Dáil Éireann debate -
Friday, 29 Sep 1944

Vol. 94 No. 15

Transport (No. 2) Bill, 1944—Committee (Resumed).

SECTION 44.

Mr. Keyes

I move amendment No. 100:—

Before Section 44, to insert a new section as follows:—

(1) Upon the coming into operation of this Act and notwithstanding anything in this Act contained all agreements and arrangements containing provisions regulating the rates of pay, hours of duty and other conditions of service of the employees of a dissolved company and made between a trade union or trade unions representative of such employees of the one part and such dissolved company of the other part shall continue to apply to the said employees and company respectively unless and until the same or any of them shall be varied or altered as provided for by the next following sub-section of this section.

(2) The rates of pay, hours of duty and other conditions of service of employees of the company shall be regulated in accordance with agreements made or to be made from time to time between the trade unions representative of such employees of the one part and the company of the other part.

(3) The original or a counterpart, or a copy, certified in such manner as the Minister shall direct to be a true copy, of every such agreement as is mentioned in this section shall be deposited with the Minister within one month after the passing of this Act or the making of such agreement whichever shall be the later; provided that the Minister may extend the time for depositing such agreement upon such grounds as he may deem to be reasonable.

(4) Any agreement containing provisions for regulating the rates of pay, hours of duty or other conditions of service of employees of the company and made between a trade union or trade unions representative of such employees of the one part and the company of the other part pursuant to this section shall be applicable to and enforceable in respect of all the employees in the group or grade of employment embraced in any such agreement.

This amendment was framed with the intention of ensuring that existing agreements will be continued with the new company, unless altered by subsequent agreements between the company and a tribunal representing the men. I cannot see why there should be any objection to this amendment from any part of the House. A continuance of existing arrangements would be beneficial to all parties. Sub-sections (2) and (3) propose to incorporate in the Bill a provision already in Section 55 of the Railways Act, 1924, and to make it applicable to all employees of the new company. The Minister seems to give effect to that idea in another way by an amendment to Section 54, which would mean legislation by reference as, in order to ascertain the legal position, trade union representatives would have to refer to three Acts of Parliament, the Railways Act, 1924, the Railways Act, 1933, and the Transport Act, 1944, when it becomes an Act. As it is suggested that that is a rather cumbersome method it is desirable that it should be simplified. This amendment would cover road and rail services. These two sub-sections would effect the same purpose as the Minister's procedure which entails reference to three separate enactments. It is now very difficult to get copies of these Acts. It is considered desirable that we should have incorporated in new legislation this important provision.

Sub-section (4) lays down procedure which, from the point of equity and common sense, has won universal support. If it were incorporated in the Bill it would not be possible for employers to make agreements with particular unions or to distinguish between men doing similar work. Trade unions are jealous of that position and are anxious to protect themselves from any possible inroad on rights that they have been exercising. I do not see why the Minister should have any objection to the proposal. Acceptance of it would ensure that men in the same grade would not be dealt with differently. That would lead to endless friction and chaos. Under the Constitution workers are supposed to have a right of association. That ought to apply to trade union associations. We have already had warnings of what could happen if there was any differentiation in working conditions. This proposal would make for harmonious working as men could make selections from their trade unions and if grievances arose there could be no differentiation between people working in the same grade. I spoke here on a previous occasion on this principle, and I consider that precautions should now be taken in advance because the question is a very important one. The men are very keen about it and the representatives of the unions who are conversant with conditions in the railway service support my contention.

Mr. Lemass

With regard to sub-section (1) of the amendment that position is already secured by Section 7, which incorporated the Railway Clauses Act. It provides for continuance of agreements with the dissolved company. It is not necessary to provide again for the same thing here.

Mr. McGilligan

What section of the Railway Clauses Act provides that?

Mr. Lemass

Section 4. With regard to sub-section (2) I agree with the necessity for having such a position, and I made provision for it in amendment No. 112. It applies to this company the provision of the Railways Act of 1924 in respect of railways and the 1933 Act in respect of road services. With regard to sub-section (3) I think that an alteration is necessary and I have provided for it in amendment No. 198. There is provision in the existing law for lodging agreements in relation to railways. The amendment I propose, No. 198, makes the same provision for road transport employees.

With regard to sub-section (4), I am in disagreement with it. If a union is not representative of all the employees, it is not representative of all the employees, and whatever union is representative of the remaining employees should be entitled to negotiate its own agreements. No doubt this proposal arises out of the present position of the railway company where there are many cases of different unions catering for the same classes of employees, but I do not think it would be fair to provide that agreements made with one union should apply also to employees who are members of another union. If the other employees prefer to belong to another union, I think they should be entitled to negotiate their agreements through their own representatives.

Mr. Keyes

Does the Minister contend, as would be possible by his argument, that there should be two sets of agreements, that separate agreements should be negotiated between members of one union and the company as against agreements under which men in the same grades, but belonging to a different union, operate? If I am working as a passenger or goods guard, as a porter or in any other capacity and there is a man working beside me on the same type of work and with the same turns of duty, can we have two different sets of conditions? Is that what the Minister visualises?

Mr. Lemass

I am not visualising that. Here are two employees of the railway company, A and B. A is a member of the National Union of Railwaymen, and B of the Irish Railwaymen's Union. I assume that B decided to join that union because he preferred to have his agreements with the company negotiated through that union rather than through the National Union of Railwaymen, and it would be unfair to make it law that if the National Union of Railwaymen negotiates an agreement, it is to apply with equal force to the member of the other union. It is only in respect of the members of the National Union of Railwaymen that the National Union of Railwaymen's representatives should be entitled to speak.

Mr. Keyes

Up to now, when negotiations were carried out on conditions of service and wages as between a union and the railway company, they were carried out on the basis of a man's service to the company and not on the basis of his membership of a particular union. That was not considered a matter of vital importance to the railway company, so far as I know. According to the Minister's suggestion, and his latest statement seems to bear it out, the company would have regard to the making of separate sets of conditions because men belonged to different unions. The employers should be concerned only with the service given by an employee. His membership of a union is a matter for the man himself, and, so long as he gives faithful service and gives no cause for complaint, he is entitled to have the best conditions negotiated for him by a union or many unions. To give one set of conditions to a passenger guard who belongs to one union and a different set to a passenger guard who is a member of another union is impossible.

Mr. Lemass

I am not so sure that it is wise for us to butt in. The Deputy no doubt knows that the Railway Wages Board is at present open only to certain unions and that other unions, perhaps small but nevertheless independent and catering for some hundreds of employees, are not admitted to the negotiating machinery at all. I do not regard as a desirable situation that there should be this multiplicity of unions, but, so long as it is there, I do not see why we should butt in and say that the services of the second union are not required.

If there are employees of the company who want to be members of that other union, it is presumably because they prefer to have their conditions of employment and other matters negotiated through that other union. They may be wise and they may be unwise. The Deputy no doubt disagrees with the views of these particular members of the company's staff, but I do not think it is fair to propose that we should, by legislation, make it practically impossible for this other union to continue in existence.

Mr. Keyes

I am not arguing the Minister's point and the Minister is obviously not arguing mine. I am not worrying about what union a man belong to, and if members of certain unions have not got access to the Railway Wages Board, I am prepared to say that they should get such agreements as are negotiated there, whether they belong to the unions represented there or not. All I seek is that there should not be two sets of agreements. If the Minister will disabuse his mind of certain ideas and concentrate on the main factor, he will agree that a railway company, a transport company or any other employer will find it very difficult to carry on and will find that he is storing up trouble for himself if he has to work on two sets of agreements. I am merely asking by this amendment that the conditions applying to operatives in a particular trade, irrespective of what unions they belong to, should be uniform.

