Dáil Éireann debate -
Friday, 9 Jun 1933

Vol. 48 No. 3

Railways Bill, 1933—From the Seanad.

The Dáil went into Committee for the consideration of amendments to the Railway Bill, 1933, from the Seanad.

Mr. Lemass

I move that the Committee agree with the Seanad in the following amendments:—

1. Section 3, sub-section (1). The word "existing" deleted in lines 41 and 52 and the word "major" substituted therefor.

2. Section 3, sub-section (1). Before the word "capital" in line 45, where it secondly occurs, and also before the word "capital" in lines 48 and 51, the word "major" inserted.

3. Section 3, sub-section (2). Before the word "capital" in lines 3, 5 and 7 the word "major" inserted.

4. Section 3, sub-section (3). The word "existing" deleted in line 9 and the word "major" substituted therefor.

5. Section 3, sub-section (3). Before the word "capital" in line 14 the words "the major" inserted.

6. Section 3, sub-section (4). The word "existing" deleted in line 16 and the word "major" substituted therefor.

7. Section 3, sub-section (7). The word "existing" deleted in lines 42 and 43 and the word "major" substituted therefor.

8. Section 3, sub-section (8). The word "existing" deleted in line 55 and the word "major" substituted therefor.

These amendments, No. 1 to 8, are consequential upon No. 19. Deputies will remember that I promised to reconsider the capital reconstruction scheme as it affected the minor stocks of the company. The matter was given careful consideration and it was decided to delete those minor stocks from the scope of the Act.

Mr. Cosgrave

That means that there will be deleted from North Wall extension lines one and two £100 shares down to the figure ten at the end of the fourth column the whole lot of these.

Mr. Lemass

Yes.

Amendments agreed to.

Mr. Lemass

I move that the Committee disagrees with the Seanad amendment No. 9:—

Section 5, sub-section (1). The words "passing of this Act" deleted in lines 44-45 and the words "appointed day" substituted therefor.

This amendment is really here by error. The Seanad Committee passed an amendment changing the scheme of Section 3, which involved a number of consequential amendments. The Seanad decided on Report Stage to delete the amendments inserted in Committee Stage, but through an oversight this consequential amendment was not deleted. It is merely a formal matter.

Amendment to disagree with the Seanad amendment agreed to.

Mr. Lemass

I move that the Committee agrees with the Seanad in amendment No. 10:—

10. New section. Before Section 8 a new section inserted as follows:—

8. From the appointed day for the ordinary stock of the company until the next annual election, within the meaning of the foregoing section, sub-section (3) of Section 34 of the Great Southern Railways Amalgamation Scheme, 1925, shall apply to directors of the company subject to the modification that the reference to £2,000 contained therein be construed as a reference to £200, and from and after the said next annual election shall apply to such directors subject to the modification that the said reference to £2,000 be construed as a reference to £1,000.

This relates to the qualification of directors. At the present time a director to be qualified must hold ordinary stock to the nominal value of £2,000. When the Bill becomes law that stock will have a nominal value of £200, and it is proposed to provide that in future a director must hold ordinary stock of a nominal value of not less than £1,000.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Lemass

I move that the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment No. 11:—

Section 8, sub-section (4). After the word "authority" in line 1 the words "or in anticipation" inserted.

This is merely a verbal amendment to Section 8. It provides that an employee of the company shall be entitled to compensation if he was dismissed by the railway company under the authority of or in anticipation of any order made under this section.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Lemass

I move that the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment 12:—

New section. Before Section 9 a new section inserted as follows:—

9. From and after the passing of this Act the rates of pay, hours of duty, and other conditions of service of the road transport employees of a railway company, employed for any of the purposes of the road transport business carried on by such company and whose depot or other place of employment is situated in Saorstát Eireann, shall be regulated in accordance with agreements made or to be from time to time made between the trade unions representative of such employees of the one part and such railway company of the other part.

This is designed to create the same legislative position in respect of the road transport employees of the railway company as at present exists in relation to the rail service employees of the company. Under the Act of 1924 the companies are required to regulate rates of wages and conditions of service in agreement with the trade unions and this makes the same arrangement in respect of the road transport employees of the company.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Lemass

I move that the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment 13:—

Section 9, sub-section (2). A new sub-section inserted before the sub-section as follows:—

Where at the date of the passing of this Act any employees of the company are entitled to any rights in or benefits from any existing superannuation or benefit fund, no superannuation scheme under this section shall prejudice such rights or reduce such benefits.

This amendment simply provides that any employee of the company entitled to benefit under any existing benefit, or superannuation scheme, shall not have his position worsened as a result of the coming into operation of any scheme under this Bill.

Mr. Moore

Would it be possible under this amendment that some employee would be safeguarded under the two schemes of superannuation?

Mr. Lemass

The amendment is designed so that that will not take place.

Mr. Moore

But will he have to subscribe to the new scheme?

