Before the adjournment of this discussion, Deputy McGilligan was endeavouring to make a case for the adoption of the middle course policy which he quoted from the 1932 Railway Act as being the best course to adopt in case of any applications coming before the Minister for the closing down of a branch line. As I briefly pointed out, before the closing of the debate, we considered this matter very fully before the amendment was drafted and had in mind the provision that was inserted in the 1932 Act for dealing with applications of this kind. I would not have pressed this matter so strongly, nor do I think any members of this Party would have pressed it so strongly, were it not for the very positive attitude adopted by the Minister in regard to this matter on the Second Reading debate and were it not for the very positive statements made by the Minister that he was satisfied that a large number of branch lines should be closed down, and would be closed down by him, if applications came before him. Were it not for that attitude, I do not think we would have pressed this matter so strongly, or perhaps have felt so strongly about it. I was not, of course, anticipating the attitude which was adopted by the Minister in this amendment, namely, that he looked on all local inquiries as a joke.
In Committee on Finance. - Railways Bill, 1933—Committee (Resumed).
Where did I say that?
I think the Minister did say that, and I think that if he takes the trouble to read the Official Report of the previous debate he will find that the report will confirm what I say. However, I do not want to misrepresent the Minister. At any rate, he said "a public inquiry merely gives an opportunity for local politicians to make speeches." I might remind the Minister that local politicians are the people who built up his own Party and the people on whom all Governments or Parties have to rely to get them into office and to keep them there. However, I do not think that the local politicians would be the only class of people to come before an inquiry or to demand an inquiry of this kind. If an application comes before a railway company for the closing down of a branch line, I think that such an application naturally would be bound to create a very live interest for the local traders and merchants who use that branch line, for the workers employed on the branch line whose livelihood would be likely to be involved by the closing down of the line, and for the people in the market towns situated on these lines whose produce is carried on them. I think that the local ratepayers would be inclined to take a considerable interest in the proposed closing down of the line, because, naturally, they must conclude that the closing down, after the application of the company was confirmed by the Minister, would be bound to mean an increased rate for the upkeep and maintenance of the roads that would be the only alternative means of transport for the people who formerly used the railways. This proposal has been turned down because the Minister looks upon public inquiries as a joke. Although there might be, to some extent, some justification in the Minister's mind, perhaps, having in view some peculiar or exceptional experience, I think that local inquiries are justifiable from the point of view that they allow to local people the democratic right to decide certain matters in which they may be personally and financially interested. Would a public inquiry into an arterial drainage scheme, for instance, be a joke, or could a public inquiry into anything of that kind be reasonably regarded as a joke? When a member of the public is financially interested in any matter, where his pocket is likely to be affected, the Minister may make certain that such a person will go before these local inquiries and give whatever evidence is in his possession to prevent the Government or anyone else from piling up additional charges or putting him to unnecessary additional expense. I think that it is the proper democratic procedure to adopt, and that it is a policy which the Minister should encourage.
Deputy MacDermot, rushing in as Leader of the Centre Party, of course, as he has done on certain occasions, to save the Minister from defeat, refers to this as a local inquiry. The amendment proposes that an inquiry should be held on the order of the Minister, and any persons, bodies, or trade unions who or whose members claim to be affected, may appear before the person holding such inquiry. The people going before that inquiry would not be a collection of publicans and local politicians and people of that kind. The person appointed would be a person with some sense of responsibility and would be able to give a proper report as to the merits or demerits of the matter, and it would not be publicans or local politicians or people of the kind, whom the Minister does not want. We stand, on an important matter of this kind, for the right of people who are interested to go before some local body, that body to hear the evidence, and the Minister to have the duty of appointing the person to hold the inquiry and give the report. I think that I can give the Minister positive assurance that if, after having gone through that procedure, he eventually decides to close down a branch line. I would not be one of the Deputies, after his adoption of such a procedure, to trouble him with any representations or the reception of any deputations of the kind which the Minister says he does not want to receive.
I am glad that the Deputy, under these circumstances, would undertake not to bring deputation. Our experience has been that a local inquiry adds no information and does not satisfy anybody. The inquiry is held and the same deputations come and the same representations are made. The only question is whether these representations should be got by a local inquiry or not. I think that the importance attached to a local inquiry is entirely exaggerated. Everybody who is interested will make whatever representation they have to make beforehand and they will be given every opportunity to do so and it is only following full investigation that the line would be closed down. A local inquiry should not be insisted upon because it involves some expense, a considerable amount of trouble, and leads nowhere.
Does the Minister anticipate that there will be many applications?
The Minister took as his text that we must look on the whole system as a unit, and he says that it is on that basis he is working. Let us take the case of the baronially guaranteed lines. The Minister thinks the railway company should have the option of closing down a line. Do they take the whole system as a unit when the ratepayers have to meet the alleged deficit on the baronially guaranteed lines? Do they take into account that these baronial lines helped them to make a profit and, when it is alleged that there is a deficit on a local unit of a railway, is that what the ratepayers are now to get— that after paying for lines on railways that, probably, some of them never saw, that the trade which the baronial lines brought is not to be taken into account but now to be taken as part of the general scheme and to be closed down, forsooth, because the general system thinks they are not worth while to them?
Let me put it this way. Take the case of the Great Southern Railways line, where it meets the traffic from Clare at Limerick. Has the traffic that comes by water along the Shannon been considered, or will it be considered—the traffic that comes by water and is picked up at Limerick by the Great Southern Railways line? Will that be taken into account in considering the deficit of the baronially guaranteed lines? If we are going to have an inquiry with reference to tourist places, will nobody have any arguments to advance to see that these lines should not be closed? Is the Minister aware that there are many places that will not lend themselves to road traffic to these particular districts? Is he aware that in many of these districts the roads cannot be used because of their boggy nature? Are we simply to add up the traffic for a particular line and to say that because a particular bit of that line does not pay it is to be closed down whether the people on that particular bit of the line are to be mulcted or not. Is that a calculation that has to be made? Are we to consider another line of argument? In a health resort, for two or three years past, perhaps, there may have been some falling off in the traffic to that district possibly because of some alleged insanitary arrangements, or want of a proper water supply. Are we to take that as a criterion as to whether the branch line in that district is to be closed down or not? Is it to be on the basis of a three years' traffic? I think there is a great deal to be said for having the local people examined at such an inquiry, and having the members of the local council and the merchants and the hotel keepers heard, and allowed to put forward their views.
And so they will.
Mr. Hogan
How?
By deputations to the Minister. But the Minister said he did not want deputations.
Mr. Hogan
Obviously people cannot be coming up on deputations to the Minister from my constituency. Kilrush is an important place upon the map, and before branch lines to it are closed down I hope that the people will get consideration, and that the people of Kilkee will also get consideration.
I ask the Minister to consider very carefully and to keep in mind the importance of this question of local inquiries. In Kerry we have a branch line to Cahirciveen which is paying its way, and we have a baronial guaranteed system on the Dingle line which is not paying its way. Are the people of that district to be deprived of that service after their 35 years' expenditure upon that line? They had to pay high rates during all those years in contribution to the upkeep of that line. The line is certainly important to the district. It would be a hopeless state of affairs if the people of that district were to be deprived of their railway, especially where the roads do not lend themselves to the traffic that would be required for the transport of goods if the line were closed down. It would be a terrible state of affairs if no provision was made to obviate the closing down of a line like that. We in Kerry take a very serious view of it. We object to calling a railway line such as I have described, a tin pot business, as Deputy Keyes did. I hope whatever branch lines are closed down the Minister will give very special consideration to the needs of the outlying districts.
I cannot see why the Minister would not accept Deputy Davin's amendment. I would draw his attention to the fact that there are a number of important residential quarters within a dozen miles of Cork that have been very badly hit because of the closing down of the Cork and Passage Railway. That line was closed down because it was considered uneconomic.
And the railway company had not to ask anyone's permission.
They might try that on other lines also. I cannot understand why the Minister does not accept the suggestion in this amendment. The I.O.C. with the best possible intentions, cannot cater for the people who wish to go to the seaside resorts in the summer. That outlet is at present cut off, in the district in Cork I have mentioned. Between 5,000 and 6,000 people used to be conveyed to the seaside every year when that line was in existence. If we are to gather anything from precedent it means that more branch lines will be closed down in the future. There is nothing to stop the Minister. He is looking at the whole system as a unit. I should like to draw an analogy in this matter. The Minister is a business man and has had a good business training. He must know that even in the drapery trade where there might be five or six departments it may be found that one is not paying, or to use a much hackneyed phrase, it may be found to be uneconomic. Is that a reason why the directors should abandon that department altogether? If that were to hold good in all business undertakings, I am afraid we would be all specialists and we would have specialisation carried so far that one house would only sell gloves and another ladies' silk stockings. I suggest there is a practical analogy between the ordinary business enterprise and the railway system. Is it because one branch line, like a department in a drapery store, is found to be non-paying that it must be closed down? I subscribe to what the Minister said as to treating this as a unit, but taking an ordinary enterprise—a dry goods store — would the directors because branch "A" was not paying decide to get out of gloves or boots or some other commodity in that particular line of business?
I feel sure if the Minister would look into the matter, at greater length, he would see there is nothing extraordinary in asking that an inquiry should take place and not an inquiry of parish politicians from Ballydehob and other places such as Deputy Hogan comes from. I do not want to treat this matter with any levity, but, seeing that there are so many factories to be started, under the ægis of the present Government, I think we would want to be increasing branch lines to places where they are growing wheat and where beet factories and so on are to be set up. They are only potential factories, I know, but, at the same time, I ask the Minister to give further consideration to the matter.
The Minister used the phrase I would like to relate better to the circumstances. When one of the last speakers was addressing the House he interjected a remark: "They can do this without the leave of anybody at the moment."
On a great part of their system.
That was brought into the discussion on the application for an order and whether that should be followed by a public inquiry. I understood the Minister, when bringing in amendment 36, to be quite precise, but quite different from his interjection. I think the situation for the future is still this: that over a big section of the line if the railway company by reason of traffic think fit to discontinue a service they are at liberty to do it without applying to the Minister for an order at all.
On a reduction of the service arising out of a reduction of the traffic.