Mr. Lemass

I agree with the Deputy there, but I think that result should be secured by negotiation and not by legislation. The effect of the proposal, as I see it, is that if the National Union of Railwaymen make an agreement covering any particular section of the conciliation grades, it will apply to all the members of that grade. That is making it obvious that the other union, the Irish Railwaymen's Union, which is a rival of the National Union of Railwaymen, has no good reason for existence at all. The Deputy is entitled to hold that view, but I doubt if he is entitled to endeavour to give point to it by his proposal here.

Mr. Keyes

Does it not cut both ways? Why stress the fact that the National Union of Railwaymen would make the agreement? Would the other not make it as well?

Mr. Lemass

In that case, you would have an agreement made by a minority applying to the majority.

Mr. Keyes

Does the Minister think it desirable that there should be two sets of agreement in relation to men in the same grades?

Mr. Lemass

I do not think it is desirable to have two different unions catering for men in the same grade, and I think that is the official view of the Trade Union Congress, but that is the situation which exists, and, if it is to be rectified, it must be rectified in some other manner.

Mr. Davin

It must be rectified by the workers themselves without interference from anybody else.

Mr. Lemass

I have expressed that view so often that I am tired reiterating it. That is the way it should be done, preferably.

Mr. Davin

The Minister appears to be defending a kind of scheme whereby, if in an industry where there are two unions catering for certain classes of workers an agreement is made between the management and one union in relation to improved conditions, these improved conditions will apply only to the members of the union which carried on the negotiations for the agreement. What business is it of the employer which union the employees belong to?

Mr. Lemass

I think that, in practice, the company has always tried to get some joint negotiating committee where there is more than one union involved.

Mr. Davin

If I have any objection to the administration of the chairman of the Great Southern Railways, it is because he has taken that dangerous line as head of a large concern in a previous case. I have good reason for suspecting that up to a certain time it is the line which he proposed to take in dealing with the Great Southern Railways workers. It is not the business of any employer, especially an employer who is the nominee of a democratic Government, to dictate to the workers in the industry of which he is in charge what union they should belong to.

Mr. Lemass

Did a trade union ever make an agreement with an employer which bound the employer to engage only members of one union?

Mr. Davin

No, but the person concerned, if I am correctly advised, made an agreement with a union which had a minority of workers in his employment, under which only those workers who were members of a particular union were to get the benefits of the improved conditions, and in that backhand, tricky way, when he could not do it any other way, did his best to compel all the men working in that concern to join the particular union he liked best. I think that is a very undesirable development in these so-called democratic days. I read with interest that very important and informative document published by the Vocational Commission. I was amused to find from its historical review of industrial organisations in Italy that that was the policy carried out in the early days of the Mussolini régime in order to compel workers to join trade unions that were under the thumb of the Fascist Party at the period.

Mr. Lemass

Will the Deputy put the Irish Transport Union in that class?

Mr. Davin

Certainly not. I am making this case; there is no other case except that of the tramway company to quote. The Minister knows perfectly well that to-day there are four unions, Irish and cross-Channel unions or amalgamated unions, catering for the dockers employed in the port of Dublin. The representatives of these unions meet the representatives of what is known as the cross-Channel Association which represents the employing companies and they hammer out an agreement or alter agreements from time to time. The result of these negotiations is that every man working as a docker in the port of Dublin gets the benefit of these agreements, including those who may not be members of any union. Is it the policy of the Minister that, if the National Union of Railwaymen, for instance, negotiates an agreement with the Great Southern Railways under this new scheme when it comes into operation, for particular grades or only a percentage of those grades, the benefit of the improved conditions will only apply to members of the National Union of Railwaymen in the railway transport service and not to non-unionists or employees who are members of other unions? Is that what the Minister is aiming at?

Mr. Lemass

No. What the Deputy is aiming at is to bring about a situation in which, in the event of such an agreement being negotiated, further negotiations will be unnecessary. Is not that so?

Mr. Davin

No. I do not support that point of view. I say that when an application for alternation in the existing conditions of service is made by a union or a number of unions, a conference should be held with the representatives of these unions, as it was in the past with satisfactory results. Is it not true that there is only one case on record since 1922 where a railway strike has occurred? Is it not true that the decisions of the Irish Railway Wages Board have been accepted by the companies concerned and by the representatives of all unions representing railway workers, and that the only strike which ever took place since the Railway Wages Board came into existence was an unofficial strike by a very small group in the Inchicore works?

Mr. Lemass

There might have been a strike in 1932 only the Government took action.

Mr. Davin

I cannot recollect that at the moment. Personally, I am in favour of reducing the number of unions catering for railway workers. For a long period of years I have been a believer in industrial unionism so far as railway workers are concerned. I could point to resolutions which I moved at conferences of my own organisation nearly 30 years ago. Railway and transport workers and every other section of workers have the right to free association under the Constitution and I say that it is not the business of any employer, whether he is the chairman of a railway company, as in this case, or any other concern, to interfere with that constitutional right and to adopt such tactics as will compel workers to change their allegiance and go into the union he likes best.

Mr. Lemass

I suggest that that is what the Deputy is trying to do here.

Mr. Davin

If I am wrong I am sorry, but I think that the reasons given by the Minister for disagreeing with sub-section (4) of the proposed amendment were supporting the attitude previously taken up by the Chairman of the Dublin United Transport Company in his dealings with the employees of that concern. He made an agreement with a certain union after he had previously consulted the head of an amalgamated union and put the same proposal to him. He made an agreement with an Irish union and he issued instructions that that agreement should be made applicable only to members of that union. The Minister knows well, and it is a regrettable thing to have to put on record, that, rather than agree to change their allegiance from one union to another, men had to suffer dismissal from that concern and that they applied to his Department and are working there. I hope such an undesirable state of affairs will not arise between the manager of the railways company and its employees. If I misunderstood the Minister's reasons for opposing sub-section (4) of the amendment, I am sorry. In any case, it is no harm that we should put these views on record.

Mr. Lemass

I do not want to be misunderstood. I should like to say that, no matter how it was produced, the elimination of inter-union rivalry in the Dublin United Transport Company was, in my opinion, a very beneficial move from the point of view of the employees and of the citizens. I do not want anything to be deduced from that remark in relation to the railway company. The railway position is entirely different. It is not merely that there is a large number of different grades of workers but, taking the shops into account, there is a large number of unions. I should say that, in respect of every class of worker in the shops, there are probably two or three unions, and all agreements are a result of contact with joint committees of one kind or another. That may or may not be a desirable situation. I am sure that on that issue my views and the views of the trade union movement as a whole would be more or less uniform. But the situation which is sought to be created by the amendment is not one which I think we should try to achieve by legislation. If there is to be an alteration in the direction of strengthening the bigger unions, and that is what I take it is aimed at, it must be done by other means than putting in a section of this kind.

Mr. Davin

The Minister surely would not defend the making of an agreement between the management of the company or any other company which would have the effect of compelling men to leave the service because they would not join a union which the head of the company likes them to join. Surely that is not defensible in the light of the Constitution. Surely it is a most undesirable step.

Mr. Lemass

I am delighted to hear Deputy Davin say so. The other day I read of a strike taking place somewhere because the trade union catering for the majority of the workers insisted that the balance of the workers should transfer to that union or cease to be employed because they were members of another union. If I am to get that principle accepted, it must be accepted not merely by the employers but also by the trade union executive, that a worker can belong to any union he likes and no one can object. That principle is not accepted by the trade union movement and, taking the long view, I am not sure that it is wise that it should be.