Mr. Lemass

Only if an arrangement is made in agreement with the unions substituting the new scheme for the old, in which case his subscriptions to the old would cease.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Lemass

I move that the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment 14:—

Section 9, sub-section (2). The words "entitled to benefits" deleted in line 44 and the word "contributing" substituted therefor.

This is to provide that the management of the funds shall be in the hands of those contributing to the funds.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Lemass

I move that the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment No. 15.

Section 9, sub-section (2). The words "take part" deleted in line 44 and the words "share equally with representatives of the company" substituted therefor.

This provides that the management of the fund shall be divided equally between the company and its employees.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Lemass

I move amendment 16:—

Section 9, sub-section (3). The following words added at the end of the sub-section:—"or, if it is of opinion that such scheme would not meet the reasonable requirements of the employees of the company, refuse to confirm such scheme and make a special report to the Minister stating its reasons for such refusal."

It was suggested that an anomalous position might be created when the scheme was prepared by the company and submitted to the Railway Tribunal if no agreement concerning it could be reached. It is provided here that if the scheme cannot be amended by the Railway Tribunal to meet the reasonable demands of the employees of the company it shall not be confirmed by the Tribunal, but, instead, that a report on the position shall be made to the Minister.

Mr. Good

What will happen then?

Mr. Lemass

We will get back to where we started. Nothing happens.

Mr. Good

Will the Minister have power, then, to enforce a scheme?

Mr. Lemass

No.

Mr. Good

What is the object, then, of reporting to the Minister?

Mr. Lemass

So that the matter can be reconsidered and, if necessary, new legislation initiated. It is intended to provide that a scheme which would be objectionable to both parties cannot be forced on them without the matter being reconsidered.

Professor Thrift

Will the company be obliged to formulate another scheme?

Mr. Lemass

No.

Mr. Keyes

Is it an encouragement to put up such an impossible scheme as was done under the 1924 Act.

Mr. Lemass

I do not think so. As a matter of fact, this amendment was suggested by the representatives of the employees. The Bill, as it stands, provides that the company shall prepare a scheme; that scheme shall be submitted to the Railway Tribunal, the Railway Tribunal will hear all interested parties and amend the scheme as it thinks fit and the scheme then automatically comes into operation. This amendment provides that, if the Railway Tribunal cannot amend the scheme so as to make it acceptable to the employees, the scheme will not come automatically into operation, but the whole matter will be referred to the Minister for reconsideration. It would stay at that as the 1924 Act proved inoperative, if no fresh legislation or no new arrangement is brought in.

Amendment 16 agreed to.

Mr. Lemass

I move that the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment 17:—

New section. Before Section 10 a new section inserted as follows:—

10.—(1) The Minister may at any time by order (to be known and in this section referred to as a uniform rate order) direct that any particular merchandise when carried by rail by any specified railway company or railway companies on the conditions (in this section referred to as the special conditions) prescribed for such merchandise by such order shall be so carried at a rate (in this section referred to as a uniform rate) fixed in relation to each distance (in this section referred to as a prescribed distance) prescribed by such order in accordance with this section and whenever the Minister makes such an order a uniform rate shall be fixed under this section in respect of each prescribed distance and from and after the date on which such uniform rate becomes operative under this section while such order remains in force each such uniform rate shall be the rate which, notwithstanding any other enactments, shall be charged for the carriage of such merchandise on the special conditions by such company for the prescribed distance to which such rate relates.

(2) In every uniform rate order the Minister shall specify the particular merchandise to which such order relates and the unit of quantity of such merchandise by reference to which the charge for the carriage of such merchandise shall be calculated and shall prescribe the special conditions for the carriage of such merchandise and the distances in respect of which uniform rates shall be fixed under such order.

(3) The Minister may in any uniform rate order prescribe the distances in respect of which uniform rates shall be fixed under such order by prescribing a graduated scale of distances, by fixing maximum distances, by reference to zones round any specific point, or in any other manner which the Minister may think fit.

(4) The Minister may include in the special conditions prescribed by any uniform rate order conditions as to all or any of the following matters, that is to say:—

(a) the minimum quantity in respect of which a uniform rate shall be chargeable;

(b) loading and unloading;

(c) packing;

(d) the train services available for carriage;

(e) liability for loss or damage;

(f) any other matter which in the opinion of the Minister might reasonably affect the cost of transport.

(5) Whenever the Minister makes a uniform rate order in relation to any merchandise it shall be the duty of any railway company specified therein within one month after the making of such order to estimate in accordance with this section in respect of each prescribed distance a uniform rate to be charged in respect of the carriage of such merchandise on the special conditions by such company for each such prescribed distance.

