposed in the Bill, particularly to secure that the election will not conclude until after a general meeting, so that shareholders who desire to attend the general meeting, and consider the affairs of the company there, can do so before making up their minds as to which of the candidates in the election they will vote for. It is definitely intended to abolish proxy voting, and it seems to me that that is the issue arising on this and other amendments. I do not see that there is any substantial difference between the proposals which are contained in the various amendments, moved by Deputy Dockrell and other Deputies, and what is, in fact, the practice at present. There is a slight difference, but not a material one. Our view is that in connection with the election of directors of the company the personal element should enter in; in other words, that the shareholders should vote for particular individuals because they approve of those individuals as directors of the company. The necessity for such a change has been argued by a number of people interested in the railway company, and by a number of the shareholders of the company. It seems to be a desirable thing, and does not seem to inflict hardship on anybody, in so far as it merely provides a means of ensuring that there will be no doubt whatever that the directors elected will be adequately representative of the shareholders.

Might I point out to the Minister that we are not attacking the principle of this proposal? He probably sees more in it than appears to the ordinary layman. I think the Minister is aware that under the law as it stands ten days' notice must be given of any candidate going forward for election as a director. Under the Minister's proposal in this Bill the law could not be carried out, so it is desirable on the face of it—even to carry out the Minister's proposal—that the ten days' notice should be extended. We suggest that it would be only reasonable to substitute thirty days for the ten days in the Minister's proposal. I think it would make it a much more workable arrangement. I want to make it clear to the Minister that we are not attacking the principle of his proposal. It is only in order to give the necessary time to carry out the principle embodied in it that we are anxious that this should be done. With that object this amendment is put forward.

There is more in it than that. The amendment in the name of Deputy Thrift undoubtedly provides that no proxy sent out by the directors for the general business of the company shall be available for the election of directors, but it maintains the system of proxy voting. Although it effects a nominal change, in substance there is no change to the present system to which objection is taken.

I submit that it makes a vital change in so far as directors' proxies got for general purposes cannot be used for the election of directors.

There must be a special proxy.

Yes. I do not see how the Minister can get over the point which was raised by Deputy Good unless he introduces a new amendment himself to extend the poll seven days beyond the date of the meeting.

Section 6 provides for the preparation of a scheme by the company.

I want to point out to the Minister that no matter who prepares the scheme it must be carried out in accordance with law, and if the law requires ten days' notice of the nomination of any director surely it is obvious that additional time must be given.

And this will be the law after this Bill has been enacted.

Where is the period of seven days' extended? Am I to understand from the Minister that amendment 17, in his name, meets this point with regard to the difference in dates?

Yes, and meets another point. As the Bill was drafted, the ballot papers had to be returned to the secretary of the company at or before the general meeting. The argument was advanced that a shareholder might prefer to attend the general meeting, listen to the directors' report and the discussion on it and then make up his mind whether he was going to vote for the retiring directors or other candidates. Consequently, in amendment 17, we provide that the election shall not close until seven days after the general meeting so as to permit of a shareholder exercising that discretion.

Can the Minister quote any precedent in his Department, or elsewhere, for that kind of system for the election of directors?

We are establishing the precedent.

Much as I venerate the Minister's gifts for establishing precedents, I think this business of electing directors by postal voting is the purest ballyhoo for consumption by the demagogues of the country. One can imagine Deputy Hales on the ditch talking to his friends about Caitlin ní Houlihan free from her bonds and the shareholders of the Great Southern Railways system restored to their democratic rights by being enabled to put patriotic men on the board. The ultimate effect of the Bill on the railway company is quite another story. It must be well known to the Minister that many shareholders in this company prefer to leave a discretion, in a matter of this kind, in the hands of directors whom they have had good reason to trust in the past and whose judgment they trust. The result of this section will be simply to make the cranks crankier and more of a nuisance than they have been heretofore. Any really responsible shareholder who has a grave matter to raise, one that will command the support of reasonable men, will go to the ordinary meeting at the present time and make his case.

And be ruled out.

And he can still be ruled out.

What Deputy Davin suggests is so preposterous and so remote from realities that it is really not worth dealing with. Everyone knows that if a responsible shareholder goes to a meeting and has any grave or proper cause for complaint, he is given the fullest possible opportunity of stating his mind.

Even at a meeting called by Deputy Hales?

Yes. After Deputy Hales had talked his own nonsense he would let me talk sense. What I want to point out now is that the kind of public nuisance who goes to shareholders' meetings to raise objections to the colour, perhaps, of a director's beard is going to be facilitated by this amendment. I believe that the section has been put in at the request of responsible cranks, that it will do no good but will simply give them an opportunity of making themselves a greater nuisance than they already are. If the Minister thinks that is worth doing for getting a little popular acclaim, well I do not grudge him his satisfaction.

I think it is now quite clear that Deputy Dillon has neither read the Bill nor the amendment.

Apart altogether from the merits of the section as proposed to be amended, with which I agree, I think it is not necessary to tell Deputy Dillon how the proxies, which are generally secured by the directors before the shareholders' meeting, are used by the directors. They are used to curb and, in some cases, to prevent discussion which the directors do not like. I think the Minister is very well advised in giving this opportunity to shareholders to vote through the post. That will enable them to wait until after the shareholders' meeting before recording their votes. They will then be in possession of the explanations usually given by the directors at the meeting, and will be able to make up their minds as to whether the explanations were satisfactory or not.

That is not in the section.

Deputy Dillon raised this matter, and I think I am entitled to say something on it.

The Deputy is quite in order, if I may say so, but the provision which he speaks of is not in the section.

I am not asking Deputy McGilligan whether it is or not. Deputy Dillon has suggested that the section, as it stands, with the amendment proposed by the Minister, is going to give an opportunity to cranks to ventilate their grievances, an opportunity not open to them under the existing system.

Imaginary grievances!

Does Deputy Dillon mean to suggest that it is desirable to continue the existing system whereby the directors, before the shareholders' meetings take place, under various pretexts and excuses, secure a sufficient number of proxies to enable them to use these proxies at the meeting for any purpose they like?

Amendment 16 provides against that.

Deputy Dillon argued in favour of the continuance of the existing method as against the method now proposed by the Minister.

Existing method of what?

If it is in order to do so on this section of the Bill, I would like to know from the Minister whether he is prepared to consider the advisability of making provision for the election of directors under the system of proportional representation, as well as the advisability of reducing the holding of stock which enables shareholders to qualify for directorships. In connection with these matters, I would remind the Minister that the Charter under which the Governor and the Directors of the Bank of Ireland are elected was recently revised by a Committee set up by this House. That was done during the lifetime of the Government with which Deputy McGilligan was associated. I think it is desirable that the whole method of election of directors to the railway company should be looked into—such matters as the shareholding value that will qualify a shareholder to become a candidate for the position of director. Matters of that kind might, I think, be taken into consideration by the Minister when framing a section for the election of directors.

The first part of the amendment we are discussing states that certain provisions of Clause 34 of the Great Southern Railways Amalgamation Scheme " shall henceforth apply to the election of a director as if the words ‘thirty days' were therein substituted for the words ‘ten days'. I understand that under the existing scheme a director had only to give ten days' notice of his intentions to go forward for election as a director. Considering that the railway company must give notice to the shareholders— it provides, I think, for ten days' notice of the meeting—that only leaves them twenty days to get through all the machinery which may be necessary. I submit to the Minister, no matter what scheme is afterwards set up by the railway company, that it is desirable now to alter the law to the thirty days.

May I explain to the Deputy that that scheme is gone? The scheme in which the ten days is mentioned goes by the board. It ceases altogether to exist as soon as this Bill becomes law and, instead, there is to be a new scheme prepared by the company themselves under Section 6 of this Bill.

Subject to your sanction.

The original scheme, in which the ten days appeared, ceases to operate as soon as this comes into force.

I do not know whether this is on the section or on the amendment.

Both together.

Well, then there is probably greater relevance in what I have to say. Deputy Davin feels that the Minister's Bill is a good one.

This section is good.

Yes, the Deputy feels that this section is good—this section, in particular, is good.

I feel it is more democratic.

Yes, the Deputy approves of it because it allows for the shareholders there present, having heard an account of the directors' stewardship, to appoint new directors. The Deputy should look at Section 6, sub-section (3) (g), as it stands. That provides that the results of the election shall be published at the annual general meeting of the company.

That is changed. Amendment 17 proposes to substitute a new paragraph.

But Deputy Davin did not know that.

That amendment has not been carried yet.

The original scheme prevented what Deputy Davin wanted. It made it impossible for that to happen.

If Deputy McGilligan will read what I said he will find that I said I was discussing this in the light of the Minister's proposed amendment to the section.

The second reason which the Deputy gave for approving this was that the directors used to get proxies and that they used them for all sorts of purposes other than the appointment of directors. I think that was the Deputy's contention. I think that, by implication, the Deputy suggested that the proxies were used to rule out objectionable people. At any rate he said——

I did not use the word "all."

I do not know in what connection the word "all" occurred, either in the Deputy's words or my own. At any rate, the implication was that the proxies were used for purposes other than voting for directors, that they were being used to rule out objectionable people, and that that was being stopped. Is it being stopped? The Deputy thinks it is, but I wonder where he will find that in the Bill. The only thing that is changed is the question of proxy voting for directors, so that, if they were able to knock out objectionable directors because they had proxies, they still have that power.

I think that the Deputy's enthusiasm for the section has waned. But that is not in the section. The Minister has explained his position, which is, that it is desirable to get away from proxy voting. Why? The Minister seemed to hint that it was because some of the shareholders asked him to do so. I should like to know how many asked him. Apart from this, has the Minister any means of assessing the strength of the demand for the cancellation or amendment of this system of proxy voting? There was a certain amount of agitation about that matter this year and one association, at any rate, of the shareholders set out with that as almost the main plank in its platform —to get rid of this system. In the end, how many proxies did they get in opposition to the directors? If we are to go by the strength of the feeling exhibited at that meeting, it would seem to show that there is no such feeling. If the Minister is not going to tie himself to proxy voting, it must be remembered that they are not coerced into using these proxies. They may attend in person. People who are interested in the railway system and who think that there is anything wrong generally attend personally at the meeting. But the Minister apparently has some argument in his mind against proxy voting as such. If so, I think we should hear it.

I think it is not desirable that the directors should send out a general proxy to all shareholders which they can use at elections. What the Bill provides, in fact, is that shareholders will vote for individuals and vote for them because, in their opinion, they regard these individuals as the most suitable to act as directors. It eliminates other considerations or undue influences coming to bear in the election. A list of candidates will be sent to each shareholder, at the company's expense, and he will mark on that list those for whom he wishes to vote and who seem to him to be preferable.

The Minister has introduced the question of expense.

It is not irrelevant. The present system means that one set of candidates for election can charge the company with their election expenses.

They charge the company with their own or other people's expenses. Is the Minister opposed to proxy voting everywhere? Are we going to have this principle introduced in the case of other companies generally, or is it only in the case of this company?

No, only in this company.

The Minister is opposed to electoral colleges. But a man will not vote except for somebody on whose judgment he has reliance. I have not seen any argument advanced by the Minister as to that. The Minister may have an opinion about it.

I want to make it quite clear that I understand the meaning of this section just as well as Deputy McGilligan understands it. I understand perfectly well that I am now supporting the Minister's amendment to make it possible for shareholders not to be compelled to vote through proxies or otherwise until after they have heard the statement of the chairman of the board of directors. I can tell Deputy McGilligan, and shall give an example, how the proxies are being used to prevent free and fair discussion.

Something which is proposed in this measure.