Mr. Keyes

I think the Minister will find that it is extravagant to say that demarcation lines between unions are frequent. I think they are very infrequent as a matter of fact. We have definite reasons for what we fear. We have the evidence quoted by Deputy Davin. Consciously or unconsciously, you are placing a weapon in the hands of the new chairman who is being vested with dictatorial powers which we have reason to fear in view of his expressed desires. As late as 1944 this gentleman made a differentiation by selecting one particular group of men from a particular union for more favourable treatment than that given to members of another union, although they were in the same grade. We have a definite fear that you are giving him a weapon which he seems inclined to use in order to discriminate. I am anxious to see industrial harmony and peace. I spent my life trying to bring it about. But certainly that state of affairs will not be promoted by the methods in the section. We should not favour any union. The company should respect the agreements with each particular group and not have regard to what union a man belongs to. That is a very simple proposition, and I think it is a fair proposition and, if the employer has no malice against one or the other, there should be no objection from the employer, and I do not think there should be from the Minister either.

Mr. Lemass

We are not giving the company any weapon. We are putting on them an obligation that they will arrange their conditions of employment in accordance with the agreement made with the trade unions representative of the employees. That is what the law is and will be.

Mr. Davin

Is the Minister clearly supporting the view that when negotiating such conditions the unions representing such grades will be present at the negotiations?

Mr. Lemass

I do not know that Deputy Keyes will agree with that. There is the question of the admission of the Irish Railwaymen's Union to the wage negotiating machinery. You have opposed that at all times.

Mr. Davin

Are you sure you are giving the correct title of the union concerned?

Mr. Lemass

It is its present title.

Mr. McGilligan

The intimate details of these matters are much better known to the Deputies who have spoken than to me; they have more knowledge of them than I can claim. But there is a dilemma and I do not know how it is going to be resolved. A very definite difficulty may arise. If this fourth sub-section of Deputy Keyes' new section is not accepted, there is a fairly clear position arising out of a judicial decision and that is, that unless a union is a party to an agreement, it can claim that its members are not bound by that agreement. There is a decision to that effect. There is also a phrase used by the judge in a declaration given in court. There is this phrase, which may not have complete legal effect, but which indicates a legal point of view, that a company, such as the old Great Southern Railways, is entitled on any question of the alteration of wages and conditions to have all the unions representative of the workers before it.

There is apparently a position which can easily be reached in which a company can refuse to negotiate an agreement unless everyone came in, and there is apparently no way of forcing in unions. It appears to be accepted that the new company considers it has the power to negotiate with a particular union. They may insist on all unions coming in, and they may use that power to stop-up an advance, if they can get some union to be recalcitrant. On the other hand, the company appears to be entitled to negotiate with a particular union and make an arrangement and say that those terms and conditions shall affect only the members of that union.

If that is the position, there is a definite power given to the chairman to work in favour of one union and against others, and I do not think that is desirable. There seems to be a peculiar position in which the company seems to be in a stronger position. It may refuse to negotiate unless every union is in, or it may negotiate with one union and confine the new agreement to the members of that union.

Mr. Davin

Is it not a fact that the management of the company, with the consent of the chairman, entered into negotiations early this year for an improvement in the conditions of the road transport workers with unions that represent only a small minority of the employees of that section, and were on the eve of getting the Minister's sanction, while at the same time the same management were threatening the railway workers with the suspension of an agreement and a return to the four days per week?

Mr. Lemass

I do not remember all the circumstances. I recollect there was great publicity given to the matter and the Irish Transport and General Workers' Union repudiated that statement.

Mr. Davin

The management admitted it, and you admitted it here in the House.

Mr. Lemass

I do not remember; my memory is not sufficiently clear to assist the Deputy.

Mr. Davin

It was a very undesirable state of affairs.

Mr. Coburn

Will Deputy Keyes explain what he means by "enforceable"? I do not know how any company could make anything enforceable if the men do not agree and co-operate. As a member of a trade union, I never gave employers the right to enforce anything. Wherever we had an agreement we always carried it out. Is the onus on the company in this matter?

Mr. Lemass

These agreements are enforceable. They are registered in accordance with the Act and are enforceble as contracts.

Mr. Coburn

Is the amendment, which is in the names of three members of the Labour Party, intended to avoid preference being given to any particular union? There is no use in hiding the facts. We know there is a war going on in this city. Unfortunately, there is rivalry between unions. There is no use in beating about the bush. This war has been going on for years between these unions and possibly there is a suspicion that this company will favour a particular union and make agreements with that union to the detriment of the members of another union. On the other hand, an agreement may be made between the company and the representatives of a particular union, and it is sought in this amendment that that agreement will apply to every man of that particular group.

Mr. Keyes

That grade.

Mr. Coburn

In the natural order it should apply, and I cannot see where the danger comes in. If, on the other hand, there is a suspicion that the management will have some secret agreement with the members of another union and possibly give them better terms for the purpose of inducing other members to join that particular union, I can foresee a danger and this rivalry will continue to exist. Unfortunately, we have too many unions in this country, and it would be much more simple if we had only the one union dealing with matters of this kind.

There is no great harm in the Minister accepting this amendment. I do not see that it ties the hands of the management of the company. If the employees of a particular group and the company can come to an agreement with regard to rates of wages and hours and conditions, I cannot see why they should not be allowed to do so and let the arrangements be carried out in accordance with the agreement.

Mr. Davin

It is not necessary to point out to the Minister—he knows it —but it may be necessary to point out to Deputy Coburn, that the chairman of this company, in his capacity as managing director of the Dublin United Transport Company, entered into negotiations and made an agreement with the representatives of a union representing a minority of the workers and in that agreement he arranged, by peculiar tactics, that a tram conductor or a tram driver who was a member of a particular union should get 5/- a week more than the man associated with another union. That is a backhand way and a very funny way of trying to force employees receiving a lower rate of wages into the union.

Mr. Lemass

Take the case of the Dublin dockyard, where there has been a strike for the last six months resulting from the efforts of one union to exclude another union from the dockyard, and ships have been held up.

Mr. Davin

It is not the job of the head of a concern like this, nominated by the Government, to interfere with the constitutional rights of railway and transport workers.

Mr. Lemass

We are not proposing to give him that power.

Mr. Davin

There is no use in boasting about what is in the Constitution if you allow that to go on.

Mr. Coburn

It should be made clear, at any rate, that every man is entitled to join whatever union he likes.

Mr. McGilligan

Would it be possible to make it compulsory that any agreement made with a trade union representative of employees should be open—compulsorily open—for adherence by other trade unions?

Mr. Lemass

That, I understand, is the practice—that, when an agreement is made with the National Union of Railwaymen, the unions not in the negotiation machinery then conclude separate agreements on the same terms.

Mr. McGilligan

Would it be possible to insist that every agreement should be open so as to prevent, say, the management of the company making agreements with one union to the exclusion of others?

Mr. Lemass

I do not know that we should go that far.

Amendment put.

The Committee divided: Tá, 24; Níl, 41.

Tá

• Blowick, Joseph.
• Browne, Patrick.
• Byrne, Alfred.
• Cafferky, Dominick.
• Coburn, James.
• Coogan, Eamonn.
• Cosgrave, Liam.
• Costello, John A.
• Davin, William.
• Dockrell, Henry M.
• Dockrell, Maurice E.
• Doyle, Peadar S.
• Hughes, James.
• Keating, John.
• Keyes, Michael.
• Larkin, James.
• Lynch, Finian.
• McGilligan, Patrick.
• Mulcahy, Richard.
• Murphy, Timothy J.
• Norton, William.
• O'Higgins, Thomas F.
• O'Sullivan, Martin.
• Redmond, Bridget M.