(6) For the purpose of the estimation of a uniform rate by a railway company under the foregoing sub-section to be charged in respect of a prescribed distance for the carriage of any particular merchandise the following provisions shall have effect, that is to say:—

(a) such company shall select a period (in this section referred to as the standard period) which in the opinion of such company is suitable, in the particular case, as a period for estimating the probable volume of traffic to be expected from the carriage of such merchandise for such prescribed distance;

(b) if such company has carried any substantial quantity of such merchandise during any substantial period prior to the time of such estimation, and if no material change has taken place or is anticipated in the volume and conditions of traffic resulting from the carriage of such merchandise, the standard period shall be a period prior to such estimation;

(c) if such company has not carried any substantial quantity of such merchandise during any substantial period prior to the time of such estimation, or if a material change has taken place or is anticipated in the volume and conditions of traffic, the standard period shall be, at the discretion of such company, partly before and partly after or wholly after such time;

(d) if the standard period or part of the standard period is subsequent to the time of such estimation such company shall make an estimate of the probable volume of traffic for such prescribed distance resulting from the carriage of such merchandise during such standard period or such part of such standard period and such estimate shall for the purposes of this section be the volume of traffic for such standard period or such part of the standard period;

(e) such company shall calculate the gross income from the volume of traffic for the standard period for such prescribed distance on the basis of the charges which have been or which would but for this section be made in respect of such traffic, making allowance for exceptional rates when such might have been applied or would be applicable, and shall estimate a uniform rate which would in the opinion of such company produce a similar gross income from the same volume of traffic carried for such prescribed distance in a period equal to the standard period.

(7) Every uniform rate estimated by a railway company in accordance with the foregoing sub-section shall be submitted by such company to the Railway Tribunal forthwith and the Railway Tribunal, after hearing all parties desirous of being heard and appearing to it to be interested, shall fix the uniform rate either at the amount estimated by such company or at such other amount as may appear proper to the Railway Tribunal and shall appoint a date on which the uniform rate so fixed shall become operative and every uniform rate so fixed shall become operative on the date so appointed.

(8) Every uniform rate fixed by the Railway Tribunal under this section shall be reviewed by it on the expiration of every calendar year from the date on which such uniform rate was fixed and the Railway Tribunal may upon any such review make such modification as it may think proper in such uniform rate.

(9) The Minister may in any uniform rate order direct that such order shall apply to the carriage of the particular merchandise specified therein by canal or by canal and road and may if he thinks that the circumstances so require prescribe by such order special conditions for the carriage of such merchandise by canal or by canal and road either in addition to or in substitution for any other special conditions prescribed thereby and thereupon this section shall apply to the carriage of such merchandise by canal or by canal and road as if a canal company were a railway company and the special conditions for the carriage of such merchandise by canal or by canal and road prescribed by such order shall be special conditions for the carriage of such merchandise when carried by canal or by canal and road.

(10) The Minister may in any uniform rate order direct that such order shall apply to the carriage of the particular merchandise specified therein by the road services of a railway company as if such road services formed part of the railway services of such company and whenever the Minister so direct the provisions of this section shall apply to such railway company and to the carriage of such merchandise by such company as if such road services formed part of the railway services of such company and carriage by road were carriage by rail by such company.

(11) The Minister may in any uniform rate order direct that a separate uniform rate shall be fixed for the carriage of the merchandise specified in such order by road by any railway company and may if he thinks that the circumstances so require specify in such order special conditions for the carriage of such merchandise by road either in addition to or in substitution for any other special conditions prescribed thereby and thereupon this section shall apply as if carriage by road were carriage by rail by such company and the special conditions for the carriage of such merchandise by road shall be special conditions for the carriage of such merchandise when carried by road by such company and a uniform rate shall be fixed for such carriage independently of any uniform rate fixed for the carriage of any merchandise by rail by such company.

(12) The Minister may by order made under this sub-section revoke, amend, or vary any uniform rate order."

During the course of the discussion on this Bill in the Seanad, an amendment was proposed designed to give the railway company power to charge flat rates for the conveyance of merchandise. The amendment, however, contemplated the railway company charging such rates more or less at its discretion and in a manner which would permit it to give very favourable terms to one trader and to deny them to another or to give very favourable terms to goods conveyed to or from one port as against goods conveyed to or from another. An amendment of that kind, of course, was not acceptable. It was contrary to the principles on which railway rates legislation had heretofore been based. It was felt, however, that, in certain cases and in respect of certain classes of merchandise, a system of flat rate charging might prove operative and useful and, consequently, this amendment was devised. It provides that, in certain cases, subject to the approval of the Minister and submission to the Railway Tribunal, the railway company may charge flat rates for the conveyance of goods. This flat rate may be either in respect of the system as a whole or graduated in respect of defined distances. The amendment provides that, where such flat rate is fixed, it shall be available to all traders and shall operate uniformly so that it cannot prejudice the interest of any particular individual, particular town or port. The amendment also provides that, where such order is made, it shall apply also to canal companies which, otherwise, might be put in a disadvantageous position. Canal companies, like railway companies, at the present time, are unable to charge flat rates. The amendment also makes consequential provision to provide that, where a flat rate is agreed upon, it shall be regarded as an exceptional rate under the Railways Act of 1924.