This will give shareholders an opportunity of hearing explanations, to which they are entitled, before casting their votes. Deputy Good has proposed—I am quoting now from the paper which gives a full report of the meeting, and at which Deputy Good is reported to have spoken at considerable length——

I merely moved, at that meeting, the election or re-election of an auditor.

Deputy Good knows that the auditor, from his point of view, is regarded as a most important person. At that meeting Mr. Prost represented a section of the shareholders who held properties to the value of £2,000,000. He put some of the following questions:—

"(1) What is the accountancy relationship between John Wallis and Sons, the I.O. Company and the Great Southern Railways Company? (a) The profit or loss of the first-named; (b) the profit or loss of the second-named; (c) what fees, if any, had been derived by the directors of the Great Southern Railways in addition to the fees paid by this company to such directors; (d) the purchase price paid by the Great Southern Railways Company for John Wallis & Sons; (e) the purchase price paid by this company for the I.O. Company; (f) the purchase price—an awkward question—paid by this company for Motorways; (g) and if any other road services have been acquired during the past year and, if so, what service or services and what was the purchase price"—an awkward question.

" (2) What are the names of the directors of this company who are also directors of the United Irish Investment Co., Ltd., the I.O. Company, John Wallis & Sons, and what remuneration do they get from the aforementioned companies in addition to the remuneration from this company?"

Questions 3, 4, 5 and 6, which Mr. Prost also put, have a more indirect bearing upon Nos. 1 and 2. It is well known that the Chairman of the Great Southern Railways Company is one of the most plausible and delightful men to be found, and is well able to please disgruntled people asking for proper information, which they are perfectly entitled to get. The chairman, on this occasion explained that Mr. Prost was absolutely entitled to an answer to his question but he regretted he had not the necessary information available just then, as the information was not to hand. I am in a position to say from information that I got that there was a gentleman sitting at the back of the chairman, at that moment, with that information ready.

But it was not refused.

It was not given.

Will this amendment give it?

If the Chairman knows beforehand, as he will now know, that people can come to a meeting looking for information without having been obliged to vote beforehand, and will have the right, the Minister now proposes to give them, to vote after having got the information, the chairman of the board of directors will, in future, be a little more careful before choking off shareholders from information which they are entitled to get.

Amendment 16, by leave, withdrawn.
The following amendments were agreed to.
17. In sub-section (3), to delete paragraph (g) and substitute a new paragraph as follows:—
(g) providing that the ballot papers for the purposes of such election shall be despatched to the members of the Company not less than one week before the annual general meeting of the Company at which such election would have taken place if this section had not been enacted, and that the poll at such election shall not be closed until at least one week after such annual general meeting.—Aire Tionnscail agus Tráchtála.
18. In sub-section (6), line 14, to delete the word "day" and substitute the words "expiration of two months after the date."—Aire Tionnscail agus Tráchtála.
Question —" That Section 6, as amended, stand part of the Bill"—put and agreed to.
SECTION 7.
(1) In this section the expression "the next annual meeting" means the annual general meeting of the Company held next after the expiration of two months after the date on which the scheme for the election of directors of the Company by postal voting comes into force under this Act.
(2) As from the conclusion of the next annual meeting the number of the directors of the Company shall be seven, all of whom shall be elected or co-opted in accordance with this section.
(3) The term of office of every director of the Company who holds office as such director immediately before the next annual meeting shall expire at the conclusion of such meeting, but every such director shall be eligible for election under this section as a director at such meeting.
(4) At the next annual meeting seven directors of the Company shall be elected in accordance with the postal voting scheme.
(5) Of the directors of the company so elected at the next annual meeting two (who shall, in default of agreement, be selected by lot at or immediately after such meeting) shall hold office for one year, and two others (who shall be similarly selected) shall hold office for two years, and the remaining three shall hold office for three years, but subject in every case to death, resignation, or disqualification.
(6) Every vacancy occurring amongst the directors of the company after the next annual meeting by reason of the death, resignation, or disqualification of a director shall be filled by a person co-opted for that purpose by the other directors or a majority of them, and every person so co-opted shall hold office for the residue of the period for which the director whose place he is co-opted to fill would have held office if he had not died, resigned, or become disqualified.
(7) Subject to the foregoing provisions of this section, every director of the company elected after the next annual meeting shall, unless he sooner dies, resigns, or becomes disqualified, hold office as such director for three years.
(8) Every director of the company elected at the next annual meeting or elected or co-opted thereafter shall be eligible for re-election at the annual general meeting at the conclusion of which his term of office expires.
(9) The term of office of every director of the company elected at or after the next annual meeting shall commence at the conclusion of the annual general meeting at which he is elected, and the term of office of every such director and of every director of the company co-opted after the next annual meeting shall expire at the conclusion of the first, second, or third (as the case may require) annual general meeting after his election or co-option.
(10) After the next annual meeting the quorum for a meeting of the directors of the company shall be three.

I move amendment 19:—

In sub-section (1) to delete all words from the word "expiration," line 24, to and including the word "under," line 26, and substitute the words "passing of".

There are some half-a-dozen amendments here which I think can all be lumped together. With your permission, a Chinn Comhairle, I shall try to deal with them together. They are all concerned with the same subject, namely, the desirability of trying to secure some continuity in the board. The purpose sought is to get the Minister to allow three members to be chosen, by the outgoing board, and continued on the new board, the remaining portion of which would be chosen by vote. It is, I think, obvious that in any scheme of this kind continuity is essential. An entirely new board might be very ignorant of policy, and matters might have been under discussion, pending contracts and a whole variety of business, in regard to which a minority of the old board, if continued on the new board, might be able to render most valuable assistance. I move this amendment, which, as I say, will secure that there should be that continuity. The minority will not be in office, of course, permanently, but at each election a minority of the previous board would come on to the new board.

That question would arise after the first election. At the first election seven directors will be elected. I think it is desirable, and, personally, I have no reason to suppose it will not happen, that a number of the retiring directors should be elected. I think that would inevitably follow. It is the invariable practice; and we are arguing about something that is not likely to arise. I am not convinced, however, by the continuity argument. We do not provide for the retention of a minority of Ministers when a change of Government takes place, yet no serious dislocation is caused. At any rate, I think you would incur a much greater responsibility if the practice that prevailed heretofore had to be different. In the matter of the management of a company the board of directors are responsible for policy, not administration. Some part of the trouble of the railway company is due to the fact that the board of directors insisted upon supervising details that should be dealt with not even by the manager but by subordinates of the general manager. That does not arise here. The outgoing directors are going back unless the shareholders want to get rid of them. It is likely that the same outgoing directors will be re-elected by the votes of the shareholders.

The Minister admits the principle and thinks it is a matter for consideration after the first election.

Seven directors will be elected at the first election. There will be a reduction in the number from 12 to seven.

I think it better to be consistent in this matter.

There is a reduction of directors taking place, and we think it is for the shareholders to say which of the 12 outgoing directors are to go back to constitute the board of seven.

The only difference between us is that I suggest the present board should pick out three that would be likely to be of assistance to the new board.

I think the shareholders should elect the new board of seven.

The proposal here does not prevent the names of the other directors going forward, and the shareholders expressing their opinions on the matter. The only object the amendment seeks to achieve is that there should be some continuity in the business. The Minister indicated the practice in this House. I am not at all sure that the practice in this House and that of a board are at all synonymous. The Opposition in this House knows just as much about the carrying on of the business, after 12 months' experience of the House, as the Government does. It seems to be only a difference of method. The matter is quite different probably in connection with a board. A board enters into trade contracts. It has, therefore, to test the position from day to day which no body of shareholders outside the board knows anything whatever about. To take persons from the body of shareholders and put them into the position of directors could not achieve at all what is achieved here by moving from one side of the House to the other. Deputies on the Opposition side of the House are in touch with everything done, as the Minister knows, having, himself, sat on both sides of the House. Under the new régime there will be only seven directors, and I think a minority of three might well be preserved from the previous board. It is proposed by the amendment to elect four directors to the board, and to continue three from the previous board in order that when new men come in there will be somebody there to enlighten them as to what to do precisely.

It is essential in any board of directors that this principle should be carried out in the interest of the shareholders and of the community. I would ask the Minister to consider this proposal favourably, not that I have the least doubt as to what the Minister says about the board. I am quite sure he will find in future, as in the past, sanity amongst the shareholders. It is a very difficult thing to find samples in this country, but from what I have seen of shareholders, and from the way they have acted in the past with regard to the proxies, nobody can accuse them of any want of sanity. As I said, I am quite sure that that policy will be carried out, as it has been in the past. But in the interests of the business of the company, and of any body that is directed by directors, it is essential that you must have somebody on the board who can explain to the board what these matters are as they come up.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The following amendments were agreed to:—
20. In sub-section (1), line 26, after the word "Act" to add the words "the expression ‘annual election' means an election of directors of the Company held under and in accordance with the said scheme, and the expression ‘the next annual election' means the annual election held next after the expiration of the said two months."
21. In sub-section (2), line 27, to delete the words "next annual meeting" and substitute the words "counting of the votes at the next annual election."—(Mr. Lemass).
Amendments 22 and 23 not moved.
The following amendment was agreed to:—
24. In sub-section (3), line 32, to delete the words "such meeting" and substitute the words "the counting of the votes at the next annual election," and in line 34 to delete the word "meeting" and substitute the words "annual election."—(Mr. Lemass).
Amendment 25 not moved.
The following amendment was agreed to:—
26. In sub-section (4), line 35, to delete the word "meeting" and substitute the word "election" and in line 36 to delete the words "in accordance with the postal voting scheme."—(Mr. Lemass).
Amendments 27 and 28 not moved.
The following amendments were agreed to:—
29. In sub-section (5), line 38 and also in line 39, to delete the word "meeting" and substitute the word "election."
30. In sub-section (6), line 45, to delete the word "meeting" and substitute the word "election."— (Mr. Lemass.)

I move amendment 31:—

Before sub-section (7), to insert a new sub-section as follows:—

(7) The directors may act notwithstanding the existence of one or more such vacancies as are mentioned in the next preceding sub-section of this section.

This makes it clear that the board can act despite a casual vacancy in its numbers.

Amendment put and agreed to.
The following amendments were agreed to:—
32. In sub-section (7), line 53, to delete the word "meeting" and substitute the word "election."
33. In sub-section (8), line 57, to delete the word "meeting" and substitute the word "election" and in line 58 to delete the words "general meeting at the conclusion of" and substitute the words "election at the conclusion of the counting of the votes at."
34. In sub-section (9), line 61, to delete the word "meeting" and substitute the word "election," and in line 62 to delete the words "annual general meeting" and substitute the words "counting of the votes at the annual election" and on page 7, line 1, to delete the word "meeting" and substitute the word "election," and in line 2 after the word "of" to insert the words "the counting of the votes at" and in line 3 to delete the words "general meeting" and substitute the word "election."
35. In sub-section (10), line 5, to delete the word "meeting" where it first occurs and substitute the word "election."—(Mr. Lemass.)
Question proposed: "That Section 7, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

I should like to ask the Minister if sub-section (4) is not calculated to have some repercussions:—

At the next annual meeting seven directors of the company shall be elected in accordance with the postal voting scheme.

I think on this section the Minister should inform us as to what his information is with regard to the agreements that have been entered into by the Great Southern Railways Company with the London, Midland and Scottish Company.

It does not arise on this section. It arises on another section. The Deputy will have an opportunity of discussing that later.

Will it not arise under this?

No, on Section 13.

Does sub-section (4) not provide that all the directors must be elected by postal voting? The London, Midland and Scottish Railway Company claim——

It is merely a matter of procedure. We can have the discussion now provided we are not going to have it again on Section 13. It seems to be the obvious course to postpone it until we reach Section 13.