Let me put it positively in another way. The only time when an application for an order must come to the Minister is when the railway company decide that they are going to carry certain traffic, still offering, by road rather than by rail. The House should remember the other point, that the power is still being left to the railway company, and I hope it will continue to be left to them, that if by reason of diminution of traffic they have to deplete services over a big portion of their line they are at liberty to do it without applying to the Minister for any order. There is no local inquiry or order of the Minister necessary for that.
Or to offer a substitute service.
That is quite right.
I understood that there was an arrangement that no division would be called before 9.30.
There was an understanding to that effect but that does not mean that we will not be entitled to call a division on this matter at 9.30 or afterwards. That is for the Ceann Comhairle to decide.
It would be quite irregular to pass on from this section now and take a division later on it.
It was made clear to the Parliamentary Secretary that the right to call a division did not lapse.
What is this agreement?
I understood there was an agreement as a number of Deputies wanted to get away for a religious ceremony.
The President stated that if Deputies wanted to get away they could pair. There was no understanding that this arrangement should prevent a Deputy from calling for a division, if he desired to do so. It is for the Ceann Comhairle to say whether that division should be taken at 9.30.
Normally, it could not be.
Would it not be better, in the peculiar difficulty arising, to postpone the amendment and take it later?
The Chair is not bound by agreements come to by the Whips of the different Parties.
By agreement would it not be possible to postpone taking it?
I understood that was the intention, that if a division was called for it could be taken at or after 9.30.
I suggest that, with the consent of the House, the amendment might be postponed until 9.30.
The division on it but there must be no further discussion. The difficulty is that such postponement might affect subsequent sections and amendments but, as far as I can see, the difficulty is not likely to arise. With the consent of the House the division is postponed to 9.30 p.m.
[The following is the division on Amendment No. 39 taken at 10.25 p.m. by agreement.]
Tá, 34; Níl, 62.
Tá
|
Anthony, Richard.Bennett, George Cecil.Burke, James Michael.Burke, Patrick.Byrne, Alfred.Corish, Richard.Costello, John Aloysius. Keating, John.Keyes, Michael.Lynch, Finian.McDonogh, Martin.McMenamin, Daniel.Morrissey, Daniel.Mulcahy, Richard.Murphy, Timothy Joseph.Nally, Martin.Norton, William. |
Davin, William.Davitt, Robert Emmet.Dillon, James M.Doyle, Peadar S.Everett, James.Fagan, Charles.Fitzgerald-Kenney, James. O'Connor, Batt.O'Leary, Daniel.O'Mahony, The.O'Neill, Eamonn.O'Sullivan, John Marcus.Fattison, James P.Redmond, Bridget Mary.Reidy, James.Rice, Vincent.Wall, Nicholas. |
Níl
|
Aiken, Frank.Alton, Ernest Henry.Bartley, Gerald.Beegan, Patrick.Belton, Patrick.Blaney, Neal.Boland, Gerald.Bourke, Daniel.Bourke, Séamus.Brady, Brian.Briscoe, Robert.Broderick, William Joseph.Browne, William Frazer.Concannon, Helena.Corkery, Daniel.Daly, Denis.Derrig, Thomas.De Valera, Eamon.Dockrell, Henry Morgan.Doherty, Joseph.Donnelly, Eamon.Dowdall, Thomas P.Esmonde, Osmond Grattan.Flynn, Stephen.Geoghegan, James.Good, John.Goulding, John.Hales, Thomas.Harris, Thomas.Houlihan, Patrick.Keely, Séamus P. |
Kehoe, Patrick.Kelly, James Patrick.Kelly, Thomas.Kennedy, Michael Joseph.Killilea, Mark.Kilroy, Michael.Kissane, Eamonn.Lemass, Seán F.Little, Patrick John.Lynch, James B.Maguire, Conor Alexander.Moane, Edward.Moore, Séamus.Murphy, Fatrick Stephen.O'Briain, Donnchadh.O'Dowd, Patrick.O'Grady, Seán.O'Kelly, Seán Thomas.O'Reilly, Matthew.Rice, Edward.Ruttledge, Patrick Joseph.Ryan, James.Ryan, Martin.Ryan, Robert.Sheridan, Michael.Smith, Patrick.Thrift, William Edward.Traynor, Oscar.Victory, James.Walsh, Richard.Ward, Francis C. (Dr.). |
Tellers:—Tá: Deputies Corish and Keyes; Níl: Deputies Little and Traynor.
Is amendment 41 met by amendment 40?
I think amendment 41 is fully met by the whole series of amendments in my name from 36 to 49.
I think it is very largely covered by the concluding words of amendment 36.
Yes.
I move amendment 42: To delete sub-section (3) (d).
I accept that.
The first!
I move amendment 44:—
To delete sub-section (3) (e).
The point raised is that it has hitherto not been compulsory, or the custom, to allow compensation in cases of redundancy where loss of traffic has caused disemployment. Where the redundancy could be proved to be due to the consequences of amalgamation, compensation was enforced by the 1924 Act. When it became unnecessary to employ certain hands because traffic had disappeared, the compensation has not been enforced.
It is not payable under this Bill. Sub-section (e) provides that where the railway company, by a change of policy, causes redundancy, that is by putting upon the roads traffic which was previously carried by rail, thus closing down or reducing railway services, compensation shall be paid to the employees rendered redundant in consequence. In so far as railway employment may change because the volume of traffic decreases, or anything like that, the sub-section does not apply. It applies where an order is made for the closing or reduction of services on a line in consequence of the decision of the railway company to carry traffic, heretofore carried on the line, by road.
Would it be practicable in such cases to employ the hands on the road services?
It is quite open to them.
If the company does not choose to employ them on the road service and dismisses them, compensation is insisted upon.
It is only where they are rendered unemployed by the order that compensation is payable.
Have they the right to refuse that employment?
The terms are set out in the Schedule.
That is an important question.
I do not think anybody is likely to refuse the employment for the sake of the compensation they will get.
Will the Minister undertake to consider it, because it would alter the whole situation if an employee could say: "I will take my compensation and I will not work on the road service." I do not think he ought to be given that power. If the company is ready to employ him on the road service, I do not think he should be entitled to claim compensation.
That is undoubtedly correct. Of course it would have to be employment of a similar kind, carrying similar remuneration.
Employment in which no technical knowledge is necessary.
If his conditions of service are to be less secure, or his actual wages likely to be worsened, I think in all previous legislation he had the option to say whether he would press for compensation, or take the employment offered.
It is generally understood that such transfer should not be to his disadvantage.
That must be made clear.
I am asking the Minister to look into it.
I will look into it.
There is provision for 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. Could the Minister give any idea as to whether it would be possible for a man who may be redundant to receive compensation through the channel indicated?
In the first place, that has been deleted by a subsequent amendment and the conditions are set out in the Bill. I admit there is a difficulty at the moment, due to the fact that a constitutional point has been raised. Until that point is settled by the court, the position will stand as it is. It is not a point that we could remove by legislation. It is a question in regard to the arbitrator. Until the decision of the court is made known, or until a constitutional amendment of very great complexity is carried. the situation must remain as it is. I admit the delay in coming to a decision by the court has caused considerable hardship, but I have no means of expediting that decision.
As the Minister is aware, there are several hundred men who for two years have been waiting for compensation as a result of this constitutional difficulty.
Irrespective of the court decision, when a decision is given will the Minister give effect to his intention in so far as he will make arrangements for the payment of compensation if compensation has to be awarded?
I am in full sympathy with the views of Deputies in this connection. It is a point about which one can feel very strongly but unfortunately there is no machinery open to us to redress the position.
Not at the moment.
Yes.
I wonder would the Minister look into a point that is analogous to the point raised by Deputy Thrift. To answer it he will require to read together the Third Schedule of the 1924 Act and the amendment as established under the Railways (Existing Officers and Servants) Act of 1926 and also to some slight degree the Second Schedule of the amendment to which we have now come. The scheme of the Third Schedule and its later amendment was this, that if there was a servant in one of the absorbed or amalgamating companies and if he were not taken into the service of the amalgamated company, certain things began to operate in his favour. We are moving to a position where still the amalgamated company——
The necessity for this amendment and the putting of the Schedule into the amendment arises out of the fact that there are other railway companies affected by the situation other than the Great Southern Railways. That was the original intention of making a reference to the 1924 Act. We have now got to put in a separate and distinct Schedule.
My point still remains. Supposing the railway company operates a lorry service. I want to confine my remarks to the Great Southern Railways Company. Suppose they operate a road service. Can they operate that hereafter on any basis other than a road service operated by the amalgamated company because if there is the slightest divergence I am not sure whether the provisions about hiring would not apply. If that is possible then persons offered employment in one of these out-services would not be offered employment under the amalgamated services.
The Bill does not provide for that at all.
I thought it provided for it under the scheme of the Schedule of the 1924 Act. If you are offered alternative employment in the service of the amalgamated company that prevents a claim for compensation. I thought that lorry services run by the Great Southern Railways Company would be regarded as part of the amalgamated company and these people would be covered. However, the thing is much wider.
I move amendment 45:—
Sub-section (3) (e) line 10, page 8, after the word "company" to insert the words "in anticipation of the making of or."
This matter was referred to during the Second Reading discussion, when members of this Party endeavoured to point out to the Minister that under the wording of the sub-section, as it now stands, it would be possible immediately before a branch line was closed down for the company to reduce the staff on such a branch line to skeleton form. The employees could be transferred to the main line from the branch line subsequent to the closing of the branch line, and they would then have no claim to compensation under the terms of the Bill. Notwithstanding the fact that they would not be entitled to any compensation as a result of a manipulation of this kind, which is not unheard of, they might be dismissed by the company as being redundant after the branch line had been closed down. The Minister invited us to suggest another form of words to safeguard the position of men who might be dealt with in that way. The additional words suggested in the amendment would cover people who might be otherwise sacrificed and who might be removed from the branch line service immediately before it was closed down, deprived of compensation and, perhaps, subsequently dismissed without compensation.