It is, by no means, certain to what extent this provision will prove effective. It is considered, however, that it would be desirable to have some experience of it in operation. It is not unlikely that we will find it necessary to revise and codify all the legislation relating to transport charges at some future date and, in that event, it would be desirable that we should have experience of the operation of a scheme of this kind. The railway company are very anxious to have facilities in this matter. What they requested, of course, was considerably more advanced than what is proposed here but, so far as this section goes, it does meet the railway company's contention, while, at the same time, not removing the safeguards for the public interest which we consider to be necessary.

Mr. Good

Would the Minister give us some information with regard to sub-section (4). It appears that there is going to be interference in what usually would be matters left to the discretion of the company. Surely, the matters dealt with in sub-sections (a) (b) and (c) would be matters left to the discretion of the company?

Mr. Lemass

That section is really a protection for the company. If the flat rate is fixed, it might be held, if that section were not there, that the company would have to concede that flat rate to everybody, irrespective of the quantity of goods offered, the manner in which they were to be loaded or unloaded, the manner in which they were packed, or the other matters set out here. This provides that, where a flat rate is fixed, the Minister may fix conditions relating to these matters which would be a protection to the railway company. In other words, the rate will only apply to goods which are sent in the minimum quantities or loaded or unloaded in a defined manner or packed in a defined manner or which meet regulations which may be made under sub-sections (d) (e) and (f). It is necessary that some such condition should be laid down, otherwise there might be considerable hardship imposed on the company.

Mr. Good

I take it, from what the Minister says, that the section was put forward by the company?

Mr. Lemass

A Senator moved a section which was remarkably similar to one the company itself had suggested and which set out to confer this power of charging flat rates on the railway company. The section moved by the Senator went much further than we were prepared to contemplate in so far as it would override all existing provisions and principles with regard to undue preference and matters of that kind. This section provides for the charging of flat rates but preserves the interest of individual traders, towns and ports by ensuring that, where a flat rate is fixed, it shall be available, under similar circumstances, to all persons desiring to transport the same class of merchandise.

Mr. Cosgrave

I presume the Minister has had very sound advice with regard to the section, but one's first impression, on reading this, is that it was designed to meet some form of traffic which the Minister had in mind but which had not yet been carried, to any great extent, on the railroad. The first five sub-sections of the section deal with the Minister's power to make an order regulating certain traffic, prescribing distances and prices and so on. The second portion of it, sub-sections 6 and 7, deal with the railway company's estimate of costs and, then, apparently it comes before the Railway Tribunal. The Minister has already fixed the rate, if I read the first portion correctly——

Mr. Lemass

No. It is not intended that the Minister will make an order except on the application of the railway company. The company will say that they are desirous of introducing a flat rate arrangement in respect of some commodity, let us say, peat, for example. The Minister would then make an order authorising the company to enter into a flat rate arrangement in respect of peat. The company would then estimate, in accordance with the provisions of sub-section (6), the flat rate that could be charged, but that flat rate would be submitted to the Railway Tribunal, which would consider the representations of all interested parties, and be subject to revision by the Railway Tribunal if they think the rate should be revised. The amount of the rate and the conditions attaching to it will be subject to the review of the Railway Tribunal. The Minister's order merely authorises the making of a flat rate in respect of the commodity mentioned in the order.

Mr. Cosgrave

The Minister may be chronologically correct, but there is no provision in the section allowing the railway company, although, of course, it does not prevent them, from applying to the Minister. The first sub-section says that the Minister may, by order, direct that any particular merchandise shall be carried under certain conditions and at certain rates. Obviously, that is the first step. The Minister's explanation of it is that that is not really the first step, but that the first step would be the application by the railway company, in respect of a particular class of merchandise, that a flat rate would be desirable. It does not appear to be clear, although, I presume, the Minister has had advice on it——

Mr. Lemass

Quite.

Mr. Cosgrave

It certainly looks as if the Minister makes the order and, having made the order, the railway, or transport companies, make certain estimates and, having gone with these estimates to the Railway Tribunal, probably against the Minister's order, may get the price varied. If that is not in the second portion, from sub-section (6) to sub-section (7), I must say that I have misread it altogether, but it does appear to me that the railway company, having been presented with a fait accompli by the Minister, proceeds to estimate whether or not they are losing money on that particular class of traffic and approach the Railway Tribunal which then operates but, again, the Minister comes in afterwards. I must say that that struck me as being an extraordinary innovation in the Bill. I know that the railway company desires to be able to quote low rates. I understand that one of the principal objections that businessmen have is to discrimination and so on. If the Minister is satisfied I am. I am not sure that the section carries out what the Minister has explained.