I like the matter-of-fact way in which the Minister proceeds to pass this section, which is going to make it obligatory to knock the London, Midland and Scottish director off the board. The discussion on the later section does not make the least difference. What is the use of discussing this on Section 13 if we have already passed Section 7 which settles it? Surely now is the time to decide whether the Minister is going to stick his heels in the ground and face the consequences.

I am prepared to discuss it now.

I submit that sub-section (4) locks the door.

If the seven directors have to be elected in accordance with the postal voting scheme, one cannot be nominated by the London Midland and Scottish Railway. If he can, I am prepared to await the discussion on the later section. I suggest that sub-section (4) knits the issue immediately. I think before we proceed to pass the section with sub-section (4) in it the Minister should tell us if he has examined the agreements that exist, if he has formed any opinion as to the liabilities that may accrue, and if he is prepared to say that the Government will indemnify the railway company against any possible claim that may arise as a result of Government intervention.

On a point of procedure, I think we should postpone the discussion until we get to Section 13. We can have it all out then. No doubt there is something in what Deputy Dillon says, that if we pass this we are doing something which will have to be amended, if Section 13 were not in the Bill. If he succeeds in defeating the Government we will have a new situation—the whole Bill will probably go.

The Minister is a most fascinating man when conducting a Bill. He comes in blandly and says that he is most anxious that the House should know he is approaching this problem in no Party spirit, that he wants the assistance of everybody, and that he wants to discuss it freely and frankly. But the fact of it is that the moment you bring his attention to something of vital importance, with his leader he is inclined to say: "Put out the Government and find another Executive Council".

Parliamentary time is of some importance.

You might as well put the closure on, or at least say it is a Party Bill, because if you pass sub-section (4) it means that the discussion on the later section is worthless. If the Minister means to listen to reason, which I very much doubt, he might as well listen to it now and in the Committee Stage signify his intention to accept an amendment on the Report Stage to get rid of it. I take it from his attitude that he does not intend to discuss the matter in the least, that he is prepared to take the risk and to charge straight ahead. If that is so, there is not the least use calling attention to the danger.

I think the Minister knows, and it is only right to say that there are many people who have previously studied the Minister's speeches regarding the necessity for the re-organisation of the transport industry, and the protection of the railways section of that industry in particular, who are surprised that he is going to hand over to the same body of people possibly the administration of a measure which professes to save the railways from bankruptcy. The Minister was quite right when he said that the directors, if they were doing their work properly, would only deal with matters affecting policy, and should not, as they have been continuously doing, interfere in the most minute matters of administrative detail. I want to assure Deputy Good that I have no possible prejudice of any kind against any individual member of the board of directors who have been responsible for bringing the railways to the present state of semi-bankruptcy; but the directors are men who are also acting as directors of various other concerns, and all of them, or almost all of them, are without any technical knowledge or experience of railway work.

I submit the Deputy must talk about the section and that we cannot have a Second Reading debate.

We are now discussing the section.

I am following the Minister and I presume he has set a good example when he passed certain remarks regarding the undesirability of the directors interfering in administrative matters.

The Minister made one brief remark, and the Deputy certainly must not deliver a speech on a casual remark by the Minister, of not more than a dozen words. The Deputy cannot elaborate his reply into a speech.

I certainly would be surprised to hear that I have even spoken for three minutes. At any rate, it is immaterial as to what the number of the board is going to be, so long as it will consist of individuals who have brought the industry to its present state of semi-bankruptcy. I suggest to the Minister that it might be considered advisable between now and the time when the Bill comes to be considered on Report—certainly before it comes up for consideration in the Seanad—if he wants to save the railways, to insert a sub-section making it imperative on the shareholders to select a certain number out of the seven proposed directors who will have qualifications for positions of this kind. It is very desirable—I am sure that Deputy Good will not disagree with me in this—that one of the directors, at least, should have high engineering qualifications. If it is possible, I hope the Minister will insert the new sub-section I suggest.

What are we discussing?

The number and terms of office of the directors.

Surely there is no proposal of the type to which Deputy Davin refers in the amendment or in the section?

I can assure Deputy Good that he will not prevent me, under Standing Orders, from developing that point at a later stage.

May I congratulate Deputy Davin on the big advance he has made since the Second Stage of this Bill? On that occasion he stated that the present state of the railways was entirely due to the unfair position of the road transport companies. Now, in two successive speeches, he has proved that it is entirely due to incompetent directors.

I feel that there ought to be opportunity given for discussing the rather important point Deputy Davin has raised. With respect, I think it can easily arise on this section because we are discussing the limitation of the number of directors. I should like to say that I consider the limitation to seven to be undesirable because I feel, with Deputy Davin, that there ought to be some allowance made by enlargement of the number to permit members of the technical staff to go forward for election as directors and, therefore, to be allowed to become directors. So far as I understand the situation, there is a legal impediment at the moment to such a thing occurring. I do not know whether this impediment arises in the case of all the old absorbed or amalgamated or amalgamating companies but most of them had in their original Acts incorporated a certain clause of the Companies Clauses Consolidation Act which effectively prevents any person in receipt of emoluments from the railway company from putting himself forward as a director, or, at least, eventually emerging as a director. A clause might easily be introduced as a sub-section to this section or an alternation might be made by enlarging the number in this section, so as not only to permit but almost to give a direction that, year by year, there should be put on the board of directors some one member of the technical staff. It seems to me that there may be two types of boards of directors, either of which would be very good. You could have a board of directors composed almost entirely of technical people, with a full appreciation of the technical problems that would come before them and a very definite capacity to enter into discussion and take decisions upon the points that arose. Alternatively, you might have a board of directors from which technical people would be excluded. I think that the better attitude for that type of board of directors to take would be only to interfere in administrative policy, leaving technical matters to be carried on by the staff, with only supervision on general lines.

I do not know how far the comments made upon the present directors of the Great Southern Railways Company are accurate, but one does hear the statement made from time to time that, not being technical and not pretending to be technical, they have not confined themselves to matters of general policy but have interfered in the technical management of the system and that, to some extent—not to the extent that Deputy Davin in his exaggerated speech of a moment ago said—that contributed to the decline in the railways. Again, how far that whole system would be established on a better basis by having one technical man associated with the board, I am not in a position to argue at the moment. However, I think the matter is one worthy of being ventilated here, and one upon which a Deputy like Deputy Davin, with his internal information and even expert knowledge of some matters appertaining to the railway system, should be allowed to speak. I should like the Minister to turn over in his mind the possibility of excluding the operation of that excluding clause of the Companies Clauses Consolidation Act which prevents technical people in the employment of the board from securing seats as directors. I should like him to consider the advisability or desirability of enlarging the number of directors even by having a separate seat—selection to be made by the shareholders or, if necessary, by a system of rotation—given to some member of the technical staff.

The whole scheme of company formation in Germany, where company formation has advanced to a greater degree than it has here, is on an entirely different foundation from what it is here. In Germany, they rather go in for the type of scheme which enables the technical men to be supreme. In the Scandinavian countries, there are many examples where technical men—this is decidedly the case in Germany—have the right to be heard in all matters that pertain to their technical work before the board take decisions at what are described as "plenary meetings"— the only meetings at which they can take decisions. These meetings are not legally held unless the technical man, whose work is being supervised, has been called in and given his chance to explain. In the majority of cases, he has the right to vote. Perhaps a mixed system of that sort would be the best system here, but I am very glad that Deputy Davin gave us an opportunity to have this matter raised.

I was not allowed to develop it myself, but you were.

The matter is relevant. I think the Chair agrees.

I want to get quite clear on this point. On Committee Stage, do we discuss what is in the Bill or what Deputies think should be in the Bill?

What falls for discussion is what is contained in the section.

Is it not a fact that I have been prevented from speaking on this matter?

Deputy McGilligan in the course of his speech made a remark that Deputy Davin should have been allowed to follow a line of argument which the Chair ruled out of order. Deputy McGilligan referred to the points raised by Deputy Davin—the reference was, admittedly, more or less in order—but I am sure Deputy Davin himself will agree that he proceeded to deal with the virtues and defects of the railway directors, which we have debated rather irrelevantly on at least three occasions on this Bill.

If you think that I meant to criticise your ruling, I want to say that I did not. If any words of mine conveyed that implication, they are unreservedly withdrawn.

I think the point arose on the class of director that might be eligible. Is that in order? It does appear to come within the purview of the section.

A discussion on the number of directors and the terms of their appointment, and that only, would be in order.

But not the class of director?

Should not the discussion be confined to such alterations of the section as are proposed by amendments?

Quite so. If Deputies desire to amend the section they can table amendments for the Report Stage.

I agree with Deputy McGilligan that the classes of directors is a very important matter and if one were at liberty to discuss it one would like to say a word or two on the subject.

What I was raising were the qualifications necessary to become a director, not the class of director.

It comes to class again.

Deputy Good misunderstands the meaning of the word "class."

There is nothing about qualification in the section.

Is it in order to suggest that one of the number should have engineering qualifications?

That is what I was suggesting when you stopped me.

If the question of qualification is in order, may I say a word on the subject if Deputy Davin does not want to pursue it?

If you ruled me out of order, A Chinn Comhairle, I submit that no other Deputy has a right to speak on that matter now. Deputies can have another opportunity of speaking on it. You ruled me out of order on the question of qualifications.

Yes, and I adhere to that ruling.

Section 7, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

SECTION 8.

(1) Subject to the provisions of this section, the Minister may by order made on the application of a railway company either—

(a) authorise such railway company notwithstanding any statutory, contractual, or other obligation to the contrary, to cease to run any trains whatsoever over any specified railway line or section of railway line owned or operated by such company, or

(b) authorise such railway company to reduce in such manner and to such extent as shall be specified in such order the service of trains run, whether voluntarily or by virtue of statutory, contractual, or other obligation, by such railway company over any specified railway line or section of railway line owned or operated by such company.

(2) The Minister shall not make an order under this section unless he is satisfied that the railway company on whose application such order is made has lawful authority by statute, order, licence, or otherwise to carry on a road transport service affording to the public transport facilities constituting an adequate substitute for the railway services authorised by such order to be discontinued and that such railway company has given sufficient public notice of the establishment or intention to establish such road transport service.

(3) Whenever the Minister makes an order under this section the following provisions shall have effect in respect of the railway line or section of railway line to which such order relates, that is to say:—

(a) it shall be lawful for the railway company owning or operating such railway line or section of railway line, notwithstanding any statutory, contractual, or other obligation to the contrary, either (as the terms of such order may be) to cease to run any trains on such railway line or section of railway line or to reduce in the manner and to the extent specified in such order the service of trains on such railway line or section of railway line;

(b) such order shall not relieve from or affect any liability of such railway company 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 of occupiers of particular lands;

(c) where such order authorises such railway company to cease to run any trains whatsoever on such railway line or section of railway line, so much of Section 47 of the Railways 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 such railway line or section of railway line if and so long as all the gates of such level crossings are kept and secured in such position as to permit the free passage of road traffic across such line at such crossing;

(d) such railway company may, notwithstanding any agreement or practice as to the dismissal (in cases of redundancy of employees) of the latest employed of its employees or as to the division of such railway company's railway system into districts for the purpose of the promotion or dismissal of employees, redistribute its employees in such manner as appears to such railway company to be proper, but not so as to impose any undue or unnecessary hardship on the employees of such railway company;

(e) all employees of such railway company who are dismissed on account of their services being rendered redundant by steps taken by such railway company under the authority of such order shall be entitled to be paid by such railway company compensation in accordance with the provisions of the Third Schedule to the Principal Act as amended by the Railways (Existing Officers and Servants) Act, 1926 (No. 25 of 1926).