The first point is that the Deputy's amendment does not alter the meaning of the section. I fully examined it, and it is quite clear that the interpretation of the section is not changed. The words "services being rendered redundant by steps taken by such railway company under the authority of such Order" mean precisely what they would mean if the Deputy's amendment were accepted. I do not think it is possible to get any form of words in this connection which could not be evaded if there was a deliberate attempt at evasion, and the only thing I can do is to give the Deputy this assurance, that if I were to find that the obligations of this lettered paragraph (e) were being evaded by the railway company, in consequence of an Order made under the Bill, it would have a very definite bearing on the administration of the Bill. In other words, it is unlikely in these circumstances that any additional Orders would be made until any attempt at evasion of the Order were put right. In view of the fact that the power given is a continuing power, in one respect I do not anticipate that the Deputy's fears are well-founded. Where something is done, having been done, that ends it. But where something is being done now, as only one step in a general scheme that will involve something being done later on, I do not think the same danger arises. Consequently I think the surest safeguard is to see by administration that no injustice is done, that the idea behind the section is put into effect. I can give the Deputy an assurance that if I find that idea being defeated, a very definite state of affairs would arise in relation to the administration of the whole measure. The Deputy's amendment does not meet the point really. I am advised that the section as drafted does meet the point of people being disemployed before the Order does come into effect, that such people can apply ——
For transfer?
For compensation on the ground that their dismissal arises out of an Order, even though the dismissal followed on a transfer before the Order from the line that is being closed to some other part of the system. The words which the Deputy suggests would cause a certain amount of ambiguity and certainly would not improve the section in any respect. It would have precisely the same meaning. I think a better safeguard is the assurance which I am giving the Deputy in that respect.
Supposing the railway company decides that it is going to make application to the Minister three months hence for the closing of a branch line. With the object of reducing the amount of compensation which would be payable it might decide to transfer four railway clerks engaged on clerical work on the branch line, to Dublin. Three months hence it would make application to the Minister for an Order to close the line. Six months afterwards these four railway clerks who were transferred to the head office in anticipation of the making of the Order might be dismissed. Does the Minister say "in anticipation of the making of or" has no greater strength than "under the authority of" in a case of that kind?
It would be quite open to the clerks to argue that their dismissal was in consequence of the order and that they would be thus entitled to compensation. There will be all sorts of borderline cases which it will be the duty of the arbitrator to decide. It is quite clear to me that it is open to them to submit that argument and, if they are in a position to sustain it, they will be entitled to compensation.
The wording of the amendment has a bearing on the position of members of the staff other than those who may be directly affected by the closing of the branch lines.
All employees of the railway company.
It is quite possible that as a result of the closing down of a number of branch lines, say two or three, the headquarters staff, the staff at the head offices, could also be affected.
And they are covered. The wording is "all employees".
But they are not covered in the way we want them to be covered.
Surely there could not be a wider term than what is set out here?
I have no hesitation in accepting the Minister's assurance, but the question regarding their rights to compensation after the branch line has closed down will depend entirely on the arbitrator, who will pay due regard to the meaning of every word in this sub-section. That is the difficulty that I see.
This applies to any of the companies in the Saorstát, and if an attempt were made on behalf of any one company to evade the obligation contained in paragraph (e) after an order is made in relation to that company, there would be a definite change of policy and quite possibly additional legislation here. That is the best assurance I can give the Deputy. What is in the section is, I think, quite clear. Anybody rendered redundant in consequence of a reduction of service brought about by an order, is entitled to compensation. That is quite clear. If, on a quibble, an attempt were made to deprive a person who clearly should get compensation from getting compensation, then we would have an entirely new situation. The policy would be affected and it would give rise to the prospect of additional legislation in the matter.
I quite see that the Minister is going as far as he can go with his assurances in a positive way; but of what value are those assurances to members of the staff who may lose their positions and, having lost their positions, may lose the compensation which the Minister now declares they should get? They will have no means of recovering their employment or obtaining compensation.
That is why I said there might be a prospect of additional legislation. It is quite clear that if I were to find something of that kind happening, the first step to be taken would be, by representation to the company, to endeavour to secure redress of the position. In the event of that not taking place, and in the event of people being deprived of the rights that I consider under the section they are properly entitled to, then it would be a matter of how they would get compensated.
Is it not possible to devise some form of words which would render it unnecessary to introduce that additional legislation?
We could introduce legislation naming individuals, if necessary. I could suggest several ways in which the situation could be met.
There is no doubt the companies will have behind them people with a certain type of mentality who will endeavour to manipulate this thing and evade the Minister's intentions, in the same manner as they have successfully evaded Ministers' intentions before.
But the circumstances are different in this case.
I will withdraw the amendment on the understanding that I shall have a right to move it again on the Report Stage if, having had a talk with the Minister and his advisers, some better method cannot be found to safeguard the people whom we are anxious to safeguard.
What the Minister has stated gives rise, in my opinion, to a rather serious question. Supposing by reason of the economic position of one of these lines it is necessary in order to keep the line open to dismiss certain employees. Supposing that later, because of failure in the endeavour to keep the line open, an order is issued to close down the line — let us take it the order is made six months subsequently — would the employees whose services had been dispensed with make an effort to claim compensation?
They are entitled to make their claim and the arbitrator will decide that claim.
The whole thing raises a very serious responsibility.
For the arbitrator?
I am looking at it from the point of view of the railway company. There are two sides to this question. The position is that already there is a very heavy pension list; there is a very heavy obligation to discharge the pension list lying on the railway company. It appears to me that in view of what the Minister has now stated, the closing of a line, instead of being a certain advantage to a railway company, will now become a very questionable advantage.
An application will have to be made for an order to close down a line.
If a dismissal has taken place before the issue of a closing order and the position of the dismissed person is going to come within the jurisdiction of the arbitrator, that will create a very serious situation.
What the arbitrator will have to decide is whether or not the dismissal arose out of the decision to close the line. If it did, then compensation is payable, but if it did not, there will be no compensation. It is quite clear what the liability of the company is. It is a liability to pay compensation to any employee who loses his employment in consequence of the decision of the company to substitute a road for a rail service.
Deputy Good has referred to the already heavy pension list.
That has no relation to this section.
The Deputy can debate that point on Section 9.
Deputy Good got away with it on this section.
We can return to the subject when we come to Section 9.
We found that the provisions of the original Act relating to compensation did not apply entirely. There are six railway companies affected by this, whereas that Act affected only one. What we have done is we have set out in the Schedule the corresponding section of the 1924 Act, as amended by the 1926 Act, with some minor amendments, and related them to this Bill.
The Minister refers in his amendment to the provisions of the Second Schedule.
Yes.
Where is it?
It is amendment 65.
I take it that amendment 65 can be taken in conjunction with amendment 46.
It is consequential.
Mr. Flynn
It relates to the compensation to be paid and to superannuation allowances to employees whose services will be dispensed with owing to a discontinuance of services on certain sections. As far as it goes, that amendment is very good, but it does not cover all the cases. It does not cover the cases of men in the service of the railway company who were interned in 1922 and 1923. When these men were released they were refused employment, being informed that owing to their political activities they could not be granted the allowances they were entitled to under the terms of their agreement. For a period of 540 days a sum of money was withheld from them. In that way a break occurred in their period of service, which, I hold, is dealt with in this Bill.
And provided for.
Mr. Flynn
It refers to superannuation owing to a break in the services by money being withheld and the agreement not being adhered to by the employers, thus interfering with their superannuation rights. I ask the Minister to see that under the amendment these men will be safeguarded. I go so far as to say that the railway company should be compelled to pay them back the amount which was withheld. A fine of 1/- a day was imposed and was withheld for 540 days. The other provision was that the men should get a clearance certificate from an Officer in the Army. Some of these men were not employed until 1924. The curious thing is that men in the same type of service, and having the same experience and qualifications, who served in the National Army, were not put to this test when they came back, and no such fine was imposed upon them. At this stage, I maintain that the men I am referring to should get the justice to which they are entitled. Under Cumann na nGaedheal, which in most respects was a rotten system of Government, we can prove that the men who were in the National Army and who came back were not deprived of these sums of money and were not denied the justice which was denied to the men I am referring to. I appeal to the Minister to consider the matter, and to compel the railway company to restore the rights which were interfered with owing to the break that occurred in their service during internment for 18 months.
I do not know what is the position concerning the sums of money due to the railway men, but this has nothing to do with the conditions that the Deputy speaks of. If the Deputy gives me information I will have the matter looked into. It is quite clear that any time spent on active service in 1922 or 1923 or in internment is reckoned as service for compensation for men who served pre-truce or who were interned until the end of 1923. That period of internment is reckoned as service.
I understood the Minister to say that because he had discovered that the Third Schedule of the 1924 Act and a later amendment applied to the Great Southern Railways he had to move to amend the provisions of the section. He wants now to extend it to further bodies to which this measure will be applicable, in addition to the Great Southern Railways. I understood him to say that what he had done is to be embodied in the Second Schedule by amendment 65. The provisions of the amending Act No. 25 of 1926——
We adopted the relevant parts of the provisions of that Act.
That is that compensation shall be payable, whether by way of gratuity or otherwise, for years of service. The clause says "certain people shall be entitled to be paid compensation in accordance with the provisions of the Second Schedule to this Act." Then we get this new point introduced and the provisions of the Third Schedule of the Principal Act as amended by the Railways (Existing Officers and Servants) Act, 1926, "relating to arbitration shall apply to claims for compensation made against any amalgamated company." I want to query the use of the phrase, "of the provisions of the 1926 Act relating to arbitration." When I look at the Act there is one section towards the end with the headline "Powers of Arbitrator." That was clearly brought in. Section 2 of the Act of 1926 states:
Every officer and servant... shall, if his services are dispensed with by the amalgamated company within seven years after the passing of the Principal Act... on account of his services having become unnecessary in consequences of changes in administration due directly to the amalgamation and absorption of companies effected by or under the Principal Act and not shown by the amalgamated company to have been caused by decrease of traffic, reduction of renewal or maintenance work...
the person shall become entitled.
Further to that there is a clause which states that if any dispute or question arises there may be an appeal to the standing arbitrator. Does the phrase "the provisions relating to arbitration" drag in not merely that arbitration board, and not merely that reference to the arbitrator, but also the terms and conditions on which arbitration may be resorted to? In other words, if the question at issue or in dispute is whether or not men's services have been dispensed with because of a reduction in traffic, is that the matter hereafter which will come before the Board of Arbitration under the 1926 Act? Does the reference to the provisions relating to arbitration drag in not merely the arbitration board, and not merely that there might be reference to arbitration, but that there might be enough to satisfy what is laid down in the Act of 1926? The second question is: Does this method of giving compensation by a reference more or less to the earlier Act achieve this object? Is there anything to decide that the consequences of the change of administration were due directly to the amalgamation or absorption of the company affected under the principal Act? Of course that is an entirely inapplicable criterion at the moment.