Mr. Lemass

I am quite certain it carries out what we intend, but does not carry out entirely what the railway company desired. They desired to be in the position to offer a flat rate, say, to one merchant with a large volume of goods to be transported, and to refuse that rate to another merchant transporting the same goods, perhaps subject to the condition that the merchant in the first case would convey all his goods by rail. Such an arrangement might be desirable from the railway point of view, but undesirable from the public point of view, as it might prejudice certain towns, ports or individuals. This section goes some way to meet the desire of the railway company and brings in for the first time the idea of a flat rate charge. The section merely provides that the commodities to which a flat rate must be applied must be approved by the Minister, when the Minister shall make an order authorising the company to charge such a rate on definite commodities. The company estimates what the rate will be and submits it to the Railway Tribunal which, having heard all the parties, fixes the amount of the rate for the commodity in respect of a definite distance. The Railway Tribunal comes in to protect other interests, as everyone likely to be prejudiced by the order can appear before the Tribunal. There is a provision that the Minister may revoke the order if it is proved to be working inequitably, or of no avail to the company in its operations. My own view of the section is that it will not prove to be operative in a large number of commodities, but it gives an opportunity of examining the manner in which such a rate would operate with a view to a possible revision of legislation affecting rates at a later date.

Mr. Cosgrave

The railway company, as the section is drawn, is not to be allowed to give a preferential rate to any one. In other words, it is not allowed to carry traffic at a lower rate than the prescribed rate.

Mr. Lemass

Quite so.

Mr. Cosgrave

I presume that particular legislation is not imposed on their competitors.

Mr. Lemass

No.

Mr. Moore

Will the Railway Tribunal have any right to recommend against the principle of a flat rate? When the matter comes before the Tribunal, and when, in accordance with the Minister's order, it has heard the case for the rate on behalf of the railway company, will it be possible for the Tribunal to recommend that the order be withdrawn?

Mr. Lemass

No. The function of the Railway Tribunal is to fix the amount of the rate.

Professor Thrift

I was partially satisfied with the Minister's statement except that two lines in the first sub-section seem to require the Minister not only to issue an order but actually to specify the charge. If that is so the words "carried at a rate ... prescribed by such order" seem to imply that the Minister has actually to specify the rate. If the matter goes before the Railway Tribunal, and if they think the rate is not reasonable, apparently the Minister's order will remain.

Mr. Lemass

No.

Professor Thrift

What happens?

Mr. Lemass

The Minister's order authorising the railway company to charge a flat rate remains in force, but the amount of the rate is fixed by the Railway Tribunal.

Mr. Good

I would point out that the machinery set out in the new section is going to put very considerable difficulties in the way of the railway company in quoting rates for traffic. It is hardly necessary to point out to the Minister that a railway company is expected to quote a rate within 48 hours. They are not asked to give a rate until the traffic is practically ready. Possibly if the rate is not given within 48 hours the traffic goes to some other form of transport. From the reading of the new section it would appear as if it was going to tie up the powers of the railway company to compete freely against others. The desire of the Minister was that the railway company should be put on the same basis as other transport companies. As Deputy Cosgrave has pointed out the other companies are free to quote rates and have not to submit them to the Tribunal or to the Minister. Here we have the railway company still in the difficult position that it cannot compete against other companies. It appears to me that the new section, of which I cannot see all the implications, is going to hamper considerably the railway company in getting traffic.

Mr. Lemass

I think the Deputy misunderstands the position. At the present time, rates and charges for all commodities are fixed by the Railway Tribunal, but the railway company may, at its discretion, reduce these charges by 40 per cent. Any standard charges fixed by the Railway Tribunal may be reduced 40 per cent. by the railway company. If the railway company wants to go below the 40 per cent. it has to go to the Railway Tribunal to get sanction for an exceptional rate below that percentage. That is the position since the Act of 1924 came into operation, and that would remain the position in respect of any commodity, unless and until a flat rate order came into operation, in which case that flat rate would apply to that commodity and would be known to the parties interested and would not be liable to variations of that kind. Where no flat rate order is in force the position is not changed. With the consent of the Railway Tribunal, exceptional charges below the 40 per cent. can be given. It is not until that flat rate has been superimposed in respect to any particular commodity that this section applies. In that case, the flat rate is available for everyone and cannot be modified for the benefit of one party.

Mr. Good

I take it that the flat rate cannot be given until permission has been given by the Minister to the Railway Tribunal.

Mr. Lemass

That is so.

Mr. Good

Supposing 1,000 tons of traffic was offered and that the company was asked to quote a special rate?

Mr. Lemass

That is precisely what we denied the company. The company desired to be in a position to quote a special flat rate at 48 hours for a particular trader for a large amount of traffic. We did not give the company that power. We say that if they desire to charge a flat rate, then they must make that flat rate available for everyone in the country consigning the same merchandise under the same conditions. It will not be open to the company to enter at 48 hours' notice into a flat rate arrangement with one particular trader. We think it would be most undesirable that the company should have that power of discrimination as between traders, because it would operate to prejudice the interest of particular traders, and very likely to prejudice also the interests of particular towns.