(4) Save as authorised under this section, no railway company shall reduce or alter the service of trains run over their railway line or any section thereof to such extent or in such manner as to afford facilities for the transport of passengers, merchandise, or mails substantially less in quantity or convenience than the facilities for such transport given by the service of trains run over such line or section during the last seven days of the month of January, 1933.

I move amendment No. 36:—

Before sub-section (1), to insert a new sub-section as follows:—

(1) In this section the expression "service of trains" means a service of trains in respect of which the railway company running such service wishes, for the purposes of more economical working, to provide by means of road transport such transport facilities as are required by the traffic theretofore carried by such service.

This amendment is in reality a drafting amendment. The Bill as drafted contained sub-section (4), the effect of which as read by certain persons, who had given it an interpretation which was not intended, would be to make the Minister a sort of super-manager of the railways. The interpretation which was given to it by certain people, or the interpretation which might be attached to it, is that no alteration in a railway time-table could take place except by Ministerial order. It is quite clear that is not the intention. What was intended was that no alteration in railway policy in respect of the running of a road service instead of a rail service could be made without Ministerial order. If the company decides to vary the hours of running of trains, the nature of the trains run on a particular line or the other rail services that might be provided, that is a matter of company management.

The number of them?

The term used there is "service of trains," proportionate to the traffic offering. If, on the critical week in January, 1933, the particular service of trains met the traffic which was offering at that time, then, proportionate to the traffic that is offered, the same service of trains must be provided, but if the company determines to substitute for a rail service, a road service, an order under the Bill is required and the provisions of this section come into operation. That is what these amendments are intended to achieve. We intend that the company shall be required to maintain over all these lines, a service of trains, which, having regard to the traffic offering, will be as good as the service provided on the last week of January, 1933, having regard to the traffic offering then. If it is decided to reduce the service below that point and to substitute for the rail service, a road service, to carry either the whole or portion of the traffic which otherwise would be carried by rail, then the section comes into operation and a Ministerial order is required. It is somewhat complicated, but it does meet the point and prevents the misunderstanding which arose out of the original draft.

Would the Minister look at amendment 49a which I have down? Does this new amendment correspond to that, with the last phrase of mine omitted?

I think the Deputy has in mind much the same idea.

I had in mind facilities alternatively afforded. The Minister would cut that out?

Otherwise my amendment and his are much the same.

I hope under this amendment the Minister will not unduly interfere with the running of the company. The Minister says he must be satisfied on these points. A few moments ago the Minister objected to the present directors because they interfered unduly with the officials. It appears to me that one of the objects of the Bill is to take power out of the hands of the directors and to give it to the Minister. I do not know how better off the company will be if there is to be interference by the Government in future instead of by the directors.

That is not quite correct. At the present time the G.S.R. is required by law to maintain in respect of portion of its system a particular service of trains. It cannot reduce or stop that service without the sanction of the Government in the form of an Order authorising it to do so. There are other parts of the system on which it is not under that statutory obligation. Other railway companies operating in the Saorstát are also free from that statutory obligation. They can stop a service or shut down a line on their own decision. This Bill, I submit, has created a new set of conditions under which the railway companies may have a monopoly position. In these circumstances obviously there must be some provision under which they will be required by law to provide services, that they will not be free to stop services or reduce services as they were in the past. What is provided here is that they shall maintain proportionately as good a service as they provided in the last week of January of this year; in other words, that the service in regard to traffic shall be as good as the service in the last week of January.

Provided the traffic is there.

If there is a diminution of traffic there might be a diminution of services. There is no question of an Order for that purpose, but if the railway company decides to go beyond that, if they decide to shut down or reduce a service, so that the traffic cannot be carried on rail and that some part will have to go on road, they are prohibited from doing that by this section unless and until a Ministerial order is issued to them. If there is a Ministerial order, then, of course, the provisions come into effect.

What I want to point out to the Minister is that certain services may have been remunerative in January by reason of the amount of traffic offering, but owing to road competition, or for some other reason, these services might not be so remunerative six months subsequently. Would the railway company have power to reduce these services? I think they should have power to reduce them. They must really have a certain amount of control. I want to be assured that they will have that in future.

If there are fluctuations in traffic—say that last year so many thousand people went to Howth by train and this year a smaller number wanted to go to Howth—then fewer trains will be required, and fewer trains will be run. There is no question of a Ministerial order there, because that alteration would correspond with the fluctuations in the traffic offering. If the railway company, despite the fact that the same number of people wanted to go to Howth by train, were going to run a smaller rail service and force a number of people to go by bus, then a Ministerial order would be required, but fluctuations or alterations of the service arising out of fluctuations in the traffic, are within the discretion of the company. But decisions which, in effect, mean that traffic is going to be taken from the railways and put on the roads, require a Ministerial order. That is the simplest explanation.

Who will report as to the volume of traffic offering?

Presumably the parties interested will make representations to the Department and, no doubt, the Department will be well in touch with the situation. I do not anticipate much trouble in that connection. If the railway company decide to reduce the service on any particular line I am quite sure we will have the fact brought to our notice with considerable expedition by persons living in the towns served by the line and by the unions catering for the railway workers.

I would like, at a later stage this evening, to get a discussion at greater length on Section 8(4). Sub-section (4) is brought before us immediately by reason of this definition. I would like the Minister to consider his definition and all that he has said in the light of the phrase used in sub-section (4). That sub-section terrified me when I read it first. I can see the Minister's intention of modifying what is in the sub-section, but I do not think he achieves his purpose. I am not sure whether the Minister intended his statement about the railway situation to be comprehensive. It was, at any rate, very brief. He said the railway company was bound, over certain sections of the line, to run certain train services.

Under the measure of 1932, on baronially guaranteed or State-aided portions of the line the railway company is bound to keep up a certain service of trains. On the main line, generally, I think the company was more or less at liberty. There was a parliamentary train arrangement, but that did not amount to a whole lot. There might be a certain amount of confusion and doubt as to what would happen before the railway company would decide to abandon the whole line. As sub-section (4) stood, it meant that even on the main section the railway company was bound to run such a service of trains as would give the same facilities for the transport of passengers, merchandise and mails, as was given during the last seven days of January, 1933. We now have an amendment which attempts to cut down that very rigid limitation upon the previous powers of the railway company — to cut it down to a certain extent.

Train service is defined as being the train service which the company intend to replace by motor transport. This phrase occurs:

...to provide by means of road transport such transport facilities as are required by the traffic theretofore carried by such service.

I am afraid the word "theretofore" is going to cause difficulty. Read into sub-section (4) of Section 8 it means that the railway company in some way has to provide for the same volume of traffic as passed over their service during the last seven days of January, 1933. Why should not the word "theretofore" be changed? Could it not read "traffic at any time offering to be carried by such service"? It really makes a standard of the traffic that was previously offered, and I do not understand the reason for that. If read into Section 8(4) it would have the effect of stabilising the traffic that was offered in the last seven days of January. I do not think that is the intention, and it certainly would be imposing a frightful hardship on some of the railway companies.

Traffic is disappearing, and if this particular period is to be taken, especially in regard to the Great Northern Railway, I do not know how they are going to bear up against the burden that will be imposed upon them. I think all this follows from the word "theretofore." If it does not, then I think there has been a big change made.

When Deputy McGilligan spoke of baronially guranteed lines I expected to see him blush, but he did not. The Minister spoke of these lines when he was introducing the Second Reading. He spoke emphatically about the freedom which he would give to the railway company to close down certain lines, and he pointed out that he would receive no deputations and would hear nothing on the subject; he would let the railway companies close down railway lines freely and he was not concerned with the effect that would have on the towns concerned. It is, I think, under this section that he takes powers to authorise the closing down of lines.

It would be better to dispose of the amendments first.

I beg your pardon; I thought we were discussing the section.

Let us assume that the railway company decide to shut down or reduce the service on a certain line and substitute for that service a road service. That road service must be competent to carry the kind of traffic which normally would be carried on the railway line. It does not mean that the service must be such as to provide for the volume of traffic that might have been carried on any particular date, if, in fact, such a volume of traffic was not offered. The quality and convenience of the service must be such that nobody is going to be at any greater disadvantage in consigning goods or travelling by omnibus than he would have been if the railway service had been maintained at the old level.

I will discuss the point I have raised when we come to sub-section (4), where it is material to sub-section (4).

Amendment 36 agreed to.

I beg to move amendment 36(a):—

In sub-section (1)(a), line 11, to delete the words "contractual or other."

This amendment, together with amendments 38(a), 38(b) and 41(a), are more or less on the same point. I want to find out whether it was the Minister's intention to impose a new obligation on the railway company other than that imposed by Part II of the Railways (Miscellaneous) Act, 1932. It seems to me that this does. Part II of the 1932 Act is being repealed by Section 13(2) of this Bill. It imposed on the railway companies a certain obligation. First of all, that Part of the Act was limited in its application. It applied only to railway lines constructed with the help of public moneys.

It was the greatest act of confiscation ever passed in this country.

The railways are still going; they were kept going by the 1924 Act.

It is only by the grace of God they are going.

And the help of the State.

I maintain that it was the greatest act of confiscation.

I do not know how the Deputy gets confiscation. The intention was quite sound and quite honest.

Hell is paved with good intentions.

Do not quote the 1924 Act as helping the railways.

The 1932 Act refers to railways constructed with the help of public moneys and it provided that until a certain date a certain service of trains had to be continued. Now the Minister extends that beyond those lines so constructed to the whole system of the railways. What is the reason for that? It is a very serious handicap to put upon the railway company. If it was a case where traffic was not operating, that they wanted to close down a section of the main line, or to cut it down to an equivalent to closure, which they had a right to do over great stretches of the system, they were tied by the circumstances of the 1932 Act which concerned particular services of trains. That Act only applied to lines on which they were helped in the building by State moneys.

Is the Deputy arguing this amendment?

Yes, because it was in the Minister's mind. If the case stands on statutory obligation I know what he means when he goes on to say: "Notwithstanding any statutory, contractual or other obligation." As I do not know what is meant I want the words explained. In the absence of an explanation I want to cut out these words and to leave in "only." I think the railways would prefer to go on as they were rather than give these particular powers to the Minister. The big question arises on sub-section (4). The Minister allows the cessor to run trains whether forced on the railway company by statute, contract, or in some other way. I thought we were going too far. I would like to know what the Minister means?

It is obvious that this section is one designed to release the company from certain obligations. It does not put any new obligations on them.

Is it not drafted in the light of sub-section (4)?

No. Sub-section (4) puts new obligations on them but even if it were not there this sub-section would be necessary. I cannot visualise under what circumstances there would be a contractual obligation, that is not a statutory obligation on the company to run particular services. I gather that it is a drafting device, and that the Minister will have complete power to release the company from any obligation to maintain a service where in the public interest it is justifiable that they should be released.

Are services running on railways to certain ports not more contractual than statutory?

The point arises whether the railway company should not get a release from the obligation to run these services, no matter what the loss or how little use was being made of them. What they are getting is power to release the company from any obligations that may exist to run services where in reason they should not be required to run them, because they are not being utilised.

Does the Minister know of any contract existing between a railway and a shipping company, for instance, to meet their boats or to accommodate them?

Not that I know of.

If there was, it is very unusual to give a Minister power to break a mercantile contract.

This does not give power.

You are giving power to order a railway company under statute to break a contract with another person and to indemnify them. I take it that the sub-section indemnifies.

I do not know of any such contract.