Níl

• Beegan, Patrick.
• Blaney, Neal.
• Boland, Geráld.
• Boland, Patrick.
• Brady, Seán.
• Brennan, Thomas.
• Briscoe, Robert.
• Burke, Patrick (Co. Dublin).
• Butler, Bernard.
• Carter, Thomas.
• Colbert, Michael.
• Colley, Harry.
• Daly, Francis J.
• Flynn, Stephen.
• O Briain, Donnchadh.
• O Ceallaigh, Seán T.
• O'Connor, John S.
• O'Grady, Seán.
• O'Loghlen, Peter J.
• Rice, Bridget M.
• Ryan, Robert.
• Fogarty, Andrew.
• Furlong, Walter.
• Gorry, Patrick J.
• Hilliard, Michael.
• Humphreys, Francis.
• Killilea, Mark.
• Kilrov, James.
• Lemass, Seán F.
• Lydon, Michael F.
• Lynch, James B.
• McCann, John.
• McCarthy, Seán.
• Morrissey, Michael.
• Moylan, Seán.
• Sheridan, Michael.
• Smith, Patrick.
• Traynor, Oscar.
• Walsh, Laurence.
• Walsh, Richard.
• Ward, Conn.
• Ward, Conn.

Tellers:—Tá: Deputies Keyes and Larkin: Níl: Deputies O Briain and McCann.

Amendment declared lost.

Mr. Davin

I move amendment No. 101:—

At the end of Section 44, to add the following new sub-section:—

(3) No such association, club, institution, fund, trust or convenience as is mentioned in this section shall contain any provision relating to the rates of pay or the conditions of employment applicable to employees of the company and nothing contained in this section shall enable any such association, club, institution, fund, trust or convenience as aforesaid to be recognised or countenanced as an excepted body within the meaning of Section 6 of the Trade Union Act, 1941, as amended by Section 2 of the Trade Union Act, 1942.

There is a genuine doubt in the minds of some of us as to the purpose of the section as it stands, and the amendment has been put down in order to make it certain that no club or association established under this section will be used as an excepted body under the Trade Union Act, 1942. I would be obliged if the Minister would give us some information of the purpose for which the clubs or institutions will be established and whether there is a limit to the amount of money which may be set aside for their maintenance. He might further say whether they will be used in any way to cut across the activities of trade unions now catering for the workers who will be employed in Córas Iompar Éireann as from 1st January, 1945.

Mr. Lemass

I understand the Dublin United Transport Company has made arrangements to assist in the provision of a social centre for its workers and employees, a club room where there would be ordinary club recreations. The company may also occasionally contribute to choral societies, dramatic societies or football clubs organised amongst its employees. Unless there is some such section as this in the Bill, this new company would not be able to use its funds to make contributions of that kind. That is why it is necessary to have a section empowering them to do so.

I can assure the Deputy there is no intention to recognise any such body as an excepted body under the Trade Union Act, 1942. That Act permits of wage negotiations being carried on by an excepted body, which is defined in the Act. I do not think we should try to amend that Act by the provisions in this Bill. I can give the Deputy any assurance he wants that there is no intention to recognise any such body as an excepted body or to create a situation in which the negotiations with the company will be carried on by any body but licensed trade unions.

Mr. Davin

Is it understood that in such schemes as are extended to the workers, there will be freedom on the part of the workers to have their own committees, without any official interference and that they will not be obliged or compelled to subscribe to testimonials for certain purposes, on the threat that, if they fail to do so, they will be kept under observation?

Mr. Lemass

I think I can give the Deputy that assurance.

Mr. Norton

It is very necessary that it should be given, and very necessary that the Minister should use the power he has under this Bill to curb the activities of at least one of those clubs, which has become a blackmail on innocent, simple, impoverished railwaymen. I got a strong complaint that a couple of gentlemen described as public relations officers have been pestering some underpaid railwaymen and tramway employees to subscribe a sum of £500 to present to the chairman of the company his portrait in oils, and to entertain him at a big banquet at the same time. I am sure the chairman has no interest in pestering people to present him with his portrait in oils and that he personally has nothing to do with the matter. A few people known as public relations officers attached to these services apparently regard this as part of their duties, and as something which would ingratiate them with the higher officials of the companies, and have been organising a committee to try to secure the necessary £500 for the portrait in oils.

I am told that people have said they had neither time to spend on the committee nor money to subscribe, and they have been told that the chairman would be very annoyed if he thought a proposition of this kind was received so coldly by them. I am sure the chairman has not the slightest interest in this project and would not lend his name for the purpose of disseminating the dark hints thrown out by folk who are apparently acting on his behalf, although not with his knowledge, and apparently using his powerful position in the transport undertakings for the purpose of endeavouring to coerce these people into subscribing for a presentation of this kind.

If this company has public relations officers with time to spare, I suggest they should go down to Aston's Quay. on a wet day and have a look at the unfortunate passengers, blue with the cold and soaked with the rain, struggling to get a bus for a distant part of the country. They could employ their talents and energies better in providing proper housing accommodation for these passengers and would be doing a very much better service for the travelling public than canvassing for the presentation of a portrait in oils to the chairman. I am sure the Minister has no sympathy with what may be appropriately described as a racket of this kind, and I am sure the chairman has very little use for the fulsome activities of these people.

I was told the other day that some of these public relations officers wanted someone to speak at the banquet and, when some of the speakers demurred, saying they were not of the calibre for speaking at public functions on such a grandiose scale, they were told it did not matter whether they knew how to speak or not, as the speeches would be dressed up for them and they would only have to get them over to the lads assembled. Utilising public relations officers in transport undertakings for a purpose of that kind, when we have a rather dilapidated transport system, and a hopelessly chaotic system in some respects, seems to be a complete misuse of their functions.

There has been a very genuine fear that an effort might be made to utilise these clubs as a kind of house unions. I am glad to have the Minister's assurance that as far as he is concerned, he will not stand for that. I would suggest to the Minister that he might find occasion to have a talk with the chairman of the company so as to make sure that so far as the chairman is concerned—the other directors do not matter because they are there only to provide embroidery for the chairman at the meetings of the board—he will have nothing whatever to do with the utilisation of these clubs for purposes other than those for which they might properly be used, namely, to provide recreation and to provide social activities for members who can elect freely to take part in them or, as freely, remain outside them without incurring the displeasure of anybody associated with the railway industry.

Mr. Davin

I am prepared to accept the Minister's assurance on this matter.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Section 44 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

SECTION 45.

Question proposed: "That Section 45 stand part of the Bill."

Mr. McGilligan

Sub-section (5) of this section refers to regulations. What proportion of the posts have been selected for limited competitive examination under the latest regulations?

Mr. Lemass

No regulation has been made in that respect. The regulation referred to deals with the holding of examinations.

Mr. McGilligan

Is there any stabilised proportion of the vacancies?

Mr. Lemass

I do not think so.

Mr. McGilligan

Is the Irish language not a necessary subject at the limited competitive examination?

Mr. Lemass

The open competitive examination applies to all applicants. They all must pass the examination but, of those who are successful, some number who are covered by sub-section (4) must be offered a proportion of the appointments.

Mr. Byrne

These are new appointments and not promotions? Supposing some officer of ten years' service——

Mr. Lemass

It is new appointment —recruitment to the company's service. I should say that there was a regulation made that the proportion of the vacancies to be filled by children of existing servants should not exceed one-fourth of the total.

Mr. McGilligan

That is a regulation made?

Mr. Lemass

Yes.

Mr. Davin

Sub-section (1) says that all appointments to any office or situation in the clerical grade of the service shall be made by means of open competitive examination in accordance with regulations made by the company. Does that cover clerical, administrative and executive grades because I have a particular reason for raising this point? I know that suggestions have been made in recent times, apparently emanating from those anxious to look after university graduates, that a small number of persons who have university degrees should be brought into the service of the company—the same thing has been suggested for the Dublin Corporation—for appointment to executive posts. I have good reason to believe that a small number at any rate of such posts are being reserved for candidates of that character. In, fact I know some of the names of young men who were interviewed by the chairman at the request of a university professor for the purpose of finding out whether they were suitable, as apprentices if you like, for some of the higher administrative posts. That is the kind of scheme that brought the British railways into chaos and bankruptcy at a particular period. If my advice is worth anything in a matter of this kind to the Minister or to the chairman, I would say that, if he wants the railway transport scheme to be a success, he will put into the higher administrative posts men who have knowledge and experience over long years of the service and he will not bring, at this particular period, into such posts under the name of apprentices, persons who have no knowledge or experience of the working of the industry.