The question is whether a person has been dismissed in consequence of an order made under this Act, and if so to what extent the compensation provisions are applicable to him. All the rest comes in — that the terms and provisions of the 1926 Act relating to arbitration shall apply to all claims for compensation under those Acts. It brings all that in, and I do not think there is any possibility of evading it. I do not clearly follow what the Deputy's difficulty is in that connection. It seems to be an abstruse point, and I must say I did not quite get it. What I set out here is that in the different circumstances, namely, the different occasions for the redundancy, the same provisions relating to arbitration operate.
I will try to put the point more clearly. Let me confine myself to the part of the section, as amended, which deals with the 1926 Act. That reference is merely this — I think I am reading the last part of it correctly, as the section will appear hereafter—"the provisions of the Third Schedule of the Principal Act as amended by the Railways (Existing Officers and Servants) Act, 1926, relating to arbitration shall apply to all claims for compensation made under those Acts." The application of the Third Schedule, as amended, of the 1926 Act, is to be limited to the provisions relating to arbitration. What are these? The special provision, Section 8 of the 1926 Act, said certain things about that. The only other reference to arbitration is in Section 2 of the 1926 Act. Sub-section (2) of Section 2 says: "If any dispute or question shall arise between the amalgamated company and any officer or servant of the amalgamated company on any matter arising under this section, such officer or servant may appeal to the standing arbitrator." On what? On any dispute or question arising between the amalgamated company and any officer or servant of the company on any matter arising under the section. What matter could arise under the section? The matter mentioned in sub-section (1) of Section 2, that is where a man's services have become unnecessary in consequence of changes of administration due directly to the amalgamation. That is no longer at issue. How then do they get a footing before the arbitrator? The second part of the clause in which reference was made to the arbitrator is only incidental. The first question that had to be discussed was whether a man's services had become unnecessary in consequence of changes of administration. The second part of the clause only arises as a rebuttal to the first point, namely, whether the services were unnecessary owing to the amalgamation; but the first point can never arise. How then does this come into force?
The sub-section says: "If any dispute or question shall arise between the amalgamated company and any officer or servant of the amalgamated company on any matter arising under this section." In addition, any matters arising under that section of "claims for compensation made against any railway company under this Act," are brought in. In addition to the matters that arise on the last section amendment 46 provides that claims for compensation arising under this Act——
Where is the precise part of the measure from which the Minister is quoting?
I am quoting from amendment 46. That says that disputes on matters arising under that section shall be settled in a particular way. Amendment 46 says that the provisions relating to compensation payable by the company under this Act shall apply in like manner as such provisions apply to claims for compensation made against the amalgamated company under those Acts. What this is doing is amending the original Act so as to bring under the arbitration provision claims for compensation arising under this Bill.
This is again a question to be looked into by the draftsman. If he passes it I am going to be satisfied. All provisions of the early Act relating to arbitration shall apply to claims for compensation made under this Act, but the original provision about compensation only applied on account of amalgamation?
Quite.
Then how can you say that they will apply to claims for compensation under this Act where amalgamation does not come in?
We are not saying that. We are saying they shall also apply to claims for compensation arising under this Bill. It is purely a drafting amendment. I do not know if there is anything in it, but I will have the matter looked into.
My point can be put in this way, that any question arising out of compensation in the original Act is tied up entirely and completely with the amalgamation of the railways causing dismissals.
Directly due to amalgamation?
And we bring in, in addition, claims arising under this Act.
And you say that the provisions relating to compensation originally, tied up in the whole essence of the thing with dismissals——
Directly due to amalgamation.
That interjection is merely a red herring.
A red herring which you salted.
The salt is being swallowed with some gusto at the moment by people who previously objected to it. It seems to me that the provisions are tied up completely with dismissals due to amalgamation. I do not see how you can apply them to claims for compensation which have nothing to do with amalgamation.
I move amendment 48:—
To delete sub-section (4).
The Minister has admitted that the application of clause (e) of sub-section (3) is going to affect quite seriously the advantages given to the company with reference to the uneconomic parts of their land, and sub-section (4) proposes to impose very serious restrictions on the company's present powers. At present in certain parts of the lines they are free to discontinue the service, and the Minister proposes to take away that power from them. I just wish to point out that in so doing he is going to take away the greater part of the advantages which he proposes to give the company. It will be a most serious disability, and there appears to be no reason why such further restrictions should be put upon them in a Bill in which the Minister professes to confer benefits on the railway company.
The Deputy of course must take into account the fact that in this legislation we are also putting the railway companies in a position to acquire an effective monopoly of transport services, and what, in effect, we say to them here is that if they get that monopoly they must supply the services. They cannot leave the country without transport facilities. In effect, what sub-section (4) as amended says is this: You may increase or decrease the services according to the traffic offering without any reference to the Minister or without any part of this section operating, but if you decide to cease the services altogether or to reduce them so that, in proportion to the traffic offering, they are less than they were in the first week of January this year, then certain conditions operate. One is that they must provide an alternative road service in adequate volume.
They must?
Even if uneconomic?
Quite. In effect, what we are saying to the railway company is this: We are assuming that the conditions created by this Bill are going to enable you to get a monopoly. In these circumstances they are not merely going to benefit by that situation, but we are putting on them this obligation: that they must provide in each part of the country the services that are required. We say, in effect, to the railway company: you were providing a railway service of a certain magnitude in the first week of January this year. You must continue a railway service, as regards convenience and volume, having regard to the traffic offering, not less than what you provided in the first week of January this year. If you decide to shut down or to reduce the service so that the public convenience is definitely lessened, then you must get a Ministerial order, and at the same time provide on the roads a compensating service that will ensure that the public convenience will be met, and also provide compensation for redundant employees. That is the effect of the section. In a sense it is putting an additional obligation on the company. As the Deputy said, they could in fact at the present time close a great part of their system. They are under no statutory obligation to maintain the services on it. There is some doubt as to whether they could abandon the railway, but they could undoubtedly reduce the service to a train a week without breaking any statutory obligation. Now they will be required to keep a service going on all the system in the circumstances I have mentioned similar to that operated in the first week of January this year unless they get a Ministerial order to the contrary: that is unless they satisfy the public authorities that it is in the public interest to do so, and unless they provide an alternative road service in equal volume and compensate the employees rendered redundant. We do not think it is unreasonable they should do that as we will have to rely on them entirely for our transport convenience in the future.
I do not dispute the general principle as stated by the Minister. I understood the Minister to say that the company would only be allowed to discontinue services or part of services according as traffic offered, but that is not what the sub-section says.
I am proposing to amend the sub-section.
Would the Minister explain the force of his amendments?
Amendment 49 proposes that the service to be maintained upon the system, or any part of the system, shall have the same relation to the traffic that is offering as the service in the first week of January had to the traffic that offered then. I grant to Deputies that is not very easy to follow, but I think I can make it somewhat clearer. In effect, it means this, that if only half the number of passengers are ordinarily travelling, or only half the volume of merchandise is ordinarily being offered as against the number of passengers and volume of merchandise in the first week of January of this year, then the railway company can reduce their services roughly by half without any order, but if the number of passengers travelling and the volume of traffic offered is reduced to half, and they want to stop the service altogether, then in the first place they must get an order and provide a road service to convey the half that is left.
Where is road service in this?
Under sub-section (2).
Is not the Minister assuming that the service in the first week of January this year is economically sound; that is, that the number of passengers travelling and the quantities of merchandise carried are adequate?
Well, of course we had to take some critical period. We took the last week in January, forgetting that on one day in the week the strike was in progress. We then took the first week. It does not appear to make much difference which week is taken. The services do not vary much from day to day, apart from abnormal periods such as the Christmas season. We took the first week in January, but we might have taken any other week in that month. I do not think it would have made much difference.
I do not wish to appear unreasonable. I am perfectly satisfied with the general principle that the railway company shall have to go to the Minister if they want to do anything in connection with their service which does not correspond with traffic demands. I think the amendment introduced by the Minister is a great improvement on the situation. I recognise that in this correlation between traffic services and changes in traffic demands you must take some particular period. I do not know why the Minister took the first week in January. It does not matter much, I imagine, unless you were to take a period which did happen to go before some particularly important changes in the company's services. I have no information to say whether this particular period has any special relation to the services supplied by the railway company or to special changes made by it.
That week was generally speaking, a normal week.
And followed by no particular changes?
No.
I think the amendment is a very considerable improvement but who is to be the judge of the correlation? Would the company be allowed to judge? If they only make their services correspond with the changes in the traffic offered and the numbers travelling, will the Minister be able to pull them up for doing something which they should not have done without an order?
I think this amendment is going to render the administrative life of the Minister unbearable unless he decides to throw his hat at all this. How is he going to make the judgments that he is called upon to make? I would like to know if I am right in this: that this sub-section has nothing to do with the "service of trains" as amended and explained by Section 36 on the Paper?
It has something to do with it.
I thought at first it had, but in the last two or three minutes I began to feel that, rather deliberately, certain amendments had been made to cut out that definition because the phrase "service of trains," which used to occur twice in this sub-section, has been deleted by the Minister's amendment.
It has this to do with it, that all that series of amendments are designed to achieve the purpose I have explained.
Getting away from the definition of "service of trains," has sub-section (4) anything to do hereafter with substituting road services for rail services? Has it anything to do with it at all? If it has, how?
Sub-section (4) says that the rail services shall be maintained at the level which was maintained during the first week of January of this year, varying up and down as the traffic varies. If they want to go beyond that they must get an Order, which Order will not be made unless they provide road services to make good the deficiency in the rail services.
I get muddled and I do not think I can be blamed for getting muddled because there have been four destructive amendments of the first point. I assume that it is correct that the phrase "service of trains" has disappeared from sub-section (4) and, consequently, that there is not imported into it the idea which is at the back of the definition of "service of trains" as given in amendment 36, which was that you could not take the traffic off the railway and put it on the road without a Ministerial Order?
Yes.