If such contract existed you are taking power to indemnify the railway company against breach of contract, and to deprive the shipping company of their remedy.

The Deputy must get clearly that what is at issue in the section is a substitution of road services for railway services. I can imagine the company being under an obligation to a mill or to some other institution to carry for a certain period certain classes of goods at a particular rate. There can be no order to close a railway unless there is provided in the same district an adequate service capable of carrying out any such arrangement entered into, and providing for the public services, capable of meeting all needs both industrial and personal.

Does the Minister take that as the grounds for introducing these words: "contractual obligations"? He breaks in on a principle of considerable magnitude. As he says himself, for drafting purposes he resorts to a very wide scope. It is unfair in any circumstances to seek power to authorise a company to break a contract. Does the Minister think it a desirable thing to do?

I cannot envisage circumstances under which this will be required at all, except in the case which I interjected. I think there would be something, possibly not statutory, but an arrangement developing into contract between one of the old amalgamated companies and say, the Port of Waterford, with regard to the running of trains or rights to run trains over certain sections of the line. If there is no contract apart from statute, the word "statute" covers the whole thing. Supposing there is something other than contract, and not covered by statute, this gives the Minister power on the application of one party to break with the other party.

It provides road services.

Provided road services are offered. The Minister is going to be the judge hereafter as to the adequacy of the road services. He is taking the place of the other party to the contract. The other party has a right to say that it was train services were bargained for. The Minister is putting himself in as a proxy to the other party and he is going to say that not merely will road services be substituted for the railway services, but he is to be the judge of the adequacy of the substituted road services in relation to the traffic previously offered. If there was a good example before the mind of the Minister or the Department with regard to the difficulties which might occur——

I have no knowledge at all of any such contract existing. There may have been contracts from time to time to run workmen's trains in particular districts but, as far as I know, this is an omnibus phrase, conferring the idea that the order may be made authorising the railway company to cease running services, and will be effective to that end.

They are dangerous words to put in without seeing their application.

For instance, there may be an agreement for a siding with a manufacturer or to provide wagons at a given hour or day. Could the Minister release the company from such contract?

Surely there are many agreements or contracts, such as the type for the carriage of sugar beet, and to provide so many wagons at a particular season.

There might be.

Under this section would not the Minister have power to release the company from that, whereupon the railway company can come to the Minister and say: "We propose, in regard to this particular business, to substitute a road service for the rail service"?

They would scarcely do it.

It is not probable they would, but the Minister steps into the shoes of one party to the contract — the Carlow Beet Sugar Factory, if they had such an agreement — and says to the railway company: "Yes; we are prepared to scrap our contract and accept as an alternative consideration a road service of which I shall be the judge," so that the Carlow Beet Factory, having stipulated for one thing, is eventually given something which the Minister thinks is the same thing. I think it is a very foolish thing to do and, according to the Minister's own admission, unnecessary. I cannot see what objection he can have to withdrawing the words.

It appears to me that the real safeguard is in line 2 of sub-section (1):—

Subject to the provisions of this section may by order made on the application of the railway company ——

Surely they will not apply to do what Deputy Dillon says?

That appears to me to be a safeguard against the suggestions that have been made.

I am not suggesting that the railway company would seek authority to break its contract.

With the Carlow Beet Factory, for instance? Surely they are not going mad?

That is one of the examples that occur to our minds. There are probably others. The sub-section looks to their going mad and making this application.

I do not think that any circumstance is likely to arise in which anybody is going to allege that a contract of value to them was broken, but, in connection with railway companies, all sorts of old obligations of one kind or another, which have ceased to be effective exist, and one has got to provide in an Act of this kind for covering every possible contingency. One finds some obscure legal bar arising in connection with sections of other Railway Acts, by which a section which purported to do a certain thing did not do it because of certain legal provisions which were not foreseen at the time the Act was being drafted. That is why you get a phrase of that kind in order to ensure that what you purport to get power to do, you are, in fact, getting power to do, that is, to authorise the railway company to cease running a service on a branch of a line where the service is not required.

That is one way of stating it, but there is the other, that the Minister is looking for power to break contracts. The Minister may nod his head. In this case, it may probably not result in misfortune or difficulty, but it is a rotten principle, and a very unsafe and undesirable thing to do — to take statutory power to break contracts. You may wipe out debentures. That is bad and calculated to jeopardise credit in the country, but, if you are going a step further and saying that you are going to get statutory authority to break contracts where it is convenient, trade in this country becomes exceedingly difficult. I see the Attorney-General sitting in the House, and I should very much like to hear him on the principle of getting statutory authority to amend or break contracts without reference to the parties.

Deputy Dillon discovers some nefarious plot in everything.

This is not a question of a plot at all, but I should like to hear the Attorney-General defending that principle. He will have a stormy time on the next occasion on which he goes to the Four Courts if he does.

I will defend it for the Deputy, if he likes.

I am inclined to agree that Deputy Kelly was right last night when he suggested that we were getting away from the relevant position.

But we are making the law.

Deputy Dillon insists on having legal opinion on everything but I think he ought to apply a little common sense. I certainly agree that the Minister ought to make the section as watertight as he can and should give himself as much authority as he can and make himself as completely immune as possible from any legal liability that may be devised by lawyers later on, by taking on himself such authority as is necessary to carry out his intentions. I suggest that the real safeguard for both sides to the contract will be found in the spirit or principle of amendment 39 by which we ask that an inquiry be held before a Ministerial order would apply. The same thing would apply, perhaps, in the case of the Carlow Beet people or anybody having a siding on the railway, if, when the railway company make application, the Minister, before making the order, would hold an inquiry as between both parties and both parties should get the opportunity of stating their case. That arrangement would, to my mind, safeguard all interests.

We are on No. 33 at the moment.

The Minister should take the ordinary safeguard of consulting each contracting party before making his order.

Ask the Minister will he do it.

I think that Deputy Dillon should take the advice given him by his new colleague, Deputy Good, in this matter — good advice, on this occasion.

I do not see the Attorney-General getting up.

Amendment 36a withdrawn.

I move amendment 37:—

In sub-section (1), (a), line 12, to delete the words "cease to run any trains whatsoever" and substitute the words "terminate wholly a service of trains run at the date of such application."

This is consequential on amendment 36.

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment 38:—

In sub-section (1), (b), line 17, to delete the word "the" and substitute the word "a," and after the word "run" to insert the words "at the date of such application".

This is also consequential.

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment 38a:—

In sub-section (1) (b), line 17, to delete the words "whether voluntary or".

I must say that I thought that 38a looked forward to sub-section (4) because I do not understand why the Minister wants to take power by order to authorise the railway company to reduce the service of trains which it is running voluntarily.

I must say that neither do I. I should like to look into the point. It is a drafting point and I am afraid that I do not see the necessity for it. It is quite clear that sub-section (4) will impose a statutory obligation and, consequently, these words do not appear to be necessary.

What does Deputy Moore say about that?

Of course, they do no harm, in any case.

They seem to give power to the Minister, by order, to stop a voluntary service. There is a funny implication in them.

Amendment 38a withdrawn.
Amendment 38b not moved.

I move amendment 39:—

At the end of sub-section (1) to insert a new paragraph as follows:—

(c) before making such order the Minister shall consider all the relevant circumstances affecting the specified railway line or section of railway line the subject of such proposed order in relation to the other portions of such company's undertaking and shall cause a public inquiry in regard to the making of such order to be held, and any persons, bodies, or trades unions who or whose members claim to be affected by the making of the proposed order may lodge objections or representations to and appear before the person holding such inquiry (the provisions of Section 10 (other than sub-section (1), of the Railways (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1931, shall apply to any such inquiry.)

The future existence and profitable working of the main railway line of this country will, I think every sensible man will agree, depend on the revenue which will be contributed to the main line in the future from the branch lines now operating. On reading this section of the Bill, I thought it was one of the most drastic proposals brought forward in this Railways Bill, but, after reading the speech made by the Minister on Second Reading, I, like every other railway man interested in the preservation of the railways, certainly thought that there was no future hope even for the existence of the main line much less the branch lines of this country.

The Minister, when speaking on the Second Reading of this Bill referred in particular to the proposal dealt with in this section and, when questioned by Deputies from this side, said:

"I might say definitely that, in my view, quite a number of branch lines of the company must close if the railways are to survive on a profitable basis. Most of them have been losing money since they were constructed, and nearly all of them are losing money under present conditions... I want to tell the Dáil that I will not refuse applications for an order to close a number of these branch lines."

Questioned, as he went on to develop his case, which, I think, was a very weak one, he said, at a later stage, as reported in Col. 380 of the Official Debates of the 8th March:

"In fact I would like to say to the Dáil that Deputies must face realities in this matter, and if they agree to these powers being conferred, I would ask them not to lead deputations asking that uneconomic, unprofitable, and non-paying services should be continued, because it would lower the prestige of a particular town or district."

I can quite understand that the administration of these two Bills now before the Dáil will, in whatever form they may be finally passed, mean a considerable amount of additional personal worry to the Minister for Industry and Commerce. I would like to relieve the Minister from any personal responsibility, if that responsibility could be placed upon shoulders that are better able to bear it. I would like, and I am quite willing, to relieve the Minister from the responsibility for receiving and hearing deputations to deal with a matter of this kind. The only way in which he could be so relieved to his own advantage is to make necessary the holding of a public inquiry, at which all interested parties could be heard before he is asked to make an order for the closing down of a branch line. As far as I can read into the Minister's mind from the language he used in his Second Reading speech he appears to be quite satisfied — some silly person has satisfied him — that what could be regarded as a good case for the reduction of the number of trains on a branch line is an equally good case for the closing down of that branch line. The proof of that is this: I asked him how many applications he had received for the closing down of branch lines, and he said none. I know as a matter of fact that he has received and dealt with a number of applications for the reduction of services. Naturally, one must conclude from that information given by the Minister to the House in his Second Reading that the only facts and figures which he has before him up to the present are facts and figures to justify an application for the reduction of services, and not for the closing down of the branch lines. Will the Minister, if he is going to refuse to accept this moderate and protective amendment, give the House any figures which he has in his possession even now to justify him in making the statements which I have just read to the House and which he made in his Second Reading speech? In other words, will he give us the information which— without any technical knowledge of the internal working of the railway— he has in his possession to justify him in saying that he will not refuse application for an order to close down a number of branch lines? I have made some inquiries into the matter, but I am not sure whether the railway companies themselves have made any case to justify the closing down of any large number of branch lines, or the doing of any of the things which the Minister, even before he has received any such applications, says he is prepared to do. That statement of the Minister's has caused a considerable amount of alarm all over the country, especially to those who have any real knowledge of the present methods of working, and the way in which the revenue is derived by the railway company for its maintenance and existence.

Will the Minister look at the map of the Great Southern Railways Company, and make certain — after having studied the map very carefully — as to the number of market towns situated on the branch lines, the number of towns where monthly fairs are held, as a result of which a high percentage of the railway revenue comes to the main line and to the company as a whole. There is a picture of the position left in my mind as a result of the Minister's speech, and I must consider its possible effects on my own constituency. I would like Deputy Moore, who has been worrying about Baltinglass and Blessington and Tullow, to look at the matter from the same, if you like, narrow standpoint. Let us assume, for the sake of argument, that the Minister would be so foolish— if the House allows him to get these powers — as to close down the Limerick to Ballybrophy section of the railway. On that section you have three towns, Birr, Nenagh and Roscrea, where monthly markets are held, as a result of which a huge revenue is contributed to the main line from the number of wagons normally sent from those fairs and transferred on to the main line of the Great Southern Railways for the carrying of cattle traffic from Nenagh, Birr, and Roscrea to Dublin or anywhere else. I find that the number of wagons of cattle, sheep and pigs, sent from Nenagh to Dublin or elsewhere on the main line during the year 1930 was 2,054.