An Ceann Comhairle

The section seems to me to deal only with competitive examinations for appointment to the clerical grades.

Mr. Lemass

The clerical grades cover only the clerical staff. Recruitment to executive or technical grades need not be by competition.

Mr. Norton

Is it the intention to encourage the stepping-up of men from the clerical grades to higher positions?

Mr. Lemass

We are concerned here only with the clerical grades and we provide that admission will be secured by open competitive examination.

Mr. Byrne

The question is whether you want to encourage members of the clerical grade by giving them a chance of advancement to higher grades.

Mr. Lemass

I shall not be managing the company.

Mr. Norton

You will be very near it.

Mr. Davin

I am not applying my argument to the technical staff at all because you could not advance any sound argument along these lines that would be applicable to the technical branch.

Mr. Lemass

This applies only to the clerical grade.

Mr. Davin

Is it possible under the wording of the section to provide for appointments without examination in this new organisation of persons from the university under the title of superior apprentices and put them into the highest grade without any experience?

Mr. Lemass

This applies only to the clerical grade.

Mr. Davin

Does the Minister know anything about such a proposal?

Mr. Lemass

I have notice of a Parliamentary Question on the matter.

Mr. McGilligan

I thought the Deputy's point was: does it apply to the clerical grade?

Mr. Lemass

It applies to the clerical grades.

Mr. Davin

Ordinarily a man enters these grades by open competitive examination as clerk and the history of the railway has been that he goes ahead. Some of the persons now occupying highly-paid and responsible positions came in as a result of open competitive examination. They are now in the ranks of the highest executive officers. I want that policy to be retained as against this proposal of somebody who knows nothing about the working of the railway or the transport undertaking to put in superior apprentices.

An Ceann Comhairle

That is not in the section which deals with competitive examinations for clerical posts.

Mr. Davin

If this proposal, as I am informed, is about to be put into operation it is going to cut across the recognised method of recruitment for the railway service.

Mr. Lemass

No matter what is said, this section will cover the recruitment for clerical posts.

Mr. Norton

The Minister said that this will cover the method of recruiting persons for the clerical grade. This company is going to be underwritten as to the principal and interest on £16,000,000 of debenture stock by the State. It is the public which is going to have the privilege of putting it into a sound financial position and we are entitled to know what method is going to be pursued by the company in the filling of the non-clerical grades.

An Ceann Comhairle

Not under this section.

Mr. Norton

I suggest that under this section we are entitled to ask the Minister what is the precise scope of the section.

Mr. Lemass

It applies to clerical grades only.

Mr. Norton

Is it possible for a director to push a second cousin into the non-clerical grade without examination?

An Ceann Comhairle

That does not arise. The section is definitely confined to clerical grades and questions as to other grades do not arise.

Mr. Davin

If you would ask the Minister to give us a definition of "clerical grades", I think he would tell you that it covers others than ordinary clerks.

Mr. Lemass

There are clearly defined grades of clerks.

Mr. Norton

What grades are covered by "clerical grades"?

Mr. Lemass

Deputy O'Sullivan will tell you.

Mr. Norton

Deputy O'Sullivan is not the Minister. I am anxious about this point which, I think, is important to the community. For this transport undertaking, a very laudable practice is set down in sub-section (1) of Section 45, although there is a certain saving aspect about the provision for entry by open competitive examination to the clerical grade. What grades will be covered by the section? It seems to me that, while encouraging the continuance of the desirable practice of promoting people in the service into higher positions, it is desirable we should curb any tendency on the part of a director or wealthy shareholder to pass a dud second cousin or third cousin into the service.

An Ceann Comhairle

That matter does not arise.

Mr. McGilligan

Except by way of omission.

An Ceann Comhairle

If everything omitted from a section were relevant, there would be no finality.

Mr. McGilligan

I thought it was possible to raise matters omitted.

Mr. Norton

If we had raised this matter on the Second Reading of the Bill, I feel sure that the Chair, while it might not have been vocal on the matter, would feel that it was a matter that could be dealt with in Committee.

An Ceann Comhairle

If relevant.

Mr. Norton

It arises by omission.

An Ceann Comhairle

Nothing is relevant on this section but the question of competitive examination for clerical posts.

Mr. Norton

Assuming that I cannot raise any question but that of competitive examination for clerical posts, will the Minister tell us what scale of salary he has in mind for clerical posts? Will this section apply only to subordinate clerical grades or how far up will the clerical grades come within the ambit of sub-section (1) of Section 45? Can the Minister give us any information on that point?

Mr. Lemass

We are not proposing to provide a similar method of recruitment for any class of the company's employees other than clerical workers.

Mr. Norton

What wage ceiling have you in mind?

Mr. Lemass

It is not a matter of a ceiling; it is a question of grading.

Mr. Norton

The ceiling has a great deal to do with the grading.

Mr. Lemass

I do not think that this would be a suitable method for recruiting labourers.

Mr. Norton

Will persons with a basic salary of £200 or £250 or £500 come under "clerical grades?"

Mr. Lemass

The grading will be according to the nature of their work.

Mr. Norton

Where does "clerical" end?

Mr. Lemass

Where "executive" begins.

Mr. Norton

Where is that?

Mr. Davin

The present commercial assistants came into the service by open competitive examination. If they retired on pension, would there be any proposal to supersede them by those superior apprentices, appointed without open competitive examination and taken in without any previous experience?

An Ceann Comhairle

That is the same question as before. It does not arise on the section.

Mr. Lemass

Recruitment for the training class to which the Deputy refers is confined to employees of the company who, I think, came in by competitive examination. I have no further information on the matter but I intend to get it in order to reply to a Parliamentary Question which has been put down in regard to the matter.

Mr. McGilligan

I do not think it is right to say that those persons entered the service by competitive examination.

Mr. Norton

What is the meaning of the last two lines of sub-section (4): "or the children of such persons shall be admitted thereto"?

Mr. Lemass

That is the existing practice. I am not at all sure that I would defend it but I assumed that there would be substantial opposition on the part of railway workers to its amendment.

Mr. McGilligan

It is the existing law.

Section 45 agreed to.

SECTION 46.

Amendment No. 101a not moved.

Mr. Hughes

I move amendment No. 102:—

In sub-section (3), line 13, to delete the word "may" and substitute therefor the word "shall".

Deputy Cosgrave and I, in whose names this amendment is down, are anxious to see the Minister insist on making this advisory committee a body in some degree representative of important agricultural and industrial interests. We want the people to feel that those interests will have representation on a committee which will be instructing and advising the Minister and that this committee will study national transport problems. We want to secure that, when representations are made to the Minister for the introduction of new services or the variation of existing services, it will not be optional with him to refer, or not to refer, the matter to the advisory committee. We do not want the committee to be purely ornamental. We feel that this committee should study national transport problems and make themselves au fait with the economic conditions in different parts of the country and with developments in other countries. We want to secure that, if the Minister at any time has a request made to him for introduction of a new method of transport or for the extension or variation of existing methods, he will refer it to the committee, which will have been studying transport matters behind the scenes and that, at all times, before he makes an order of this sort, he will have sought the advice of this committee.