Mr. Good

The Minister sees the point? Say 1,000 tons of bricks have to be transported from Dublin to Mullingar. It is an unusual quantity. The owner asks for a special rate from the railway company, and also asks for a rate from other transport companies. The railway company must go to the Minister——

Mr. Lemass

Oh, no. In the case of the consignment of 1,000 tons, or any quantity, from Dublin to Mullingar, there would be no question of a flat rate. A flat rate is a rate charged per ton irrespective of the distance.

Mr. Good

Call it a special rate then. Can the company quote a special rate for such special circumstances?

Mr. Lemass

It can quote 40 per cent. below the standard charges.

Mr. Good

Leave out the 40 per cent.

Mr. Lemass

That is the position.

Mr. Good

That is as far as they can go?

Mr. Lemass

That is as far as they can go without going to the Railway Tribunal.

Mr. Good

Take their competitors. How far can they go?

Mr. Lemass

At the present moment they can go as far as they like. They can carry merchandise for nothing.

Mr. Good

There is the point. Instead of helping the railway company, your Bill is going to leave them in the same difficulty they were in before.

Mr. Lemass

Except, of course, that we are giving the railway company power to compulsorily buy out their competitors.

Mr. Good

Leave that out, because to my mind it is a very questionable advantage, and I think the Minister is satisfied on that point also.

Mr. Lemass

Oh, no.

Mr. Good

We are in the position that we want to put the railway company, when in competition for traffic, in exactly the same position as other road users. We have not done that and we are not doing it.

Mr. Lemass

We are going to make them the only road users.

Professor Thrift

Theoretically.

Mr. Good

I think you will have to wait for that for some little time.

Professor Thrift

I want to come back for a moment to the point I raised. Does the amendment, in the first sub-section, require the Minister, in making his order, to specify the charge?

Mr. Lemass

No.

Professor Thrift

The Railway Tribunal has the power, on the company's appeal, to vary that charge?

Mr. Lemass

Yes.

Professor Thrift

What happens afterwards? Must the Minister make a new order?

Mr. Lemass

No.

Professor Thrift

Or vary his original order?

Mr. Lemass

No. The rate fixed by the Railway Tribunal comes automatically into force.

Professor Thrift

That is why I challenge the amendment as it stands. It is not clear. The only hope I see is the last sub-section, which gives the Minister power to vary any order. He has originally made an order fixing the price. The railway company has the right to appeal to the Railway Tribunal——

Mr. Lemass

I will read the words for the Deputy: "... the Railway Tribunal, after hearing all parties desirous of being heard and appearing to it to be interested, shall fix the uniform rate either at the amount estimated by such company or at such other amount as may appear proper to the Railway Tribunal and shall appoint a date on which the uniform rate so fixed shall become operative and every uniform rate so fixed shall become operative on the date so appointed."

Professor Thrift

Surely the Minister is not contending that his order fixing a certain rate, and standing as an official order, will not be operative?

Mr. Lemass

No. That order does not become operative until the railway company has had an opportunity of examining the rate, and hearing all interested parties. It does not become operative until the Railway Tribunal has then either approved the rate or varied it following representations made to them.

Mr. Cosgrave

That may be the intention of the amendment, but I doubt very much if it is in it. The more I look at this the more I think there is an oriental mind behind it. I think it is possible to offset by this order the advantage which motor haulers have got up to this. The railway company may say: "We will have to go to the Railway Tribunal to get the flat rate restored." It can go on that way all the time.

Mr. Lemass

That is not so. The flat rate is obviously one higher than the ordinary charge for short distances, and lower than the ordinary charge for long distances.

Mr. Cosgrave

The Minister has much more power under this than he thinks, unless I am very much mistaken.

Mr. Moore

Would the Minister say where in the amendment he is authorised to fix the amount of the flat rate? The Minister has just said that in making the order he will fix the amount of the flat rate. When Professor Thrift put that question he seemed to agree with him. What words in the amendment give him that power?

Mr. Cosgrave

Sub-section (1).

Mr. Lemass

"....(in this section referred to as a uniform rate) fixed in relation to each distance (in this section referred to as a prescribed distance) prescribed by such order in accordance with this section ...."

Mr. Moore

".... and whenever the Minister makes such an order a uniform rate shall be fixed under this section." Presumably by the railway company?

Mr. Lemass

Yes, subject to the Railway Tribunal.

Mr. Moore

Well, then the Minister really does not take power to fix the amount of the uniform rate?

Mr. Lemass

No. The Minister's main function in the matter is to authorise the railway company to charge a flat rate for a particular commodity, subject to certain conditions. The rate is fixed by the Railway Tribunal, after the railway company has made all its calculations.