What has this to do with the public inquiry?

I say that the members of this Party are not going to allow the Minister those extraordinary dictatorial powers without having an inquiry beforehand as to the necessity and advisability of closing down those branch lines. That has something to do with it. I want to relieve the Minister from the unnecessary worry and responsibility of being asked to receive and hear deputations upon a matter he is not the best fitted to deal with.

But the public inquiry would not stop the deputations! That is the best argument I have heard yet.

The amendment suggests that before the Minister makes an order a public inquiry should be held, at which all interested parties would be enabled to appear and give evidence, as a result of which evidence he should then be empowered to make or refuse the order asked for in this section of the Bill. Assuming that it is not the policy of the Government to finally destroy the cattle rearing industry of this country, I would ask the Minister to tell the House how any alternative road service — or air service if you like — could handle the equivalent of an average of 174 wagons of cattle sent from the Nenagh fair to Dublin or anywhere else, if the Minister is allowed to get and use the powers asked for in this Bill?

The fact is that the railway company could shut down the Nenagh line to-morrow. Nobody has power to stop them.

Even if that be true— and I have been advised that there is some truth in it — it is no justification for giving the Minister the extraordinary powers he is seeking in this section of this Bill. It is not possible to provide a road service to deal with the traffic which comes from the fair and market towns situated on the branch lines, and I suggest that if those branch lines are finally closed down by the Minister in this arbitrary way it will mean such a reduction in the revenue of the main railway lines of the country as will make it necessary in the future to close down the main lines as well.

I would like to remind the Deputy——

I am going to be allowed to make my own speech.

I was just trying to put the Deputy right on his facts.

The Minister will get an opportunity of refuting any statements or any arguments that I make, and I hope he will make some kind of a case for asking the House to give him those arbitrary powers. The amendment merely makes it compulsory on the Minister to hold a public inquiry before agreeing to the closing down of a line or a section of a line. There is nothing unreasonable, I suggest, in any amendment which puts that forward. I want to say to Deputy Thomas Kelly that this amendment is not put forward in any destructive way, but merely to help the Minister to achieve the object he has in view, namely to preserve the railway system of this country.

I hope all other Deputies will submit their amendments to me first.

I am not quite sure whether Deputy Kelly is prepared to accept the spirit of this amendment or the meaning which prompts it, but I will pay him this tribute, that unlike many other members of his own and other Parties he at least hears the case put up in support of an amendment; the Minister, in other cases, has had no difficulty whatsoever in convincing a very large section of his own members, who have not even listened to the case for or against any of these amendments. The Minister talks about a branch railway line being uneconomic. I wonder how does he arrive at that conclusion? In arriving at that conclusion, does the Minister realise the contributive value to a main line of the traffic that comes to it from a branch line? Are we to understand that the economical working of a railway depends on its revenue earning capacity as a whole, or upon the separate branch lines? It would be impossible for the Minister to give figures, or for the company to present figures to him, which would prove to his satisfaction whether a particular branch line was paying or not.

What is the Deputy's test?

I would ask the Minister to apply that kind of argument to the postal services of the country and see whether the Government takes the view that they should depend on the number of people who require a daily, bi-weekly or weekly postal service. If the Minister applied that kind of argument to the postal services of the country — I know that he would not and that no sensible Government would — where, I ask, would you have a daily, a bi-weekly, or a weekly postal service at the present time? This section, I know, provides for an alternative road service in case a branch line is closed down by order of the Minister. I wonder what the increased cost on the ratepayers in certain localities for the maintenance of the roads would be if the heavy traffic now carried on railway branch lines had to be carried on the roads? The Minister talked about providing an alternative road service in case these branch lines were closed down. He should not forget that the people, the poor pauperised individuals for whom Deputy Moore has been pleading continously in this House, have paid nothing whatever to the constructional costs of these roads, and I doubt if they are paying even now a fair percentage of the maintenance costs.

Does the Deputy mean the railway roads?

I do not want to make Deputy Moore look more gloomy as this debate goes on, because I know he is bound to say something in answer to the case I am making for the maintenance of the branch lines, and for the refusal of the House to give the Minister these dictatorial powers. I imagine, from the look on Deputy Moore's face, that his future has been almost confiscated during the last four or five days of this debate in Committee. We will have another opportunity of dealing with other aspects of the effects of the Minister's claim to secure these arbitrary and dictatorial powers. I await the Minister's answer whether he proposes to accept this very mild, moderate and protective amendment, to see if it is necessary to say anything further in support of it.

The Deputy has been speaking in favour of branch lines when he should have been speaking to the amendment, which raises only the question of procedure in relation to branch lines. The Deputy, in discussing the branch lines, starts off by quoting an extract from a speech of mine on the Second Reading debate. I want to start off my speech by quoting an extract from a speech made by the Deputy's colleague, Deputy Keyes, on the Second Reading of the Bill. He said:

"The Railways Act of 1924 only helped to make confusion worse confounded. As Deputy Norton mentioned, there are many thousands of victims who have been thrown out of employment by those who were responsible for that Act. The Great Southern and Western Railways was then a prosperous system working its own lines, but it was compelled by that Act to take over all those little railways in Ireland. The much-discussed Lartigue Railway was the only one that escaped coming under the panel. The Great Southern was pulled down to the level of the animal with a tin can tied to his tail when all these lines were tacked on to it. We have thousands of men who gave loyal services to the Great Southern Railways now idle because of that muddle."

The branch lines.

The "tin-can lines." I presume they were the branch lines. I want Deputy Davin to answer a question that he refused to answer before: Under what circumstances, whatsoever, would he contemplate a branch line being closed down? If one passenger a week offered, would the Deputy say that one passenger was sufficient to justify the line being kept open?

That is a case for a reduction of services, if you like.

Is it the Deputy's point that the line should not be closed down if one passenger a week offered; that the whole service in connection with the line should be maintained because that one passenger a week offered? The Deputy asked me what I considered an uneconomic service. In connection with one railway in this country as I learned from returns I saw quite recently, during the month of January, before the strike, now happily ended——

Hear, hear!

——it did not earn in that month enough to pay the wages of its workers. It had to borrow money to buy coal. It was unable to put anything against the cost of depreciation in rolling stock or permanent way. It had to borrow money to pay the wages of its workers or to draw from its reserves, if it had any. In any event, it did not earn sufficient to enable it to pay the wages of its workers or to buy the coal required for the service. Obviously that service was uneconomic, and yet Deputy Davin expects railway services to be carried on under such conditions.

What services?

That was the case of a particular railway in this country. It is not necessary to mention the name.

It was not a section of the Great Southern?

No, but there are sections of the Great Southern in precisely the same condition. Deputy Davin says, "Let us hold a public inquiry." We have done so, and all I can say is that they are the biggest joke imaginable. The railway company came to me and represented that they wanted to reduce the service on a branch line by knocking off the 9.10 train. I asked, "Why?" The answer was, "Because no one is travelling on it." That seemed to be a good reason. There were then produced to me long tables showing the number of passengers that had travelled on that train each morning for six or seven months to justify the assertion that no one was using the train and, consequently, to support the assumption that no one wanted the train. As soon as I proposed to take it off there were big deputations up from the district concerned asking that the train be kept on. In a couple of cases we decided to hold a public inquiry. All those interested from all over the country came in by bus to attend the local inquiry and to urge that the railway should be kept open although not one of them had the slightest intention of ever travelling on it.

A good joke!

Yes, they were making a good joke of the whole business. What I want to say to the Deputy is this: that where the traffic that is offering, whether it be merchandise or passenger, is not sufficient to pay the ordinary working expenses of a line or section of a line, then there is a case for the shutting down of that line or a reduction of the service on it. It will depend on the amount of traffic that is offered whether there should be a complete cessation or only a reduction of the service. Obviously we cannot possibly maintain railways merely to provide employment for persons or to ensure that the convenience of the service will be there if the people should happen to want it when the facts demonstrate that the people do not want it.

I was struck by one particular remark in Deputy Davin's speech yesterday, when he complained that the railway company, in certain cases through their subsidiary, had omnibuses starting from the same town at the same time as the railways. In each case he said it was an obvious attempt to destroy the railway. Why was it an attempt to destroy the railway? Will not Deputy Davin admit that in certain circumstances the public prefer the road services to the rail services, and that if the two are available they are going to travel by road?

Does the Minister justify the carrying on of two services starting at the same time from the same place?

No. The Deputy implied by what he said that if the two services were available it was the railway service that was going to go down.

I did not say that.

That was the implication in the Deputy's speech.

I said that there should be interchangeability of tickets.

We are anxious to preserve the railways, and this is a Bill to do that. You will not do that unless you put them on a sound economic basis. You cannot do that if all these tin-can lines that Deputy Keyes spoke about are to be kept tied on to the system, and if there is to be taken out of the receipts on the rest of the system the amount required to make good the losses on a service that nobody appears to want. If the people want a service, and if the statistics show that they are making use of whatever service is available, then the service will be maintained. If there is any reasonable prospect in the future that the services available on the railways will be utilised by the public, the services will be maintained. But where they are not being utilised, and where it is obviously possible to provide cheaper transport on the road and when, by doing so, you are making the prospect of keeping the main lines open better, then there is undoubtedly a case for the closing down of these branch lines.

The Deputy spoke of a Ministerial order, but I pointed out to him that over by far the greater part of the railway system there is no Ministerial order to close them down necessary. At the present time the company could shut down the branch line to Nenagh, which the Deputy mentioned, if they wanted to. There might be a certain difficulty in connection with the Railways Abandonment Act and there might be certain flaws in it, but they could evade that. We propose, under this section, to say that they must maintain services; that they must maintain proportionately the same services that they maintained in the first week of January this year and that they will only be released from that where it is clearly shown that these services are not being used by the public and that the maintenance of these services is jeopardising the whole system. The Deputy says that the branch lines should not be closed down without a public inquiry. The Kinsale branch line was closed down, the Cork, Blackrock and Passage branch line and the Killaloe branch line were closed down without any public inquiry and, in some cases, without protest; and owing to the fact that they were not being availed of to any extent their closing down improved the prospect of the railway company being able to carry on, improved the prospects of railway employment and the whole transport system of the country generally. Deputy Davin is asking for too much in asking that every branch line, every foot of railway line, should be kept open and that every train which can be run should be run.

I am not asking for that. I am asking that there should be a public inquiry before a branch line is closed down.

What can a public inquiry reveal that is not already known? The circumstances under which a branch line would be closed would be when it was demonstrated that, over a reasonable period, the traffic offering for the line was not sufficient to meet the working costs and that the services available were not being really availed of by the public. In these circumstances an order would be issued.

You will not hear the case against the closing down.

But it would be a matter of facts and figures. Under the existing law, we may hold a public inquiry, but there is no obligation to hold it. The Deputy holds that, no matter how clear the facts are, we should hold an inquiry. That is a completely unreasonable demand in view of the fact that for the first time the railways are to be compelled by law to maintain services over their whole system. A public inquiry merely gives an opportunity for local politicians to make speeches.

The Minister is often very glad to have the local politicians.

We have held such public inquiries in the past and they did not reveal one fact that was not already known, and that had not been previously taken into account. You can easily determine whether a service is required by the public by the use the public are making of it. That is purely a matter of facts and figures. I can assure the Deputy that, as far as I am concerned, the balance would be weighed down in favour of keeping the railway there unless I was convinced that the maintenance of the branch line was going to jeopardise the whole system. As Deputy Keyes and Deputy Davin must realise, I am sure, if something is not done in such cases we are speeding up the day on which not alone the branch lines will be closed but the whole service.