Mr. Lemass

This question will, no doubt, arise on other sections of the Bill also. I am completely opposed to the Deputy's idea. The intention is that this will be an advisory committee and that it will be consulted if there is an element of doubt as to whether action should be taken and if it is necessary to hold an inquiry involving consultation with the interests concerned—the company and any other parties who may wish to make representations. If I were to receive an application under this section which, I thought, should, beyond question, be granted without further inquiry, I should proceed to make the order. If I felt that the matter was one concerning which there should be an examination of the facts and that an opportunity should be given to each party to make representations, I should refer it to the advisory committee. I want to make clear that this is to be an advisory committee and not a sort of permanent inquiry tribunal into the conduct of transport affairs. It is not intended to be anything else but advisory to the Minister. It is not intended to be an authority independent of the Minister, and it would be wrong to put it on any other basis. The intention is that, where it is necessary to consult with trading interests or persons concerned with a particular locality or to ascertain the transport position or prospects of an area in relation to the views of the company concerning the adequacy of the facilities, or other matters, the committee will be consulted. There will, no doubt, be many frivolous applications—some so frivolous that there will be no difficulty concerning them and no necessity to hold a public inquiry in relation to them. In saying that, I am speaking with experience of the operation of the 1924 Act.

The functions which the Minister is given in this Bill in relation to the matters on which the advisory committee may be consulted were given under the 1924 Act to the tribunal, but in actual practice many questions were settled without reference to the tribunal—matters which, in fact, would not be brought to the tribunal because of the expenses that would be involved so far as the individuals were concerned. It is because of that that many matters, that were intended to be dealt with in that way, were dealt with departmentally, in practice. That has induced me to establish as law what the practice has been, and the idea is to bring the law into accordance with practical experience. This is intended to be a committee to inquire into the circumstances of applications, where there is a doubt as to whether they should be granted or not. They may not be granted, although I think that if recommended by the committee they will be, but if there are cases where the Minister has no doubt that there is no case for an inquiry, and where the matter could be handled, let us say, by an ordinary inquiry over the telephone, I think there should be no need for this elaborate machinery of inquiry.

Mr. Hughes

Even if you substitute the word "shall" for "may" the Minister need not accept the recommendation. It has been suggested here over and over again that we are appointing a dictator chairman, but I want to say that the real dictator, so far as this measure is concerned, is the Minister himself. He is the man who holds unlimited power.

Mr. Lemass

The Deputy, I presume, has read Section 62.

Mr. Hughes

The chairman has been described as the dictator, but the Minister can remove the chairman, and the Minister is the real dictator, even in matters of consultation such as this, which we are asking the Minister to refer to this advisory committee. It may be that individuals in a remote part of the country may feel that they should have an extension of existing services. They may feel that they are not being properly served to the extent to which the economy of their part of the country demands, and the Minister, without consultation with anybody, may decide that they should not have that service.

Mr. Lemass

Or that they should have it.

Mr. Hughes

He may decide that they should not have it. We are legislating for nothing to happen.

Mr. Lemass

Supposing that the Minister decides that they should get the extension, does the Deputy suggest that he must go through all this elaborate business before it can be done?

Mr. Hughes

Supposing the Minister decides the other way? If he decides that they should not get the extension, the Minister can take a dictatorial position and deny these people the opportunity of appealing to any other body. I think the Minister ought to meet the case in point. I am prepared to accept the case made by the Minister, so far as a trivial matter is concerned, but what is the position in regard to important matters, where the Minister can give his own decision, and there is no appeal?

Mr. Lemass

Unless he had extraordinarily good grounds, it would not be accepted in the Dáil, and he would refer it to the tribunal because, otherwise, he would have to defend it here in the Dáil.

Mr. Hughes

The Minister may refer very few matters to this committee, and may make an Order, pure and simple.

Mr. Lemass

In my opinion, what I have suggested is far more likely to happen.

Mr. Hughes

Where the Minister makes a decision and refuses to have the matter further examined, what are the people concerned to do about it?

Mr. Lemass

Raise it here.

Mr. Hughes

The Minister will give a machined decision here, and that is the end of it.

Mr. Lemass

The Minister is just as much concerned as the Deputy to convince people that he is right.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

An Ceann Comhairle

That decision, I presume, covers amendment No. 106?

Mr. Hughes

Yes.

Amendment No. 103 not moved.

Question proposed: "That Section 46 stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Byrne

On Section 46, Sir, sub-section (1) says that the Minister may require the company to establish and maintain such services for the conveyance of traffic by rail, road or water as he thinks fit. When he speaks of the conveyance of traffic by water, does he anticipate the controlling of any shipping companies, or is he referring to canals?

Mr. Lemass

I mean canals.

Mr. Byrne

Does the Minister anticipate the control of air services in the future?

Mr. Lemass

No, we have provided for that under a special Act.

Mr. Byrne

Well, what is meant here by the word "water"?

Mr. Lemass

It means canals.

Mr. Byrne

Well, on the question of canals, will the Minister take steps to see that the canal workers will be paid decent wages?

An Ceann Comhairle

The matter of wages does not arise here.

Mr. Byrne

Will the Minister take steps to see that the lock-keepers, for instance, will get decent wages? These unfortunate people get only 30/- a week.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy should realise that that is not relevant.

Mr. Byrne

I did not realise that, Sir.

An Ceann Comhairle

I take the Deputy's word for it.

Mr. McGilligan

On Section 46, Sir, the Minister says that the word "water" here means only canals, but it is not so defined here.

Mr. Lemass

No, but it could happen, and does, in fact, happen, that this company could operate a water service such as, for instance, the Bantry Bay Steamship Company.

Mr. McGilligan

It can, in fact, operate by sea?

Mr. Lemass

Yes.

Mr. McGilligan

Well, then, can the Minister define under what conditions this company will operate? It is possible that this company may go into competition with services in, let us say, the North Eastern part of the country. Will that be so, or is it intended?

Mr. Lemass

No, but these services are operated under licence.

Mr. McGilligan

But it could be done under an order by the Minister?

Mr. Lemass

Yes, but that is not the policy, and it is not intended.

Mr. McGilligan

I take it that it is not intended that they could be squeezed out under this?

Mr. Lemass

No; that is not intended.

Question put and agreed to.

SECTION 47.

Mr. Lemass

I move amendment No. 104:—

To delete sub-section (1) and substitute the following sub-section:—

(1) Except so far as authorised by an Order of the Minister, the parties to any agreement or arrangement, between the company and any other transport undertaking, for the allocation or routing of traffic or for the pooling of receipts or for differential rates on traffic passing by sea to or from the State shall not—

(a) vary or rescind the agreement or arrangement, or

(b) enter into agreements or arrangements for any of those purposes.

This is really a drafting amendment, the purpose of which is to bring the wording in the sub-section into line with Section 115. It makes provision in regard to certain agreements or arrangements entered into by other companies. We think it undesirable to have a different form of wording in each section, and that is why this amendment is being proposed. It does not change the meaning of the section.

Mr. Davin

What is the reason for the insertion of this?

Mr. Lemass

We think it is desirable to have power to ensure that the Minister for Industry and Commerce will be able to keep track of all agreements which are entered into by transport companies, by this company and other transport companies. We are taking power in Section 115 in relation to other companies to ensure that these agreements are in accordance with the general transport policy of the Government of the time.

Mr. Davin

In regard to the routing of traffic?

Mr. Lemass

Yes, and the allocation of traffic as between different carriers.

Mr. Davin

Will there be power under the section to prevent traffic going by a route other than its natural route?

Mr. Lemass

We are freezing the existing position: that is to say, whatever agreements there may be at the moment in relation to the routing of traffic will be maintained and cannot be altered without Ministerial sanction. That is intended to ensure the protection of ports and special interests of that kind.

Mr. Davin

If the Minister finds that traffic is going out of its natural route, as has been the practice in certain cases, and that that is detrimental to the Éire ports, will he have power under this section to deal with that situation?

Mr. Lemass

Not under this section.

Mr. McGilligan

To get variation, must there be: (1) a Ministerial Order, and (2) the agreement of both, or all, parties to the agreement?