Professor Thrift

If that were all it said, I do not think the point I raised, or that Deputy Cosgrave raised, would be there, but I think that the sub-section says a great deal more.

Mr. Good

My difficulty about the matter is that this is cumbersome machinery for fixing rates, which prohibits the railway company from making a special rate for special conditions. Call it whatever rate you like, a uniform rate, a flat rate or anything else; it is a special rate. I can quite understand when the railway company gives this special rate to one trader that there would be some obligation on them to give it, under similar circumstances, to another trader.

Mr. Lemass

This section has nothing to do with special rates. There is power at the present time for the railway company to charge special rates with the approval of the Railway Tribunal. The section has nothing to do with that. It inaugurates a new form of rate, namely a flat rate, which will be available to all persons. I admit it is cumbersome machinery, but necessarily so in order to protect certain interests. I have said that we have under review and may introduce special legislation, bearing upon the system of charging for transport at present operating here, but that is going to be a matter which will require very careful consideration. Personally, I should like to see a flat rate of some kind in operation for a period beforehand, in order to get some experience of the working of it. The whole law relating to the rates of charge for transport at the present time is based on the principle that there should be no undue preference. Any modification of that principle would be very undesirable, until we saw clearly where we were going. To give the company power to charge exceptional rates at their own discretion would cut across that principle entirely, and might produce a very undesirable state of affairs.

Mr. Good

I could quite understand that, if their competitors had similar obligations placed on them. Here are two companies competing for traffic, and an obligation is placed on one which is not placed on the other.

Mr. Lemass

It is. Every person carrying merchandise by road will be under the direct obligation, when the Road Transport Act becomes law, to give the same facilities and charge the same rates for the same merchandise to one person as to another.

Mr. Good

Quite so. You do not give exactly the same facilities to the railway company. I do not object, once the railway company gives a certain rate—call it a flat rate if you like— to certain people for a certain commodity, that that rate should be available to other people transporting the same commodities. That would be only reasonable, but this prohibits the railway company from being free to give rates in competition with others.

Mr. Lemass

No.

Mr. Good

Well, I am quite satisfied that if the Minister will look into it he will find that it places an unfair restriction on them with regard to competition.

Mr. Lemass

This section does not do that. It is restricted under the Act of 1924, but this section does not place any restriction.

Mr. Good

The whole object was to relieve the railway company from certain unfair burdens which were placed upon it, and here is one in which we are anxious to put the railway company in the same position as its competitors for traffic, but it fails to achieve that object.

Mr. Dockrell

Evidently, the Minister's idea about a special flat rate must be connected with some very large commodity, and from one place. Has it anything to do with either cement or the mails? It seems to me that there must be some special idea which the Government have in their minds, that has not yet come out in which they envisage some very large class of merchandise being distributed from one central point over various parts of the country.

Mr. Lemass

The railway company asked for powers somewhat similar to these. I could not say off-hand what would be the full range of commodities for which they intended to exercise these powers. They have indicated to me their willingness to fix a flat rate charge for the conveyance of peat. Certain other commodities were also mentioned but, perhaps, it would be undesirable for me to mention them now. The intention would be, in respect of certain commodities to which a flat rate charge might conveniently apply that the railway company, having considered its position, and having decided to operate it, would then come to the Minister to discuss the matter. The Minister would have to have regard to the effect of such an arrangement on the public interests generally, and only when he was satisfied that it was not going to be prejudicial to the public interests would he make the order.

Mr. Dockrell

Would that be a collected and delivered rate or a station to station rate?

Mr. Lemass

It obliterates the station to station rate?

Mr. Dockrell

Would it be a collected and delivered rate?

Mr. Lemass

It could be, but it is a matter for the company to decide which it requires. We proposed to introduce another section relating to the fixing of rates for goods collected and delivered, but again it meant bringing in the Railway Tribunal and the company indicated that they would prefer not to have the power if they had to go to the Railway Tribunal and so the amendment is not in the Bill. This section provides that in relation to certain commodities the same rate will operate with regard to the unit of quantity no matter what the distance.

Mr. Moore

The phrase "no matter what the distance" is only descriptive?

Mr. Lemass

Yes.

Mr. Dillon

Two points arise on this amendment which, I think, have escaped notice. One is paragraph (e) of sub-section (4). The Minister takes power under that to establish the liability of the railway company for loss or damage on these special rates.

Mr. Lemass

No.

Mr. Dillon

It says that the Minister may include in the special conditions prescribed by any uniform rate order conditions as to liability for loss or damage. That means that the Minister may, with a wave of his hand, sweep away—

Mr. Lemass

The Deputy does not understand it at all. The rate will be fixed subject to conditions. In other words, the company will say: "We are authorised to carry these goods at a flat rate subject to (1) a minimum quantity being offered; (2) the goods being loaded or unloaded in a particular manner or at a particular place or particular time; (3) packed in a particular manner; (4) availability of train services," and so on. These are the conditions under which the rates will be available. The rate would not apply at all if a quantity less than the minimum was offered or if the goods were not packed in a particular manner and so on. What is provided for here is that the Minister may state the conditions under which the rate will be available. One of these conditions might be that the goods be carried at the owner's risk.