Would the Minister justify what he said on the Second Reading? It is on page 378 of the Official Report of the 8th March. He said: "I might say definitely that, in my view, quite a number of the branch lines of the company must close if the railways are to survive on a profitable basis. Most of them have been losing money since they were constructed and nearly all of them are losing money under present conditions." What information had the Minister when he made that statement?

What I said was:—

"I might say definitely that, in my view, quite a number of branch lines of the company must close if the railways are to survive on a profitable basis. Most of them have been losing money since they were constructed, and nearly all of them are losing money under present conditions. Where it seems reasonable to assume that road services can be provided which will serve the needs of the country, I want to tell the Dáil that I will not refuse applications for an order to close a number of these branch lines."

The Minister said he would not refuse applications for an order to close. In view of the fact that the Minister admitted previously that he had no applications, and consequently no facts before him, why in advance of that did he give such positive assurance?

I pointed out also that if, in fact, we were to decide here that these lines should be kept open and, consequently, brought into the reasonable condition of repair which would justify their services being maintained for any considerable time to come, an immediate expenditure of £800,000 would be necessary, and that the railway company could not provide it. If we were to say to the railway company here and now that these lines must be kept open for a certain number of years to come, and that they must be kept in the condition which, having regard to the public safety, they should be kept in, the railway company would be up against a proposition right now that it could not possibly get over. The company would be up against an expenditure that it could not possibly meet, and not alone the branch lines would go but the whole lot would go.

This sum of £800,000 which the Minister mentions—what would that be required for? Would it be required in order to put these branch lines into first-class "Flying Scot Express" condition?

Oh, no; just for necessary repairs.

Necessary for the volume of traffic that is likely to be carried by these lines hereafter?

Does the Minister not realise that the present maintenance of these lines would enable cattle trains to be run safely on the branch lines, and does he not realise the value of maintaining these branch lines as a feeder to the main line?

Undoubtedly, and they can go to the main line. So long as the traffic gets to the main line, it does not make much difference whether it goes by road or rail.

I hope the Dáil will not dismiss the proposal contained in this amendment as airily or as easily as the Minister seems to wish to dismiss it. The Minister has been very adroit in this matter, because he is endeavouring to show that this is a proposal to keep open branch lines no matter what financial condition they are in. That is not the proposal. This is an amendment to ensure that there shall be an examination of the matter. I fail to see what harm it is going to do to the railway company or any other interest to have proved beyond yea or nay that the view of the railway company was right in the matter or, vice versa, that the view of the railway company was not completely justified. Now this is going to be a particularly serious matter for some parts of the country. It is going to be a particularly serious matter for the people of the constituency which I represent, because the people there have, over a number of years, paid considerable sums of money for the maintenance of baronially guaranteed railways. Next year they will be free of that liability, but they have got very little hope from the Minister in the opening statement he made introducing this Bill. It seems to me that the Minister has made up his mind, quite definitely, that the branch lines must go; and it is because of the attitude of the Minister that, in my opinion, the Dáil should decide that whether the branch lines should go or not should be decided, in the only way it ought to be decided, namely by the holding of a public inquiry.

The Minister talked of branch lines that cannot pay their way. No one expects that such lines should be kept open, but there must be cases where there is reasonable doubt. An inquiry held for two or three hours, cutting out local politicians, and getting up the facts without the examination of witnesses affords no real evidence that certain branch lines cannot pay their way. The Minister talked of the public inquiry as the biggest joke imaginable. I am surprised to hear that, and I am surprised at the rapid knowledge the Minister has got on these matters since he reached a particular part of the House where he now sits. I feel, in this particular matter, that there is a very strong case for an examination into the whole question. It need not be a prolonged inquiry. Very little time would suffice to get through it. The Minister talks about closing down small lines. I would like to know how many small lines have been closed down already without any justification for the action of the company in that connection. No steps of that kind should be taken unless it is made incumbent on the Dáil, having authority to make provision of the kind, to see that the matter is fully inquired into whenever such action is contemplated in the future. If the Minister's attitude is to be as he indicated on this Bill, and that we are to have no safeguard, I can see no protection for the Clonakilty and Courtmacsherry and the Skibbereen and Baltimore lines. In fact, the whole service in West Cork might be jeopardised whenever the railway company cared to do it. I think the people should get an opportunity of putting their point of view, generally, at a public inquiry whenever the question of closing down branch lines arises. I know there was a threat to close down certain parts of the branch railways in West Cork already, and that determination was come to in the absence of the knowledge of facts which could have been put forward at a public inquiry. I hope the Minister will not be in a hurry in matters of this kind in the future.

I think that Deputy Davin and Deputy Murphy are presuming a great deal when they assume that the Great Southern Company are going to rush headlong to avail of this section. Have they taken into account what that would mean to the railway company?

It is the Minister I am afraid of.

The Minister does not take power in the Bill to compel the Great Southern Company to substitute road service for branch railway service. It is the Great Southern Railway itself that has to make the proposal. Is there any temptation to them to make a proposal to substitute road service? It would be a great gamble, the biggest gamble in existence, if they were to avail of this section for any length of line. They would have to provide new capital equipment. There is this phrase "adequate substitute." They might have to face a Minister who would have very strong ideas as to what is an "adequate substitute" for the railway service they propose to close. They would have to provide buses and lorries. They would have to face the uncertainty in the running of these buses, the cost of road services, and of unfavourable variation in regard to the prices of petrol and the prices of tyres. They would also have to face the demands of the Minister for Finance in regard to road taxes which a railway company going on its own permanent way would not have to face. They are not likely to say in these circumstances "we will go on the general highway and take our chances there."

It seems to me that there will be a very small stretch of line where the railway company will substitute road service for the existing service. Deputy Murphy may say they did so in his constituency but that was before this Bill came along. Since this Bill has come along; it will not be so easy to make this substitution. What I am interested to hear is how the Minister proposes to get over the difficulty that I pointed out on Second Reading. What is to be the criterion of "adequate service?" Does it mean service for some towns served by a branch line now closed? Will a road service have to be attached to each one of these towns and villages, or how near must the road service run to the railway line? Remember you have not got, in many places, a main road running parallel to the railway line. Consequently, you might not have any road at all, serviceable or suitable, for those lorries and buses so that an "adequate substitute" could not be provided. I do not know how this difficulty is to be got over, and before the section is passed, I should like if the Minister would be good enough to explain.

I am in entire agreement with the amendment moved by Deputy Davin. I was astonished to hear the Minister describe a public inquiry as a joke. His conception of a joke is entirely different from mine. I was still more surprised to hear his contemptuous reference to local politicians upon whose assistance he relied, and was very glad to rely, during the recent election. I cannot see what objection the Minister can have to this most reasonable amendment which I am sure will be, and ought to be, supported by the general body of Deputies in the Dáil.

I support the amendment notwithstanding the quotation from my speech on the Second Reading made by the Minister, and which was not very relevant to this amendment at all. Speaking then of the prosperous Great Southern Railway, I was visualising a prosperous Great Southern Railway with its main lines and its branch lines. I was speaking of the Great Southern Railway as it then existed. Deputy McGilligan, and those with him, who interfered did so without sufficient Governmental responsibility. The Minister did not quote my statement that nationalisation would be the only solution, and so far as you do not get that realisation you ought at least to keep as near as possible to the right line when dealing with the railways. The amendment only asks that before branch lines are closed down a reasonable inquiry will be instituted. Are we to believe that the branch lines are so unimportant as not to justify an inquiry? Are we to accept Deputy Dillon's view that people who go to shareholders' meetings and public inquiries are only capable of discovering the colour of the directors' beards? These are the common herd. I am surprised to find that the Minister thinks that there can be no intelligence in the local districts, that the people who were elected members of public boards by a more conservative franchise than that on which we were elected must be treated in that cavalier fashion.

I did not say that.

They must not be asked whether a railway should be removed. I have no fear that the railway company will remove the line indicated by Deputy Davin from Nenagh, but I am not so sure of lines like that from Birr which serves a big town which has many fairs and markets. There might be a reasonable temptation, as has been suggested by Deputy Moore, who has asked would any temptation be possible. There is a temptation to the railway company and that is that the railwaymen, Deputy Good's pet aversions, with their cross-Channel unions, succeeded in wringing from the railway companies a tolerably decent standard of living which has had several inroads made upon it in recent times—eight cuts already, nine now. That standard has not yet been reached by the disorganised workers on the transport system on the roads and there is a tendency to get back to the old inhuman conditions when the men had to work long hours for impossible wages. The temptation for the railway company will be naturally to get on to the services where no permanent way has to be maintained, where the ratepayers will do it for them, and where they will have workers less organised, working for lower rates of wages and under poorer conditions. That is the temptation. I suggest that in fairness to the railway company itself and the local authorities, a public inquiry should be held, representative of the people with responsibility in the district, as set down in the amendment, where they would be entitled to be heard in all matters relative to the closing or otherwise of a branch line. That is going to be no hindrance or barrier to the Minister doing the proper thing according to the evidence laid before him. I suggest that he should not take one-sided information from the railway companies but should have further evidence from other channels before taking the responsible and serious step of closing down a branch line.

This is a pro-railway Bill brought in by a pro-railway Government. As far as we can see, the general tenor of the Bill and particularly of this section is to put the railways on to the roads as soon as possible and give them every facility to get on to the roads and get rid of the responsibility with regard to the smaller lines. I am particularly interested in the point with regard to the inquiries because I happen to live in a town where the branch line was one of the very first to be closed down. If adequate notice had been given, it would have been possible to reorganise trade in that district in such a way that it would perhaps be possible for the railway company to get it. Naturally, of late years, railways, particularly these branch lines, have found themselves in a very difficult position. I will admit that many traders and other responsible persons have not acted in support of the railways in the way they should. They naturally followed the line of least resistance and the line of least resistance with regard to the carrying trade was the facility with which goods were being transferred from door to door. In other words, the cutting down of handling, particularly in connection with small lots of goods, and sometimes very heavy goods, made it very much easier for the people.

With regard to the adequate facilities that must be afforded before the line can be closed down, on that particular point especially it is very necessary to have public opinion brought to bear. It is very necessary to have the local traders and others consulted as to their requirements before deciding what is an adequate alternative service. On that account, particularly with regard to branch lines, I think it is very necessary that these inquiries should be held. They will not be matters of any great cost and they will not be a joke, because any town that is threatened with having its railway service cut off will realise that it is a very important thing for that town and district. There is one thing you will not find an adequate service for other than by the railways, and that is the proper transit of cattle. Cattle are one of the things that cannot be carried on the roads very satisfactorily. Of course, owing to the economic war, the railway traffic in cattle has gone down considerably. The railway returns have proved that. However, that will revive again sometime or other, when some sort of political sanity returns. I think an adequate form of road service has yet to be found which can replace goods trains for the transit of cattle. On that account, this amendment should recommend itself to the Minister and there should be no objection to accepting it.

I can see the Minister making a good case, and I am prepared to admit that a good case can be made, for the reduction of passenger train services and certain services on certain branch lines. But that is not the case he has made even in his speech this evening against the acceptance of the amendment. The case he has made against my amendment, and the case that has convinced him and obliged him to make the speech that he made on Second Reading, is that what was a good case for the reduction of services is an equally good case for the closing of a branch line.

The Minister should read his own speeches, especially in view of the fact that he admitted that before he made these statements he had received no application and, consequently, no facts in support of an application for the closing down of a branch line. The Minister says that there are branch lines carrying on that have not produced sufficient revenue to pay the working expenses. Will the Minister quote a case?