Mr. Lemass

Not necessarily agreement amongst all the parties, although, I should say, that would be the almost invariable practice. There must be an application by the company or by any party to the agreement, or by any other transport undertakers affected by the agreement, or any representative body of traders affected. If such an application is made, then there can be an amendment of the agreement or arrangement.

Mr. McGilligan

As it reads, it says that the parties shall not vary the agreement.

Mr. Lemass

An agreement of that kind cannot be varied without reference to the Minister.

Mr. McGilligan

But you also require the consent of the parties.

Mr. Lemass

No.

Mr. McGilligan

The parties "shall not vary or rescind".

Mr. Lemass

The parties to the agreement cannot vary it on their own. The House should consider this section in relation to Section 115 which makes similar provision in regard to other railway companies. We are not putting on this company something that we are not proposing to put on the others. None of these agreements can be amended without submission to the Minister for Industry and Commerce and without his sanction. I think it desirable that the public authority should keep track of these agreements to ensure that the public interest is not adversely affected by any private arrangement that might be entered into.

Mr. Coburn

This amendment to the original section is all right up to a point. Would I be wrong in assuming that a party or person, other than the parties mentioned in the section or amendment, could apply to the Minister for an Order in regard to the pooling of traffic, etc., and obtain that Order from the Minister? I mean parties or persons other than the parties specifically referred to in the amendment and in the section.

If the amendment proposed stands, why retain sub-sections (2) and (3)? So far as I understand the position it is that persons or parties other than the persons mentioned in the Minister's amendment could apply to the Minister for an Order varying an agreement.

Mr. Lemass

We should give the right of application to the other parties to the agreement as well as to the company.

Mr. Coburn

The Minister's amendment refers only to parties to an agreement between the company and the other transport undertakers, but does not cover those who are not parties to the agreement. The Minister, for example, could make an Order which might be detrimental to the Great Northern Railway Company which is not being incorporated in this new company.

Mr. Lemass

If the Deputy's point be that, while we are giving power for the making of an application by the company or other parties to an agreement, we should not give such power to a representative body of traders that are not parties to the agreement, I think there is something in it, and I will have it examined.

Mr. McGilligan

There is a point with regard to Section 115 which does not apply to the company. Section 47 does. If the company has to take over all agreements made by the dissolved companies, which is the situation, why should it not be bound in Section 115 to report these agreements? As the section was originally drafted, it was that it should not be lawful for the company to vary any agreement unless it was authorised by an Order of the Minister. Now a change is being authorised by an Order of the Minister, and the parties cannot vary it. I take that to mean that this applies to agreements previously entered into by the Dublin Transport Company, the Great Southern Railways Company and outside bodies, and that all parties to the agreement must concur in the variation or recision. Without that agreement, the Ministerial Order is no good.

Mr. Lemass

I take the position to be that the parties to the agreement would have themselves to agree to the amendment of the agreement or to the termination of it. We are not proposing that the Minister will have power to insist on such amendment or its abandonment. If the parties make such an agreement they may apply to the Minister for sanction to the new arrangement. He may give or refuse sanction after consultation, if he so desires it, with the advisory committee. I gather that Deputy Coburn has some objection to the reference to the advisory committee. I am not clear as to that point, but sub-section (2) is merely intended to provide machinery by which application for the Minister's sanction may be made. I can see some grounds for the Deputy's objection, that an application should be possible only from one or other of the parties to the agreement, and that there should not be a situation in which a party who is not concerned in the agreement might apply for its variation without relation to the interests of the parties who made the agreement. Section 115 relates to new agreements and requires the tabling of new agreements within 14 days after they are entered into. I take it that Deputy McGilligan's point is why that obligation does not attach to this company?

Mr. McGilligan

Yes.

Mr. Lemass

I am afraid I could not answer that without notice. I will have to look into it.

Mr. McGilligan

There is a matter upon which I should like more information. I think it would be more cogent on Section 115. Since an endeavour has been made now to get the terminology of the two sections into some sort of consistency, why is there this insistence on the word "arrangement" as well as "agreement"? I understand from one of the railway companies that there are matters that they call "agreements". These would be of a general nature and open to all traders of a particular type or all people going by a particular route, but "arrangements" may cover some greater number of matters. For instance, I understand that very often they enter into what is called an arrangement with a person with regard to the routing or the freighting of a particular parcel. Is the Minister going to get records of all these arrangements?

Mr. Lemass

No. It is arrangements with other transport undertakings for the allocation or routing of traffic or the pooling of receipts, or for differential rates on traffic passing by sea.

Mr. McGilligan

I take it it is possible to make arrangements for specific parcels to be carried from, say, Belfast to Dublin by cabin or some other way?

Mr. Lemass

You mean with the consignor?

Mr. McGilligan

Yes.

Mr. Lemass

We are only covering arrangements with other transport undertakings.

Mr. McGilligan

Section 115 will have the same reference?

Mr. Lemass

Yes.

Mr. McGilligan

I do not think Section 115 contains the precise phrase. It contains the phrase "agreement or arrangement" but it does not contain the additional phrase "with any other transport undertakings".

Mr. Lemass

So I see.

Mr. McGilligan

It will probably arise more appropriately on Section 115. Certainly in this section it would cover only rather precise and formal agreements.

Mr. Lemass

Formal agreements or arrangements.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Hughes

I move amendment No. 105:—

In sub-section (2) (d), after the word "traders" to add the words "or producers".

I suggest the addition of the words "or producers" because I think the word "traders" might not cover producers.

Mr. Lemass

Would the Deputy let that stand over because I think there is some force in Deputy Coburn's point that the paragraph should be deleted altogether? I should like to examine it. In any case, I think a producer is a trader. Certainly a farmer is also a trader. He trades his produce.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment No. 106 not moved.

Question—"That Section 47, as amended, stand part of the Bill"—put and agreed to.

Sections 48 and 49 agreed to.

SECTION 50.

Mr. Lemass

I move amendment No. 107:—

In sub-section (1), to delete paragraph (a) and insert the following:—

(a) the Dublin Corporation, or.

This is a drafting amendment. We have defined the Corporation of Dublin in the definition section.

Amendment agreed to.

An Ceann Comhairle

Amendments Nos. 108 and 109 are interdependent.

Mr. Cosgrave

I move amendment No. 108:—

In sub-section (3), line 24, to delete the word "Minister" and substitute the words "Chief Justice".

My principal reason for proposing this amendment is that both the Dublin Corporation and the Corporation of Dún Laoghaire will be affected by the cesser of wayleaves on and after a certain date and provision is made in the Bill for the appointment of an arbitrator. That being the case, I think it is undesirable that the Minister should have the sole right to appoint and arbitrator. Under sub-section (4) of Section 41 it is provided that the Chief Justice, whenever so requested by the Minister, shall appoint a person to be the arbitrator, but under this section the Minister himself is going to decide who shall be the arbitrator. If it is desirable to have the Chief Justice in the earlier section, I do not see why he should be omitted from this section but, in any event, there is a general impression that the present Minister is favourable to the transport company and the Corporation of Dublin and the Corporation of Dún Laoghaire and the taxpayers or ratepayers in both cases would naturally feel a certain amount of grievance if an arbitrator were not appointed on an impartial basis. On that account I put down this amendment.

Mr. Lemass

I think, as between the parties, the Minister is impartial enough; but I will not fight on this ground, that is, in so far as the appointment of the arbitrator is concerned. If the Dáil is of opinion that it is more desirable that the arbitrator should be appointed by the Chief Justice than by the Minister, I am prepared to amend the Bill accordingly.

I think we would have to insert a sub-section like sub-section (4) of Section 41, which would require the Chief Justice to appoint an arbitrator whenever requested to do so. I would, however, resist the Deputy's second amendment which would enable the Chief Justice to determine the remuneration of the arbitrator. I think the Department of Finance would never agree to that.