The sub-section as it stood said, or I think this was the general import of the sub-section, that some period in the month of January was taken as the normal period. It used to be the last seven days and it is now the first seven days of January. It was assumed that the railways were running a service of trains which was only just economical at that time for the traffic which was then offering. Of course, that first argument can be shown to be a falsity. I think that one of the railway companies argued that it was losing many thousands of pounds running services in the first week of January.
That might be due to the fact that they had to carry at uneconomic rates.
Very good, then, they were running services which were uneconomic. The Minister pretends in this sub-section that he is going to prevent that by reducing the rail service given in that week except in the proportion by which the traffic then operating falls, and then only to the extent of the facilities given during that week of January. That is a terriffic thing for him to say in relation to train services. What is to be the new allowance? That is one phrase here that will cause considerable difficulty in interpretation. As a matter of fact, I cannot see any phrase here that would not cause considerable difficulty. What I am seeking is how it is to be interpreted. We are told that
"no railway company shall reduce or alter the service of trains run over their railway line or any section thereof to such an extent or in such manner as to afford facilities for the transport of passengers, merchandise, or mails ..."
Substantially less.
Yes, "substantially less." And here is the criterion by which it is to be judged: "In proportion to the traffic for the time being available for transport by rail." What does that mean? Let us take the passengers as being the subject of consideration. Does it mean the passengers who can be driven on to the rail by some means or those who would prefer the rail to the road or who could be induced to go back to the rail by some other means? What does "available for transport" mean in that connection? That, I think, is the biggest thing the Minister will be up against to decide and the most difficult point on which any layman could be asked to make up his mind.
I said that there are going to be considerable difficulties in any of the phraseology used in this sub-section. Why should any stated period in the year be taken and why should it be assumed that the service at that period was economic in relation to the traffic operating? I have down an amendment which I do not think would offer any great help to anybody trying to decide the matter. My amendment says: "They shall not reduce or alter the service of trains 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 reasonably required to deal with the amount of passenger, merchandise and mail traffic offered, having regard to the facilities alternatively afforded." I would not care to be the person having to pass a judgment on that amendment either. But, at any rate, I think that it is not founded on a bad basis, in the way in which this particular sub-section is. However, I think, right at the start, that it is to be taken for granted that the services as run on the first week of January this year were not economic and that this was being regarded as a standard week for this purpose. I think the service would have been much less than what would have been given then. Would it not be better, on the whole, to say — we have now in the previous part of this section dealt with the case where deliberately and obviously the aim is to remove traffic then offering on the rail to the road — that that cannot take place unless the Minister has an application made to him, unless the Minister is satisfied that the railway company should be authorised to do so, and unless the Minister is so satisfied and thereafter gives his order. That, I think, is the change that the Labour Deputies and anybody else in this House, who is particularly concerned with railway traffic, is particularly interested in — the change from road to rail. But this sub-section should deal with an entirely different matter — not substituted services but the dropping of services — not because the railway wants to drive traffic on to the roads but because they feel that there is not any traffic. Why should not that be left to the railway company?
It is.
Well, if it is, I could approve of the whole thing, but the Minister harked me back to sub-section (2) which has been amended by his amendment 40 and that seemed to drag in the Ministerial Order. If the Ministerial Order has nothing to do with this, then, I have been arguing futilely. But I understood him to say that it is required for a reduction of services below a point. It is not if the traffic falls, but if the railway company are, as I hope, the arbiters who will decide that the train services may be discontinued because in proportion as the traffic available for the time being is less proportionately than in the first week of January, 1933, would it not be better to be clear, definite and decisive about it and leave it to the Railway Company, always having the hold over them that they will not be enabled to substitute road traffic in order to draw off traffic from the railway? The Minister still has that hold over them.
Not unless some such sub-section as this appears in the Bill.
Oh, surely! The Minister is the guardian hereafter of two things — the new licence to be granted to the railway company and the transfer of licences to the Railway Company. Can he not always control that? Is the traffic still offering and ordinarily borne by the railway to be borne by it still, or the traffic borne by the road to be transferred to the rail?
I understand we are concerned here with preserving an adequate railway service, because we are giving the railway company a monopoly. There was no question that the service was adequate up to January for all the traffic the railway was carrying. If anything it was superfluous. Here we are now giving a real safeguard to the railway. But what I would like to see would be this: The Minister saying to the railway company: "You have been employing X trains carrying Y traffic and you shall not reduce to half X trains unless traffic falls to half Y without coming to me."
We have said that.
No, you have brought in this term "available for transport." That means a phantasmagoria in consequence of which it is very hard to arrive at a conclusion. It would be best to use terms that could be easily checked. It might be said that the railway carried £100,000 worth of transport in ten trains, at a given period, and that they must satisfy the Minister that their traffic, for the last few weeks, has been not more than £50,000 on that particular branch line or else they could not reduce their service. The Minister would say to the railway company: "You have done wrong if you reduced your service unless you can prove the existence of these facts." There you have a concrete calculation, but if the railway company can introduce a question as to traffic that was available for transport, it reduces the thing to an endless mess as to the meaning of these words. What I have suggested is a rough and ready way of putting a check on the railway company. I suggest it should be a question of so much traffic, and so many trains, and that the Minister should say to the railway company: "You must not alter these conditions without a special order from me which I will not give unless very special considerations are raised." I agree with Deputy McGilligan that introducing these words "available for transport" must raise serious difficulty. I entirely differ from Deputy Thrift in his attitude towards this matter, and I am amazed that Deputy Good and Deputy Dockrell would consent to the removal of the sub-section. We are giving the railway a great deal and we ought to do something to compel the railway to maintain an adequate service.
The procedure will be that the railway company will vary its service having regard to the demand. If they do not lessen the public convenience we will not hear about it. If they do, and a complaint is laid that the public convenience is interfered with, that services are substantially less than those that existed on the 14th of January, having regard to the traffic offered for transport, then an inquiry will take place. If the inquiry shows that, in fact, the railway company is lessening the train services to such an extent that they have fallen below the point which is equivalent to the January services they are acting contrary to this section, they will have to apply for an order under this section. That is clearly what would happen.
The only order is under the discontinued services but the discontinued service of trains is defined.
I can see considerable administrative difficulties arising, if the volume of traffic offered continues to decline substantially. But I think we can contemplate that in relation to the first week of January in this year the volume of traffic, having regard to the Road Transport Bill may increase, and if it increases, the difficulties that would arise are diminished accordingly. If there is no diminution of traffic a minimum service of trains is clearly indicated. It is only if traffic falls substantially that administrative difficulties will arise. I do not say that they are impossible of solution. It is a rough and ready way of dealing with the matter. The railway company can vary their service downward if the traffic diminishes. If they are forcing traffic on to the roads then the railway company must provide the road services.
Why bring in the words "available for traffic by rail"?
I think that is clear. Take the figures for a week or a fortnight or a month before the date on which you are investigating the service. You know what volume of merchandise was offered in that period and you relate that to similar figures for the 1st of January this year. If the figures show there is a continuous falling off of traffic then a reduction of the train service is called for. If the figures do not show that you decide that there should be no diminution of the service.
Is the Minister satisfied that these words are sufficiently satisfactory? Would it not be better to have some such words as "in proportion to the traffic for the immediate preceding period"?
No. I think the words are quite clear.
How does the Minister make out they are quite clear? Would not they include all the traffic in that district for that week, traffic by bus, traffic by lorries and all available traffic?
I appeal to the Minister to keep this phrase in and not to omit it by going back. The Minister quoted the phrase line 20 sub-section 4 "substantially less in quantity or convenience than the facilities for such transport given by the service of trains run over such lines or sections during the last seven days of the month of January, 1933". I think that is so befogged that it will waste the Minister's time to an extraordinary degree.
Then is the Deputy joking when he asked the Minister to leave it as it is?
I want them kept in, because they will give the railway companies much more power to fit their services to the traffic offered than the impediments put upon them by the original sub-section. The original sub-section tied them up in every possible way without any relaxation.
I do not think so. The railway companies should be allowed to vary services in proportion to the traffic, but if they vary their policy, and put on the road, traffic that was available for the rail, they must get an order.
I have two other points to make. It seems to me the Minister has not power now if this is passed to meet a situation like this. Supposing it is proved to him with with regard to a particular railway line that on a service given on the 1st of January, 1933, the company were in fact losing money. Could he allow them to reduce their services after and what will then be the economic point if the traffic is still further gone or must he always keep them on that datum line of loss?
At any time they can reduce the service by order.
That is what I want to find out. How can he reduce by order? He can only allow a reduction as authorised under the section. What does the section authorise? The whole thing, under the rest of the section, is tied up with this peculiar definition which has come in late and has upset the section somewhat —"service of trains." I think the Minister will agree, as he did previously, that "service of trains" as defined means a substituted road service for the future. The Minister can only allow a reduction on the rail if there is to be a substituted road service. How is that going to help the railway company out of the difficulty it finds itself in hereafter — that it is losing its traffic by so many thousands of pounds per week, and traffic has gone still further away from it? It appeals to the Minister and he says: "I am sorry, but under the measure I have to tie you to the £9,000 loss; I can transfer part of the loss to the road, but I cannot relieve you from the loss." Is that the situation? If it is not the situation, how does the Minister propose to get out of the difficulty?
That is the second point I want to urge, that the introduction of the phrase: "service of trains," has, I think, given a completely new turn to the whole section. I thought it was meant to be so important, that the turn given was so deliberate, that you had to read that definition into this sub-section (4) of Section 8. Then I found the phrase "service of trains," had disappeared. But there is still the connection that the railway company cannot reduce under sub-section (4) its train service except as authorised by the section, and the only thing authorised by the section is that the Minister can give an order to discontinue, wholly or in part the services of trains, and the services of trains means not to discontinue services altogether, but to substitute road for rail. I think that is the correct linking together of the different clauses, and if it is, I think the Minister is in the difficulty I have outlined.
The Minister has taken a certain date and says it is more or less a random date. As a matter of fact, it is a random date taken at a very bad time when admittedly services, as compared with traffic, were uneconomic. Will the Minister think of taking the month——
This is a proposal that is going to simplify it, because we think we can anticipate, by the time the section becomes operative and the Road Transport Act becomes operative, that we can look for an increase in traffic over the amount offering in January this year.
It depends on our optimistic powers.