Will the Deputy tell me one that is?

The Minister should quote a case if he has a case. I think the House is entitled to the facts.

It is not merely a matter of the branch lines. The main lines even are not making their working expenses.

If the main lines cannot pay their way with the contributive revenue which comes from the branch lines, what is going to be the position of the main lines when the revenue of the branch lines is cut off? Will the Minister ask the Great Southern Railways Company to supply him with a return of the number of cattle wagons coming, even since the economic war, from market towns on the branch lines and the proportion of revenue which they contribute to the upkeep of the lines as a whole, and the main lines in particular.

The economic war has nothing to do with the number of cattle. It may have had something to do with prices.

I suggest that the complete closing down of branch lines, which the Minister foresaw and stated in his speech on Second Reading, is going to deprive the main lines in future of a very high percentage of revenue. Is that not understandable even to the Minister without any technical knowledge of railway work?

Why should it?

I can see a case, or one or two cases, for the abolition of certain services on certain branch lines and still good reason from the revenue-earning point of view, or the company's point of view as a whole, for the maintenance of these branch lines, if only for the purpose of carrying traffic from towns on those lines.

Can that traffic not be carried to the main line otherwise than on the branch lines?

If the Minister's mind is in the made-up-way in which he spoke, he is going to invite the company to send in applications for the closing down of branch lines, not a reduction of services, but the complete closing down of branch lines. I would not trust—that is the position—the Minister in view of the statements which he made in his Second Reading speech with power to make an order for the closing down of a line on application even from the railway company. The corridors of Leinster House, as every Deputy knows, were crowded during the first ten months of the life of the present Government. The corridors were crowded with local politicians coming in to make representations to the Minister for Industry and Commerce and his colleagues. I remember waiting for the Minister one day with some colleagues of mine and a deputation came out from the Minister. I discovered it was a deputation from Kilrush asking for the erection of a beet factory in the nearest place to Newfoundland, in an area where no beet was ever grown. I know that the corridors of Leinster House were so crowded with deputations that Deputies could not get in. Who were on these deputations but local politicians seeing the Minister.

I said nothing against them.

The Minister said that the people who would ask for an inquiry of this kind from the Minister would be local politicians. If an inquiry is held on the application of the railway companies, I am satisfied that local traders who use the railway and who know the value of the maintenance of the line will be the first to go before the inquiry. All I am suggesting is that the opportunity should be afforded people to make their case for the maintenance of a branch line. The Minister knows that the cost of the inquiry will have to be borne by the railway company. What is the objection then except that there is some sort of offence to the dignity of the Minister? Before he became Minister, aye up to the last general election, he was as pliable to the requests of deputations of local politicians as any member of the Ministry. The Minister, in my opinion, was one of the ablest politicians associated with the Ministry. He got more votes by false promises and did more to bring his Party into power than any other member of the Government. The proof of the false promises is the contents of these two Bills when compared with the promises he made in the House and outside the House, at street corners and cross-roads, as to the transport policy of the Fianna Fáil Party since 1929. I would advise Deputy Kelly to read some of the speeches made by his colleague in the representation of South Dublin.

This has nothing to do with the amendment.

He has been called "Honest Tom Kelly." I would ask him to speak more effectively to the Minister at Party meetings and force him to carry out the promises he has made on behalf of the Party with which Deputy Kelly is now associated. At any rate, I would invite the Minister to treat this amendment a little more seriously than he did in his first speech, and I would ask him to realise that the amendment is put forward for the sole purpose of preventing him from being obliged to receive deputations of local politicians, either before or after an application is made for the closing down of the branch line, but especially before he makes an order for the closing down of a line. If the Minister agrees to accept the amendment and to have an inquiry held in the area, and if after all interested parties have been enabled to put forward their case before the inquiry, the person holding the inquiry reports in favour of the closing of the branch line, and if the Minister confirms that order, I can give him an assurance that, as far as I am concerned, I shall never ask him to receive a deputation in protest against the making of such order. I shall never ask him to do so if he takes the necessary steps to see that all parties have a fair chance of making their case against such an order, as the result of a proposal such as is contained in the amendment.

I am one of those who would like to get every scrap of traffic for the railways that could possibly be got for them and to keep every scrap of traffic off the roads that could possibly be kept off. I am, however, unable to support the amendment, because it appears to me that the people who argue in favour of the amendment do not appreciate the desperate situation of the railways.

Quite the opposite.

They also show an extraordinary lack of confidence in the new system of postal voting for the election of directors. If the directors were going to be a set of congenital idiots, then these restrictions might be justified. When a man is trying hard to swim to shore through a stormy sea he cannot afford that people, who profess to be his friends, should put one mill stone after another around his neck.

What is the mill stone?

The mill stone is this: The directors already have to convince the Minister for Industry and Commerce before they are allowed to manage their own business in the way they should.

Or mismanage it.

The Deputy is assuming they are congenital idiots. I maintain you must assume, till the contrary is proved, that the people working the company will be acting in the best interests of the company. They have already got the burden of convincing the Minister for Industry and Commerce. The supporters of the amendment propose to add to that the necessity for a public inquiry. Is it likely that a local public inquiry will ever report in favour of the closing down of a branch line? I cannot think that it is. There is always a desire for local prestige——

It will not be a local inquiry. It will be an inquiry held by a person appointed by the Minister.

I understood the suggestion was that the inquiry should be held locally.

"Shall cause a public inquiry in regard to the making of such order to be held."

We shall hear Deputy MacDermot.

That is the point I want to make. As one who is extremely keen on getting everything for the railways that can be got, it seems to me that an amendment of this sort might do a good deal to make the position of the railways worse than it would otherwise be and might cause wholesale shutting down owing to the fact that the directors are not sufficiently at liberty to do the necessary things that should be done.

In reply to all that has been said, I have only to say that before any order is made resulting in any railway line being closed down, the fullest possible inquiry will be made.

By whom?

By the Minister.

By a Minister prejudiced as his Second Reading speech has shown.

A pro-railway Minister.

There are two opposite policies before us, and I want to point out that there is a third established by the previous Act, the 1932 Act, which it is proposed to repeal. Deputy Davin's amendment insists on a public inquiry in every case. That is quite definite. The amendment says that before making such order, "the Minister shall consider all the relevant circumstances affecting the specified railway line or section of railway line ... and shall cause a public inquiry to be held." The rest of the amendment by its reference to Section 10 of the Act of 1932—in this amendment it is erroneously referred to as the Act of 1931—brings in the point to which Deputy MacDermot referred, because it is there laid down that "every public inquiry held under this section shall be held by such person and at such time and place as the Minister shall appoint and the person holding such inquiry shall have power to take evidence on oath and for that purpose to administer oaths." It then goes on to say that "all expenses incurred by the Minister ... shall be paid by the company owning the railway line," unless the Minister with the sanction of the Minister for Finance otherwise directs. Then it goes on to give this power against irresponsible and vexatious people appearing before the public inquiry and causing trouble:

The person holding a public inquiry under this section may, if he thinks proper so to do, order the costs and expenses incurred by any person of appearing or being represented and adducing evidence at such inquiry to be paid by any other person who appeared or was represented at such inquiry.

In other words, there is power contained in that, by imposing costs and expenses upon vexatious people, to prevent their making a nuisance of themselves and an absurdity of the public inquiry. Deputy Davin wants to have it that no order can be made until a public inquiry is held. The Minister's measure wipes out the permission which was given to hold public inquiries under the 1932 Act. I do not see why that should not have been kept. Deputy Davin would object to it probably because it gives the Minister discretion, but I think it imposes a slight obligation. The section reads:—

the Minister may, if he thinks proper so to do, cause a public inquiry ... ... to be held

Can he not do that under this measure?

That gives the Minister a very wide discretion.

In my opinion, it is better than having this measure. I am assuming when the Minister endeavours to repeal a section which gives him power to hold an inquiry that it is a definite declaration that he does not intend to have a public inquiry.

It is our experience that an inquiry cannot produce any information that is not procurable in another fashion.

What experience has the Minister had to lead him to that conclusion?

There were two or three instances last year.

The Minister does not think it is necessary to have these inquiries, and he regards it as an embarrassment to have that continuing section of an old Act.

It means useless expenditure imposed on the railway company.

If the Minister orders an inquiry to be held but only then. The Minister obviously considers it an embarrassment to have this continuing section of an Act which gives him power, if he thinks proper, to refer a matter to a public inquiry. I do not understand why he is so anxious to get rid of the section. Of course it will be easy for him to say that the Dáil decided they should not have public inquiries and therefore he was not going to order another; in fact, he was not empowered to have them. That possibly is the type of barrier he may want to erect against the local politicians who have now become so distasteful to him. The Department, we are told, has had experience of local inquiries. I do not think inquiries have been found to be so expensive or cumbrous or vexatious as to annoy anybody. Local inquiries, no doubt, will be held on a matter with which we will be dealing soon in connection with the taking away of sand from foreshores.

And drainage.

There are other matters about which we have instituted public inquiries. I think on the occasions on which public inquiries were introduced for the first time many fears were expressed that they were going to mean that matters would be transferred from Dublin, where people could be dealt with better because at long range, to an area where the people had to be met in person and in greater multitudes, and consequently that there was going to be trouble. I do not know that experience shows these public inquiries to have been very obnoxious. The Minister says he does not want public inquiries.

On the contrary, in relation to a majority of matters the public inquiry system is thoroughly sound; but in relation to these branch lines, which must be considered as part of a whole system, the information which will be the basis of any decision is procurable otherwise than by a public inquiry. A public inquiry cannot add to it. It is a question purely of what use the public was making of the service proposed to be discontinued.

We have it now from the Minister that the public inquiry system has not worked badly. I would not go so far as to say that it has been working very well, as the Minister appears to think now. It has not, however, worked badly. There is no case on the merits which would be sufficient to make a person abhor the idea of a public inquiry. The Minister's defence of his attitude is in relation to branch lines. This applies not merely to branch lines but everywhere. It applies to every case in which the Minister will be asked to authorise the transfer of facilities given previously by train services to road services. He says that the facts are well known elsewhere and there is no necessity for an inquiry. But the 1932 Act gives him ample powers—"if he thinks proper." I do not think he can be forced, if he has any sturdiness of character about him, to hold an inquiry. It might be a good thing to hold an inquiry in order to expose the hollowness of a contention when it is made. The Minister does not want to have an inquiry because he does not think an inquiry is necessary. He is endeavouring to take away the enabling section of the 1932 Act.

Is Deputy McGilligan in favour of the amendment?

No, I am in favour of the midway course. I would rather have the 1932 position. I would hesitate to impose on the Minister the necessity for holding an inquiry on every occasion when an order is sought. I think that would be going far too far and much beyond the necessities of the case. I do not think Deputy Davin would be wise to press this amendment. I cannot see the necessity for getting rid of the old enabling power. The expenses imposed on the railway company are only the expenses of the Minister's appointee, who holds the inquiry. If there are interventions made before the inquiry, which the Minister does not think desirable, surely he can end that by a system of apportioning expenses. He should hesitate before he takes away this power which enables him to order an inquiry if he thinks an inquiry is the proper course.

I intervene again in the debate, because of what Deputy McGilligan has said. I should like to explain the wording of the amendment in the light of the Deputy's remarks. When this amendment was being drafted we had in mind the provision made for the holding of an inquiry under the 1932 Act. We concluded that a proposal such as an application from the railway company for the closing down of a branch line was of sufficient public importance to justify an inquiry being held, even in spite of the wording of the 1932 Act. I move to report progress.

Progress reported, the Committee to sit again at 7.30 p.m.
Top
Share