Mr. Cosgrave

I am satisfied with the Minister's undertaking. If the Minister substitutes a similar sub-section to sub-section (4) of Section 41 I think he will meet the point adequately.

Mr. Lemass

I will meet the point by providing for the appointment of an arbitrator by the Chief Justice, fixation of remuneration to be by the Minister.

Mr. McGilligan

Under Section 41 the arbitrator is to be paid such fees as are fixed by the Chief Justice.

Mr. Costello

What interest has the Minister for Finance in it? It is not public money.

Mr. McGilligan

Look at page 19, sub-section (4) of Section 41.

Mr. Lemass

That is true. The fees in that case, of course, are payable by the company.

Mr. Costello

They are payable in this case by the company. What interest has the Minister for Finance in it?

Mr. Lemass

There is some point there, all right.

Mr. Cosgrave

I think if the Minister inserts the same sub-section in this section it will meet the point.

Mr. Lemass

I will consider it. It would be better to have uniform practice in any event.

An Ceann Comhairle

I take it that amendment No. 108 is withdrawn?

Mr. Cosgrave

Yes, Sir, provided a similar sub-section to sub-section (4) of Section 41 is inserted.

Mr. Lemass

Quite. I will have the amendment prepared for Report Stage.

Mr. Costello

Does the Minister think it necessary to define the powers of the arbitrator? He merely decides. Has he any power to call for documents, to hear witnesses, to administer oaths or anything of that description? I am not particularly interested. I merely draw the attention of the Minister to the fact that there is no definition in this section of the arbitrator's powers other than those of decision of the dispute.

Mr. McGilligan

Why not incorporate a section corresponding to No. 41? In fact, you could make this part of the arbitrator's duties.

Mr. Lemass

I will look into that. Of course, it is a different type of business from that which arises under Section 41. Here there is no question of ascertaining facts. It is ascertaining what is fair compensation having regard to the facts.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment No. 109 not moved.

Question proposed: "That Section 50, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

Mr. M.E. Dockrell

I should like to bring to the notice of the Minister that the Dublin Corporation is very much against the abolition of the wayleaves. The wayleaves were originally a charge on the tramway company in the days when the tramway company operated only trams.

Section 7 of the Dublin United Tramways (Omnibus Services) Act, 1925, provides:—

"... notwithstanding any discontinuance or abandonment in whole or in part by the company of any of the existing tramway lines or equipment of the company shall continue to pay to the local authorities not less annually by way of wayleaves than the respective amounts then being paid by the company unless and until provision to the contrary..."

Mr. Lemass

"Unless and until provision to the contrary is made by the Oireachtas." The Deputy must not leave these words out. They are important words.

Mr. M.E. Dockrell

I beg the Minister's pardon. What I was going to say was that that Act recognised that there was a right to continue payment of wayleaves, although the roads were being used by omnibuses. Sub-section (4) of this section says:—

"(4) In fixing the compensation payable to any road authority under this section the arbitrator shall have regard to all the circumstances of the case and may have regard, so far as he considers equitable, to the extent to which the roadways of that road authority have ceased to be used or will cease to be used for the purpose of tramways."

That appears to show that the wayleaves might be considered by the arbitrator as to be paid solely for the use of trams. In point of fact, I think they are mainly paid as a monopoly right, and that that monopoly right still exists in the new transport company, whether trams or buses are running. Dublin Corporation receives £14,920 per annum for wayleaves. It also receives them for the maintenance of the tracks and 18 inches at each side of these tracks. It also receives them under certain agreements and contracts for the right to use the existing tram standards for public lighting purposes. All these functions are a benefit to the corporation and a benefit to the citizens of Dublin. Taking the full amount received for wayleaves it represents 2d. in the £ on the rates. The corporation feel that under this Bill they might be deprived—to a certain extent they will be—of a payment which is their just due. On behalf of the corporation I wish to register a protest on that account. One cannot say what the arbitrator is going to do, but this sub-section seems to indicate that the basis of the arbitration may be the existing tramlines and not the whole transport services of the company. The corporation would be glad of an explanation from the Minister on this question generally. The corporation feel that they ought to be paid a capital sum—if not an annual sum—for wayleaves which will bring in the amount they now receive.

Mr. Lemass

This question of wayleaves originated when opposition was offered at the time by the Dublin Corporation to a Private Bill promoted by Dublin Tramways Companies for the electrification of tramways in Dublin. The agreement made at the time provided for a variation of the amount according to the mileage of tracks in use. It was not until 1925 that there was any special recognition of that. It arose again by the opposition of Dublin Corporation to a Private Bill promoted by Dublin Tramways Company to empower them to run omnibuses. Omnibuses were then coming into use, and they were being operated in Dublin by a number of private individuals. In fact, anybody at the time could operate omnibus services in Dublin except the tramways company.

In order to get power to run omnibus services the company promoted a Private Bill which the Dublin Corporation opposed. Arising out of the negotiations that took place between the company and the corporation, and in an effort to secure the withdrawal of corporation opposition to the Bill, the company agreed to insert a clause in the Bill providing for a continuation of payment of wayleaves to the corporation at the amount paid that year for an indefinite period, "unless and until provision to the contrary is made by the Oireachtas". I think the insertion of these words by the Private Bill Committee is a clear indication that they did not contemplate that the arrangement was a permanent one. No other explanation could be given for the insertion of these words, which were not necessary to the completion of the agreement, but as an indication of doubt in the mind of the committee of the wisdom of imposing this obligation on the tramways company indefinitely.

I do not think it would be seriously contended that we should recognise a situation which might involve the Dublin Corporation continuing to draw wayleaves from the Dublin United Transport Company or the new company which will absorb it, in perpetuity, long after the tramways out of which the obligation arose had ceased to exist. I think I could make a case for a reduction of the wayleaves in proportion to the mileage of tram tracks and for their disappearance with the disappearance of the trams. I am not proposing to do so. I propose to terminate this situation in a way which is fair to the corporation, by the payment of a capital sum which will be determined by the arbitrator with these terms of reference. He shall have regard to all the circumstances of the case, and may have regard, as far as he considers equitable, to the extent to which the roadway has ceased to be used for the purposes of tramways. The situation is that if the tramways company had not sought by Private Bill in 1925 to run omnibuses the old agreement would operate, and wayleaves would contract with the contraction of the tramways.

Whatever the origin of the opposition offered by the corporation in 1925 to that Bill, it resulted in this agreement, and secured that continuation of the payment of wayleaves at the amount paid in that year. Having regard to the clear indication of the mind of the committee which considered the Bill, and the general circumstances, it is desirable that we should get rid of wayleave payments now in a way that is not unfair to the company and by which the new company capitalises the liability. That is what the proposal amounts to. I certainly resist the suggestion that anything here is unfair to the corporation. I could make a convincing case that the obligation to pay wayleaves should disappear at some period, or with the trams, without any payment of compensation at all.

Mr. M.E. Dockrell

Does the Minister not think that there was a recognition of monopoly right rather than paying for use of tram tracks?

Mr. Lemass

No, the tramways company were not given any monopoly to run buses. That Act empowered the tramways company to run buses. They were not given a monopoly at that time.

Mr. M.E. Dockrell

Where they could run a tram and substituted a bus, it was recognised by the Act that wayleaves were due to the corporation for running buses.

Mr. Lemass

No, the tramways company as omnibus operators paid road tax the same as everybody else, which went to the benefit of Dublin.

Mr. McGilligan

Can the arguments for and against be made to the arbitrator?

Mr. Lemass

Certainly.

Progress reported; the Committee to sit again.

The Dáil adjourned at 9 p.m. until 3 p.m. on Tuesday, the 3rd October, 1944.