I move amendment 49:
In sub-section (4), in line 17 to insert the word "railway" before the word "service" and to delete the words "of trains," in the same line in line 20 to delete the words "in quantity or convenience" and substitute the words "in proportion to the traffic for the time being available for transport by rail," in line 21 to insert the word "railway" before the word "service" and to delete the words "of trains" in the same line and in line 22 to delete the word "last" and substitute the word "first."
Is the Minister completely free from doubt in this matter?
This may never arise really.
If traffic increases, it will never arise.
I want to put this to you, sir, about this amendment. The amendment proposes alterations of the Cork City Railways Act, 1906, that was passed under Private Bill procedure. I submit it would be irregular to amend that Act by an amendment of this kind, and that if such an amendment were in fact considered desirable that the harbour authorities and other public authorities interested should have an opportunity of being heard before a committee such as would be established if the Private Bill procedure were followed in this case.
If the Minister takes up that attitude and wishes to hear representations from the Cork Harbour Board, I do not think there is any objection to withdrawing the amendment if he will allow us to put it forward on the Report Stage, having heard representations from those concerned.
If the Great Southern Railways Company want to get that enacted they should do so by Private Bill. They attempted to do so by Private Bill but it was defeated. Whether it would meet with more success now I cannot say, but it should be by Private Bill, so that there should be by Private Bill Committee before which all the interested parties could appear by counsel and make their case. In any event, I may point out to Deputy Dockrell that this amendment was resurrected from 1928 and does not make allowance for changes which took place since, such as the restoration of the Cork City Council.
Minor infirmities such as that would not make any difference it the principle were accepted.
Surely the Minister is challenging a very grave right of the House, that is, at any time to introduce legislation of a general character which might cut across previous Private Bill legislation.
This whole Bill is an example of it.
On the point raised by the Minister that this amendment is out of order as cutting across Private Bill legislation, it would be possible to cite many instances of Acts passed in this House which were introduced and proceeded as Public Bills and which cut across Private Bill legislation. I certainly could not rule this amendment out on that account.
This amendment affects one harbour authority only, and if passed would possibly involve an increase in the rates in Cork City, and on that account a special consideration applies which would not apply if the amendment had a general application. However, I will not argue the point further with the Chair.
I move the amendment. I should like to urge on the Minister that people cannot have it both ways. As far as the citizens of Cork are concerned, when the railway company put up this bridge representation was made to them and a bridge was put up which provided for rail traffic and for pedestrian and vehicular traffic. Undoubtedly the portion of the bridge put up for carrying vehicular and pedestrian traffic was put up at the representations of the citizens of Cork and for their advantage and it conferred considerable advantage upon them. It saved a long detour for certain traffic and saved congestion and wear and tear on the streets. The position is that if the railway company had merely put up a railway bridge there would have been no question now when they come forward and say: "We will either give it to Cork or we will take it away." What could be fairer than that? By reason of their having convenienced the citizens of Cork they are now to be told that they cannot take the bridge away. "It is no good to you, you must leave it there for us." Is that fair? I submit that this proposal of the railway company, "Either we will leave the bridge there or we will take it away," must be decided by the Cork people saying: "Either we want the bridge or we do not want the bridge." What is the position of the Cork people? They are being dowered with a bridge. All they are asked to do is to walk in and work it, to open it and shut it. I submit to you that that is an eminently reasonable proposal. I suggest that the Minister should find out what the suggestion of the citizens of Cork is. Either they want the bridge or they do not want it. I suggest that is the only decision that this House has to come to.
Is Deputy Dockrell moving the amendment?
Yes.
Mr. Broderick
As I follow his argument, his whole case against the railway fulfiling its obligation here is simply that these bridges facilitate the people of Cork — a purely selfish attitude to take up. There was an amalgamation of the services of the whole railway traffic of Cork City and County. I do not want now to go into the matters referred to in the petitions when the Private Bill was brought forward in 1928 except merely to say that the Bill was withdrawn as a result of the petition. I oppose this amendment on behalf of every interest in Cork City and County — the Cork Harbour Commissioners, the Cork County Council, the Cork Corporation and in the interests even of labour. Let me quote from a letter of the Cork Harbour Commissioners on this matter:—
"My Commissioners desire me to inform you that they most earnestly protest against the acceptance of this amendment, as the removal of these bridges will most seriously affect traffic through the port of Cork, while paralysing communication between other portions of the County of Cork and the railway system of the country generally. These bridges and the railway crossing them form a vital link binding together for traffic purposes the trade and commerce of the country."
This is a resolution from the railwaymen affected:—
"That the retention of the Cork City railway bridges for rail, pedestrian and vehicular traffic is a vital necessity to the well-being and prosperity of the trade and commerce of the City and County of Cork and the South of Ireland generally. Therefore, the closing, removing or restricting of the free use should not be permitted."
It is extraordinary that such a considerable time after those bridges were built such a proposal should be made. When these railways were linked up much jubilation was felt in Cork City and County. It is extraordinary that such a retrograde step is now to be adopted under this Bill as to break asunder again that whole centralisation. The only reason Deputy Dockrell could assign was that it was a convenience to Cork City and that if it was a convenience they had a right to pay for it. He said nothing at all about the fact that it was a connecting link for the railways. The Minister in this House has shown every disposition to help the railways as far as possible and I for one would support him in that, but this thing can be brought to too fine a point. The attitude, apparently, is that you must facilitate them in every way, but once they are called upon to pay for anything, it must be lopped off. If you develop that principle sufficiently it may be said that the only obligation that should be imposed upon them is that of collecting revenue and that every other national interest should be left to pay their liabilities. On behalf of every interest in Cork City and County, I oppose this amendment as a retrograde step.
I do not know whether it is amazement or amusement that prompts me to get up to speak on this matter. Cork frequently provokes both those feelings and I think that Cork Deputies in this Dáil have a very warm corner in our hearts. They are shrewd, logical and clever in every respect until the interests of Cork come into the field and then they fling their hats over the moon. They cry: "Cork, Cork, my city, right or wrong! Bother logic, bother ridicule; away with every sense of decency; let us do a job for Cork."
Mr. Broderick
I beg the Deputy's pardon. That should be withdrawn.
I certainly do not want to hurt the feelings of the Cork Deputies.
Mr. Broderick
It is not the feelings of the Cork Deputies that are at stake; it is a regard for truth.
Let us benefit Cork! What is Ireland made for but to benefit Cork!
Mr. Broderick
I am glad you realise that.
The situation as it presents itself to me is as follows: This railway was one of the babes that were handed to the company in 1924 to hold. We got a whole flock of them. Nobody would look after them and we gave them to the railway company to nurse them. This was a very expensive child. As far as I can see these bridges are not wanted for the transport services which we are commissioning the railways to carry out in future. Their use at present is admittedly for the vehicular and pedestrian convenience of Cork. The city did not pay for the bridges originally. If I am rightly informed the bridges were put up by the Cork City railways originally and a big capital sum was spent on them. The railway company proposes to hand over these bridges, built and all, for the convenience of the pedestrian and vehicular traffic of Cork City. Because the railway in the past has used these bridges for this railway traffic and on that account had to open and close them and regulate them, the city proceeds to say: "You do not want to use them for the railways; that does not mean that we do not want to use them, but because we do, you are going to pay for the upkeep of them."
Mr. Broderick
On a point of information we are entitled to know who says the railway company are not going to use the bridges for their own convenience?
They are using them still.
Who sponsored them in the beginning?
Mr. Broderick
Deputy Alton chided me with regard to the welfare of Cork citizens.
Every Cork Deputy can speak on this matter afterwards. There is really no need to interrupt Deputy Alton.
Mr. Broderick
I would like to be perfectly correct as to the ruling of the Chair to which, of course, I will bow unhesitatingly. When Deputy Alton states what is not correct, am I not entitled to correct him?
The Deputy must not interrupt except on a point of order. He can reserve his observations and correct Deputy Alton afterwards.
In my opinion the request submitted by the railway company is a most reasonable one. I cannot understand why any logical Cork citizen should insist that this private company should take upon its back the expense of the maintenance of certain Cork City utilities and amenities. That is the case as it presents itself to me. If any Cork Deputy can show me I am wrong I will apologise both to Cork and to the Deputy. I do not love Cork Deputies any the less for their action in championing their city so vigorously but I think sometimes they do present a case that is not quite logical. I hope that to charge a Cork Deputy with being a little bit illogical is not going beyond the bounds of order.
I am sure we are all very grateful to Deputy Dockrell and Deputy Alton for their interest in Cork. They are both very charming gentlemen and very popular in this House, but I do not think they have made even a shred of a case for the adoption of this amendment. As my colleague, Deputy Burke, pointed out, those bridges were put up originally at the request of the railway company. They have served the railway company for a number of years and they are serving them still but perhaps not entirely to the extent originally intended. The Deputy and I, when on the way to the station this week, could see employees of the railway company repairing the permanent way that goes over the bridges in question.
Deputy Broderick, the chairman of the Cork County Council, has rightly said that he represents the feelings of the people when he expressed determined opposition to the adoption of this proposal. The fact that no Deputy from the city or county, who would have some right to discuss this matter with a sense of responsibility, will utter a single word in support of the proposal, proves conclusively that the people of Cork City and County are definitely opposed to the suggestion. The bridges were erected originally for the convenience of the railway company. They have served that purpose up to the present and are still serving it. I think it is a particularly shabby proposal to endeavour to introduce into this Bill. I will support the attitude taken up by Deputy Broderick on behalf of the county council and other bodies. I hope the House will, without any hesitation and even without any prolonged debate, reject this amendment.
If I may be permitted to say it without any irreverence, I am sorry the holy hour has not been extended to this House this evening. Had it been it would have spared us a great deal of the nonsense and the foolish talk we have listened to from the learned professor. Like many professors I have known, the Deputy was talking here upon a subject of which he knows little or nothing. It happens that I know some little thing about the building of these bridges in Cork. I happened to be called upon at the time to give evidence in connection with the building of the bridges. I am aware that those bridges were not only sponsored by the railway company, but the company contributed large sums of money towards the expenses incurred in their construction. It would be a grave injustice to Cork if this proposal, which undoubtedly has been put forward by the railway company, were adopted. I never knew of any proposal before the House against which there is a stronger feeling. I trust the House will reject it.