Mr. Dillon

The fact remains that the Minister may have certain things in his mind. What he has in his mind is one thing; what the amendment has on the face of it is another thing; and the power the Minister takes under paragraph (e) of sub-section (4) is, I think, quite beyond the scope and purpose of that amendment. He can prescribe any conditions for liability for loss or damage under the 1932 Act.

Mr. Lemass

Only when he is making an offer fixing a flat rate. If the condition is that the goods shall be carried at owner's risk then a person desiring to take advantage of the flat rate must subscribe to that condition. If he does not submit to that condition he can get the ordinary standard charges.

Mr. Dillon

I think the principle is dangerous and I think the point raised by Deputies Good and Thrift is one deserving of serious consideration. As Deputy Good said, this legislation is supposed to strengthen the position of the railway companies and he pointed out that they are precluded from competing with their competitors now for special consignments. They may go 40 per cent. below the standard charge unless they go through all this performance.

Mr. Lemass

This has nothing to do with it.

Mr. Moore

They can get an exceptional rate.

Mr. Dillon

They can do it by going to the Railway Tribunal and asking to have it fixed. I can assure the Deputy that if I want to get 50 tons of merchandise from Sligo to Roscommon, I am not going to go to the railway company six weeks ahead of the time I want my consignment and then go to the Railway Tribunal in order to get a rate fixed. If I cannot get it from them, I go to the road transport company. The Minister has a section, a page and a half long, to grapple with this. I think the Minister is trying to promote his peat industry. It has the appearance of relieving the railway company of the difficulty they are in, but it leaves them in the same position as before.

Mr. Lemass

This section does not deal with the matter of which the Deputy is speaking.

Mr. Dillon

If it is not, goodness knows what it is intended to do except to fill this paper with verbiage. I think it is a pity, if the Minister did desire to frame a document of this kind, that he did not decide to do something useful instead of giving his mind to turning the bogs of this country into "Aikenized" gold mines. It is a great pity, when he was introducing this amendment, that he did not take steps to simplify the proceedings a little further and place the railway companies in the same position as their competitors by giving them the right to go out and look for remunerative traffic; that is, traffic in bulk, which is, at the present time, going to be filched from them unless, as the Minister mentioned, they acquire all the road transport companies. The Minister says that perfectly blandly, knowing that he so drafted the Railways Bill to make it absolutely impossible for the railway companies to raise sixpence for the purpose of acquiring the road transport companies that he has put within their reach. That is a point that the Minister himself made in defence of his proposal, that if the railway companies were embarrassed by the competition of the road transport companies they could acquire them, if they can get the money.

Mr. Lemass

This section has nothing whatever to do with the matter of competition.

Mr. Dillon

If the Minister wandered outside the narrow scope of order, I shall have to follow him. This is one of the matters that he defended.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Minister gave a one-sentence reply to a question put to him, and the matter of the relative positions of the railway companies and their competitors does not arise on this amendment. On an amendment from the Seanad nothing may be discussed but the subject-matter of that amendment. As it is, this is a new section.

Mr. Dillon

If the Chair thinks that to discuss the position of the railway companies vis-á-vis their competitors is outside the scope of order I shall, of course, bow to that ruling. I regret very much that this amendment is not of a more comprehensive and a more effective character. As it stands, it is largely so much waste. It may do something for the purpose of facilitating the transport of turf from one part of the country to the other, but that is about all.

Mr. T. Kelly

Well, even that.

Question agreed to.

Mr. Lemass

I move that the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment 18:—

New section. Before Section 13 a new section inserted as follows:—

13.—(1) Section 55 of the Principal Act shall not apply to the road transport employees of any railway company.

(2) The Eighth Schedule to the Principal Act is hereby amended by the deletion of the words "Cartage Staff" in the second column and by the deletion in the third column opposite the said words of the words "carters, road motor drivers, working foremen."

This amendment is consequential on amendment 12.

Mr. Good

Will the Minister tell us exactly what it means?

Mr. Lemass

The Railways Act of 1924 prescribed that the conditions of service of the company's employees would be fixed by agreement with the company and the trade union, and there was a schedule setting out the different classes of employees, one of which included carters and road transport operators. As we have put in a section making the same regulations in respect of road transport services, it is necessary to delete that one classification from the Schedule of the Act of 1924.

Question agreed to.

Mr. Lemass

I move that the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment 19:—

First Schedule. The 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th columns deleted from the reference to the North Wall Extension lines 1 and 2 £100 shares down to the end of the Schedule.

Question agreed to.

Disagreement with amendment 9 and agreement with the remaining amendments, reported. Message to be sent to the Seanad accordingly.