I must say it causes me serious concern to find myself in opposition to Deputy Broderick and Deputy Burke. On this occasion I feel that justice demands that it should be said the railway company were doing a favour to the people of Cork when they built these bridges. The railway company, when building the bridges, might very well have built them for the exclusive use of railway traffic and they might have denied the Cork people all the incidental advantages that the Cork people have for many years enjoyed. Instead of that the railway company, acting in a public spirited way, when the bridges were being erected at very little additional public expense, made them available to the citizens for daily use. For years the citizens have enjoyed the amenity. Now comes the time when the Minister for Industry and Commerce sets his hand to the task of plundering the widow and orphan for the purpose of maintaining the finances of the railway company. The Deputies from Cork suggest that we should proceed to confiscate the property of trustees and charities to an even greater extent than we are doing for the purpose of subsidising the railway company in order to maintain these bridges which they desire in the cause of economy to be rid of.
The company do not propose for a moment to withdraw them from the people of Cork; they do not propose to incommode the people of Cork. The people of Cork have enjoyed these amenities for nothing. All the railway company say now is: "Our financial conditions are such that we must get rid of these structures if reasonable economy is to be observed in our operating costs, and before we get rid of them we invite the people of Cork to take them over at no expense except the cost of maintaining them." Was there ever a more reasonable proposal made by any body of men? They will hand them over to the people of Cork on one condition and that is that they relieve the railway company from the statutory obligation to maintain the bridges. They want no other compensation.
Will they guarantee the railway service?
It will be for the people of Cork to say whether they will or not. Deputy Murphy said that a powerful argument against this amendment was the unanimity of the Cork Deputies in their opposition to it. The fact of the matter is that the Cork Deputies are here getting for the people of Cork something for nothing. I can assure the Deputy that if I ever asked the Minister to give something for nothing to the people of Donegal, Deputy McMenamin and other Deputies would be hot on my heels.
The Deputy must remember that Cork County contributed a large sum of money towards the erection of these bridges.
So far as Deputy Dillon is concerned, that is a mere detail.
It is purely a question of what is considered fair and just. I fully appreciate that Cork County contributed to the construction of the bridges. I am perfectly certain, however, that a county council which had the sagacity to choose Deputy Broderick for its chairman did not offer to contribute unless they had made up their minds that the people of Cork would derive considerable benefit, and they did derive considerable benefit in the past.
Now the railway company says: "We are not able to maintain these luxuries any longer. If Cork is to maintain them they are welcome to do so. We ask for no compensation except that they should take over the statutory obligation to maintain them." Taking into consideration what we are doing with the capital of the company, and that we may be passing legislation which may mean unemployment for many men owing to redundancy, is it not reasonable for the company to say: "Here is a chance of saving £3,000 yearly without injuring anyone. All we ask for is power to end an archaic state of affairs." I think that is not unreasonable. If Deputy Broderick examines the matter, not as a Cork man, not as a lawyer, and not as a custodian of the people's right, but in a detached way, looking at it as if this were a bridge in County Donegal, I think he would be the first to confess that the proposition of the railway company was an equitable and a fair one, and that to ask that the public should maintain these bridges is fair and just.
It seems to me that there is an attempt at provocation with regard to this Bill so far as Cork Deputies are concerned. There has been a great display of temper, not alone this evening, but earlier in the proceedings with regard to the cutting down of the capital of the company, and an attempt is now made, and is supported by Deputy Dillon, to hand over some of the most valuable fixed assets of the railway company.
Deputy Dillon gave away his case when he said that Deputy Broderick was the custodian of the people's rights.
It would be just as equitable to ask the Lord Mayor or the Corporation of Dublin to maintain Kingsbridge, as to ask Cork Corporation to maintain these bridges, which are as integral a part of the railway company as Kingsbridge is. These bridges were not entirely built by the railway company. Cork County contributed a very large proportion of the cost, not alone for the actual structures, but to promote the Bill under which they were built. The railway company at the time derived such important advantages from the construction of the bridges that they moved heaven and earth in that direction. No obstacles were placed in the way of their erection, and for very many years the company did not offer any objection to their maintenance, not only of the railway portion, but also of the portion for passenger and vehicular traffic. The railway company also derived advantages because Cork Harbour Board, and other persons interested, made quays and sidings there, and in that way traffic was directly moved on to the railways that previously went by road. It was essentially a case where road traffic was diverted to the railways. Some Deputies do not realise that if this service is cut off, and if there is any interference with the bridges, West Cork will be cut off from the rest of Ireland. Would not that be a calamity? The importance of Cork County may be realised when it is remembered that we pay one-seventh of those important things known as the land annuities. In this matter, we expect that the views of the County Cork, and particularly the commercial interests of West Cork, will be heard. We must remember that this is not the last generation. We must not imagine because the railways are in the position they are to-day that that will last forever. There will be a change some time and the railways will come into their own again. The world is becoming smaller every day and facilities for quicker linking up with places far apart are becoming more frequent.
There has been a lot of talk about an airport for Galway and an airport for Cobh. In West Cork we have more advantages than either of these places. We have Bantry, which stands out by itself, whether as an airport or as a seaport. It is 40 miles further west than Galway and it is a day's steaming nearer to New York than Cobh. In the future, when all Europe is linked up more closely with us, it will be more important than ever to see that the bridges are properly maintained and that the railway services between Dublin, Rosslare and Bantry work uninterruptedly. I maintain that any interference with the bridges would mean cutting the jugular vein of the Great Southern Railways in the south.
I notice that Deputy Dillon always approaches any question or any problem that arises in this House by stating that he is seriously concerned or profoundly stirred. I am really pleased on this occasion to use his own words, to hear that he is profoundly stirred and seriously concerned because Cork County, through its representatives here, are objecting to be penalised by the Great Southern Railways Company through being compelled to maintain these bridges, out of which the company must have made considerable profit in the past. Deputy Dillon asked us to take a detached view, and in that wonderful simplicity of words and mind he went on to say that the Cork Deputies should detach themselves as far away as Donegal, and look at the problem from the Donegal man's point of view. Well, Deputy Dillon was very eloquent the other evening when he referred to Deputy Davin's crocodile tears, but they were as nought, and were not as a drop of water in the Red Sea——
I never used the expression.
——to the crocodile tears that Deputy Dillon shed in this House over the widows and orphans who are the victims of this terrible monster, the Minister for Industry and Commerce, who introduced this Bill. Crocodile tears have been shed by Deputy Dillon. The chickens have come home to roost.
That is one for Cork, anyway.
Now we find Deputy Dillon all through this Bill shedding crocodile tears over the widows and orphans, and to-night with his usual ingenious kind of speech, he pretends to shed further crocodile tears, which, I am sure, will nearly swell the Lee. He pretends to shed crocodile tears over the citizens of Cork who will be deprived of these bridges. I do not speak as custodian of the property of the widows and orphans about whom Deputy Dillon has spoken so frequently during this debate; I speak as custodian of the rights of the citizens of Cork. Those bridges have undoubtedly been of some advantage to the citizens of Cork, but they have been of more advantage still to the railway systems. The railway company has enjoyed many fat years as a result of the accommodation provided by those bridges, and surely because of the fact that they have now entered on a lean period, they are not going to ask the citizens of Cork to maintain those bridges. I feel that the Minister — who may have done some foolish things in this Parliament, and even in the last Parliament — will not cap all his foolishness by accepting an amendment such as that put down here in the names of Deputy Thrift, Deputy Good, Deputy Dockrell and Deputy Alton. It requires no stretch of the imagination, even of the most recent members of this Dáil, to suggest that none of those gentlemen represents anything that might be considered industrial national effort. You are asked to accept in this amendment an idea which will place in a privileged position for all time those people who have endeavoured to maintain that privileged position in this country far too long. It would be most unfair and unjust, to say the least of it, to expect the Cork County Council, the Cork Harbour Commissioners, or the Cork City Council, to maintain those bridges, simply because the railway company say that they are now in a position when they are no longer able to maintain them. I am one of those optimistic enough to believe that the railway companies will not always be in the unfortunate position in which they now find themselves, but that in the very near future, as a result of the operation of the Road Transport Bill, the Road Traffic Bill and the Bill we are now discussing — the Railways Bill — they will find themselves in a sound economic position. Because of that fact, and for the other reasons I have advanced, I intend to vote against this amendment, and I ask the House to reject it in the interests of fair play and justice.
I rise in support of this amendment. It is a curious thing that, whatever way Cork Deputies may differ about anything and everything else, the moment anything affecting Cork City or County is raised in this House they are all fiercely Cork men, and they are all, I notice, jointly and severally, the custodians of the interests of the people of Cork. What interests are they concerned with here? Deputy Dillon said a good deal about this; I would like to say more. What is involved here? What are the facts? There are a few bridges down in Cork — apparently somewhere across the River Lee, because Deputy Anthony said it is likely to swell with Deputy Dillon's crocodile tears — and the railway company having ceased to use them——
A Deputy
They are using them still.
The railway company asks the citizens to give some consideration for the benefits received. The citizens of Cork who derived those benefits ought to do something in connection with those bridges. What is that? The elementary act of maintaining the thing they use. Deputy Anthony has referred to Deputy Dillon's crocodile tears over the widows and orphans. Are the people of Cork, and future generations of Cork men and women, to say that they are to receive the benefits and advantages of the bridges across the Lee, while the money that should go to those orphans is to be spent on maintaining the bridges of this gallant City of Cork? I ask you Deputies of Cork is that manly? Is it right? Is it just? Is it moral? No matter what the people of Cork have said to you, do the manly and right thing. Even if your constituents take the selfish view of this matter you should take the broad view, the long and just view.
I trust that this amendment is not going to be debated interminably. We must bring the thing to a head some time. I think the issue is quite clear. On the one hand we have the guardians of public morals, the defenders of contractual obligations, deserting their previous views and asking the Dáil to insist on the breaking of a contract between the Great Southern Railways Company and the Cork Corporation. I am astonished that we have Deputy Good, Deputy Dockrell, Deputy Alton and Deputy Thrift, putting down an amendment of this sort, in view of their attitude on other questions. It is an interesting development. They are here advocating the breaking of a contract, advocating that an obligation undertaken by the Great Southern Railways Company for a consideration received, should be removed. That is what they are asking the Dáil to do. Deputies Dillon and McMenamin butted in, why I do not know. What particular interest the Donegal Deputies had in this matter I cannot possibly see, as it was quite obvious that they knew nothing at all about it. Deputy McMenamin's speech was entirely based on ignorance of the position, and little as he knew Deputy Dillon knew less. He did not know what the contract was, but he did make a speech on the matter, apparently on the assumption that nothing can pass through this House except he has made a speech on it. I think this Dáil must be influenced by the fact that the Cork Deputies are united as one man against this amendment. They must feel that a great wrong is sought to be done against their city judging by the united front they are presenting against the would-be violators of contracts who have introduced this amendment. I think the Deputies opposite should take into consideration, and suggest to the railway company that they should take into consideration, the possibility of some development such as Deputy O'Neill referred to, the possibility of their coming to this Dáil again seeking for power to rebuild those bridges if they are removed now. Those bridges do something more than provide conveniences for the people of Cork. They connect two parts of the Great Southern Railways system, and it is not at all impossible that circumstances might arise at some time which may again necessitate the maintenance of them, or their reconstruction if they are removed now.
I think in view of the contract entered into between the railway company and the Cork Corporation that the Deputies whose names appear on this amendment should not come to this Dáil asking that that contract be broken by one side without at least suggesting to the other side that they should consult with all parties concerned in the matter and try to reach common agreement as to what is the best line to take.
I think the Cork Deputies ought to be put on their guard against certain powers which have already been given. Suppose this amendment does not pass, what is the position? Section 8 rules the railway across the Cork bridges as much as it rules any other railway in the country. If we are to take as serious the argument put up that these two Cork bridges are required for railway traffic, then it ought to be remembered that sub-section (4) of Section 8 authorises the railway company to reduce all rail services across those bridges proportionate to the decrease in traffic standardised to whatever it was on the 1st January last. I see no reason why these bridges should not be in the position of any other bridge governed by the section. Sub-section (3) of Section 8 says that even after an order is given allowing traffic to be taken off the rails, that order does not relieve the railway company from the necessity of maintaining all bridges. Why should the Cork bridges be put in the special position that their maintenance is going to be taken off the railway and put on somebody else? The section says with regard to all types of bridges that although the railway company is not hereafter asked to run trains in or on them that they are going to have to maintain them. Is it seriously contended that these bridges are required as a real link with traffic as it is at the moment? Leave out all the imaginings as to Bantry becoming the air port of the future, and let us ask ourselves this question: has there been any rail traffic in any volume over these two bridges for a considerable time? I had experience of both of them before the falling off in rail traffic started. These bridges used to be very hard to lift and still harder to lower. Because of the delays occasioned in that way I frequently missed my train back to work. As a result, presumably, of the difficulty of utilising these bridges, one railway company in Cork about 1914 astonished everyone by puting this on its bills one day: that the "9.30 train will in the future run at 10.30 and there will be no last train on this line."
The Minister has made very unfounded charges about the breaking of contracts. There is no breach of contract. This is simply to relieve the company of an obligation that was undertaken. The Bill, in various sections, despite obligations contractual or otherwise, authorises the doing of certain things. The company asks in a perfectly legal way that they shall be relieved of this obligation.
They should ask the Cork Corporation.
They come to the Parliament of the people and ask to be relieved of this obligation. That is not breaking any contract, and the Minister's charges are most unfounded. Those of us who have put our names to this amendment did so simply because we believed this to be fair play: because we had hoped that even Cork Deputies would realise and recognise it was fair play. The company ask leave to abandon those bridges and to be no longer liable for their maintenance.
They are abandoning their own child.
The company is prepared to abandon and hand over the structures to the bodies that contributed to their erection. I ask, is that unfair? Is it fair that when these structures have ceased to be of any use to the company and can be of use to the people who now derive benefit from them, that these people should be asked to keep them in order? Any impartial person would say that it is simply fair play and nothing more that is asked for in this amendment. A good deal of heat has been unnecessarily brought into this, but the amendment seems to me to be an ordinary piece of fair play. The company ask to be relieved of this obligation. The structures are of no further use to them It is simply penalising the reserves of the company, already strained, to ask them to continue to maintain structures which have ceased to be of use to them, but are of use and value to another body. Is it unreasonable to ask that other body to keep them in order?
These bridges have been of considerable advantage to the railway company. Now when they have ceased to be of use to them, they want to cast them aside as a sucked orange. Is that the kind of morality that Deputy Thrift preaches in relation to this Bill?
The Minister, bereft of argument, had to descend to abuse in dealing with this.
Must the Deputy make another speech?
I must rebuke the Minister for his insolence. The Minister referred to our predilection for advancing amendments calculated to encourage breach of contract. I think Deputy Thrift has dealt with that fully and effectively. The Minister went on to say that, in speaking to the amendment, we showed that we knew nothing about the circumstances governing the case. I listened carefully to the Minister, and I am satisfied that we knew everything that was relevant about it, and that the Minister threw no additional light on it. If common justice is to be done the Minister should accept the amendment, though he may have hopes that there are too many votes in Cork to see justice done in the matter.
Mr. Broderick
Deputy Dillon and Deputy Thrift concentrated on what an asset those bridges are to Cork in easing traffic, and that because of that their maintenance ought to be a liability on the localities concerned. They forgot that the primary object of the bridges was to facilitate the railway company. Although the railways have, so to speak, passed out, the bridges may not now be of the same necessity to the company, but still they are a link between east and west and Cork City. In my opinion it would be a retrograde step on the part of the Government to accept the amendment. It is really on the principle of the Bill. Those bridges were built for a primary purpose. That purpose was the conveyance of railway traffic. We are asking you to refuse to break that link. The question of the maintenance or upkeep of the bridges must not be abandoned. I think we have given plenty of evidence in Cork of the hardships which we have borne. However, that was during a transitory period. One thing we must insist on and which we are going to uphold with all the energy at our command and that is that there shall be no disconnection of this link between East and West Cork City.
I move amendment 52:—
In sub-section (1), line 27, to delete the words "a contributory basis" and substitute the words "the basis of equal contributions by the company and the employees of the company."
The purpose of the amendment is to make it clear that the superannuation scheme shall be established on a basis of equal contribution from both parties — the employees on the one hand, and the company on the other. That amendment covers amendment 53 standing in the name of Deputy Thrift.
I move amendment 55:—
Before Section 11 to insert a new section as follows:—
(1) The Minister may by order empower any railway company to which Part III of the Road Transport Act, 1932 (No. 2 of 1932), applies to do all or any of the following things, that is to say:—
(a) engage in or carry on the business of air transport;
(b) purchase the whole or any part of or any share or interest in any air transport business carried on by any other person (including any business carried on by such person which is ancillary or incidental to such air transport business) and the property and assets used in or in connection with such business;
(c) purchase, hold, transfer and sell shares in any company carryon the business of air transport;
(d) lend money to any person carrying on the business of air transport and take security by mortgage or otherwise for the repayment of such money;
(e) construct, repair and maintain, for such company or for any other person, aircraft, machinery, plant and material for use in or for the purpose of air transport;
(f) enter into contracts in relation to air transport, whether carried on by such company or by another person;
(g) use its money and funds for the purpose of doing anything which such company is empowered by an order under this section to do and, in particular, use for that purpose any money in its hands at the date of such order and also any money raised under statutory power before the date of such order (whether before or after the passing of this Act) and not required for the purpose for which such money was so raised;
(h) anything ancillary or incidental to anything which such company is empowered by an order under this section to do.
(2) For the purpose of this section the expression "air transport" means the carriage for reward by air of passengers, passengers' luggage, merchandise, and mails, or any of them, but the powers conferred by an order under this section may be limited by such order to any one or more of those subjects of carriage.
(3) The Minister may attach to any power conferred by an order under this section such conditions and restrictions as he shall think proper and shall specify in such order.
(4) An order under this section shall operate to authorise the railway company to which it relates to do such one or more of the things mentioned in sub-section (1) of this section as shall be specified in that behalf in such order, but subject to such limitations, conditions, and restrictions as are imposed under this section by such order.
The object of this amendment is to give the railway company general powers to undertake air transport business any time they feel disposed to do so. The company has asked for that power. I do not think that they have any intention of undertaking such a service immediately, but I do not see why they should not have power to do so if they wish.
I move amendment 56:—
Before Section 12 to insert a new section as follows:—
Sub-section (3) of Section 4 of the Agriculture Act, 1931 (No. 8 of 1931), is hereby amended by the addition, at the end of the sub-section, of the words "or any other Act, whether passed before or after this Act", and the said sub-section shall be construed and have effect accordingly".
This amendment is inserted in order to keep consistent the power of the Department of Agriculture to appear before the Railway Tribunal on matters affecting it.
I move amendment 57:—
To delete sub-section (1).
This is rather an important amendment and we have had some discussion upon it already. It is obvious that unless this sub-section is deleted from the Bill it will throw a very serious obligation on the railway company. Some time prior to the amalgamation scheme — I am not quite sure of the year — the old Dublin and South Eastern Company were advanced a loan of £100,000 by the then London and North Western Railway Company. That loan was advanced for carrying out certain works in connection with the New Ross and Waterford extension line. Under that agreement if this line was made that company also enjoyed certain other privileges amounting annually to £20,000. That liability and these privileges were transferred in 1924 under the amalgamation scheme to the Great Southern Company. Attaching to this loan was a condition — and this is the important feature of it — that the London and North Western Railway should, by reason of this loan, have the right to nominate a director on the board of the old Dublin South Eastern Railway. When that obligation was transferred that condition was also transferred and was carried out by the amalgamated railway. When they took over the obligation they took over the conditions attaching to it. In the particular proposals we have before us these conditions are to be taken away. In other words, the agreement whereby a director was to be nominated is to be withdrawn. We are informed that as a result of the withdrawal of these conditions the British company will have the right to call for the repayment of the loan and, also, to withdraw the other conditions which accrued to which I have referred. We think it is undesirable that that provision should be withdrawn.
No matter how one looks at it, the nomination of one director among seven, even from the point of view of the Labour Party, who are the real proposers of this matter, or from the point of view of the Government, to represent certain interests, could not in the ordinary course, from the point of view of voting capacity, be looked on as very wide. But that is not the point to which we take the greatest exception. It was the obvious, and admitted conditions, attaching to this loan that that right should follow. We feel strongly that if that right be interfered with the liabilities which follow, as a result, should fall upon the side which put forward this proposal.