I move amendment No. 173:—
In sub-section (3), line 5, to delete the word "specified".
This is a drafting amendment.
Transport (No. 2) Bill, 1944—Committee Stage (Resumed).
Amendment No. 172 agreed to.
Sections 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99 and 100 agreed to.
SECTION 101.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 174:—
Before sub-section (4) to insert the following sub-section:—
(4) Where an abandonment order has been made in relation to a railway line owned or operated by a railway company, the following provisions shall have effect, that is to say:—
(a) where the railway line has been carried over a public road by means of a bridge which the railway company were, immediately before the date (in this sub-section referred to as the operative date) on which the order comes into force, under a liability to maintain—
(i) the Minister shall appoint a date (in this paragraph referred to as the appointed date) for the purposes of this paragraph,
(ii) the railway company and the local authority in whose functional area the bridge is situate may, before the appointed date, enter into an agreement for the removal or other method of dealing with the bridge (including, if necessary, either the restoration of the public road to like or other equally convenient state as it was in before it was interfered with by the makers of the railway line or the diversion of the public road) upon such terms and conditions as the parties thereto think fit, and, in that case, the liability (except such (if any) as may be imposed by the agreement) of the railway company to maintain the bridge shall cease upon the execution of the agreement,
(iii) if no such agreement is so executed, but the railway company remove the superstructure of the bridge before the appointed date, then—
(I) the liability of the railway to maintain the bridge shall cease as on and from the date of removal, and
(II) the local authority shall, as on and from the date of removal, be liable to maintain so much of the bridge as remains after the removal of the superstructure, and
(III) the railway company shall pay to the local authority compensation for any expenses which the local authority may incur by reason of the liability so imposed on them,
(iv) if no such agreement is so executed or if the superstructure of the bridge is not so removed, then—
(I) the liability of the railway company to maintain the bridge shall cease on the appointed date, and
(II) the local authority shall, as on and from the appointed date, be liable to maintain the bridge, and
(III) the railway company shall pay to the local authority compensation for any expenses which the local authority may incur by reason of the liability so imposed on them,
(b) where a public road has been carried over the railway line by means of a bridge which the railway company were, immediately before the operative date, under a liability to maintain—
(i) the Minister shall appoint a date (in this parágraph referred to as the appointed date) for the purposes of this paragraph,
(ii) the railway company and the local authority in whose functional area the bridge is situate may, before the appointed date, enter into an agreement for the removal or other method of dealing with the bridge (including, if necessary, either the restoration of the public road to like or other equally convenient state as it was in before it was interfered with by the makers of the railway line or the diversion of the public road) upon such terms and conditions as the parties thereto think fit, and, in that case, the liability (except such (if any) as may be imposed by the agreement) of the railway company to maintain the bridge shall cease upon the execution of the agreement,
(iii) if no such agreement is so executed, then—
(I) the liability of the railway company to maintain the bridge shall cease on the appointed date, and
(II) as on and from the appointed date, the local authority shall be liable to maintain the bridge, and
(III) the railway company shall pay to the local authority compensation for any expenses which the local authority may incur by reason of the liability so imposed on them;
(c) if the railway line crosses on the level any public road, the railway company shall, not later than such date as the Minister may fix, remove the rails and do all such other things as may be necessary to render that part of the said public road on which the railway line crossed fit and safe for use by the public, and thereupon the liability of the railway company to maintain the said part in repair shall cease;
(d) the liability, imposed on the railway company by Section 68 of the Railway Clauses Act, 1845, to maintain any works (other than bridges over or under the railway line) of the kind mentioned in the said Section 68 made, in pursuance of that section, for the accommodation of owners and occupiers of land adjoining the railway line shall as from the operative date cease, but the railway company shall pay to any owner or occupier of land adjoining the railway line for the accommodation of which any such works were made in pursuance of the said Section 68 and which the railway company were immediately before the operative date liable to maintain, compensation for all such injury or damage (if any) as he may sustain by reason of the cesser of the liability of the railway company to maintain those works;
(e) where any bridge (being a bridge which the railway company were immediately before the operative date liable to maintain) was, in pursuance of Section 68 of the said Railway Clauses Act, 1845, made over or under the railway line for accommodation of owners and occupiers of land adjoining the railway line—
(i) if the railway company, before such date as the Minister may fix for the purpose, do the following works, namely, replace the said bridge by a crossing on the level over the site of the abandoned railway and render the said crossing fit and safe for use, then, as from the completion of the said works, the liability of the railway company shall cease and they shall not be under any obligation to maintain the said crossing in repair;
(ii) if the railway company do not before the said date do the said works—
(I) the railway company shall as on and from the said date cease to be liable to maintain the said bridge,
(II) the railway company shall pay to any owner or occupier of the land adjoining the railway line for the accommodation of which the said bridge was made compensation for all such injury or damage (if any) as he may sustain by reason of the cesser of the liability of the railway company to maintain the said bridge.
The proposal is to substitute the new sub-section for sub-section (4). I might mention that since I submitted the amendment, the Minister for Local Government has drawn attention to the fact that there are cases where county councils are charged with the maintenance of main roads in urban areas and, because of that, it will be necessary to alter the wording of the amendment, if inserted in the Bill, by a further slight amendment, on the Report Stage. I shall arrange to have such an amendment submitted.
The need for the revision of the sub-section arises out of representations made by the Great Southern Railways Company to the effect that they should be placed in a position whereby the company would be at liberty to restore works on the abandonment of a line to the like or equally good state they were in before the making of the railway. Following representations from the Department of Lands, it was considered that under clause (c), as originally drafted, liability for maintenance, etc., might be transferred to the owner or occupier of land at the time the works referred to were constituted. The proposed new sub-section provides that where the abandonment Order has been made, the provisions set out in the various clauses will operate.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 175:—
To delete sub-section (4).
This is a consequential amendment. The sub-section it proposes to delete has been replaced by the amendment which has been agreed to.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 176:—
Before sub-section (9) to insert the following sub-section:—
(9) In this section—
the expression "railway line" includes a section of a railway line;
the expression "public road" means any road which a local authority is under a statutory obligation to maintain.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 177:—
To delete sub-section (9).
Amendment agreed to.
Question proposed: "That Section 101, as amended, stand part."
I see that this section deals with the abandonment of railway lines. What protection is there for people living in a district where a railway line is abandoned? What protection have they against being left without any means of conveyance?
That is provided for in the Railways Act of 1933. The conditions under which the Minister may make an abandonment Order are, first of all, the operation of services over the line will have ceased and, secondly, arrangements will have been made to the Minister's satisfaction to ensure that adequate road services will be substituted for the displaced services.
There is a statutory obligation on the company to provide alternative services?
There is a statutory obligation on the Minister to satisfy himself that the company will, in fact, provide these alternative services before he makes the Order closing the line.
I see.
In this Bill we propose to take power to require the company, by Order, in any circumstances, to provide adequate transport facilities. That would cover not merely the circumstances of an area previously served by a railway, but, what is perhaps more important, large areas of county that were never served by a railway.
What about the fares —is there any provision to ensure that fares will not be increased?
The company will be operating under a system of maximum fares. The orders will prescribe the charge for transporting classified goods per mile, or the mileage charge for the transportation of passengers, and it will be a system of maximum fares which will operate in all areas.
But the maximum fares, say, for motor conveyance, might be dearer.
That is true, but of course it may frequently happen, and does happen, that the facilities provided by road are better than the facilities provided by rail. I mean that a trader sending goods, say, from one shop to another, may find it more convenient to have the goods taken from one shop door and delivered at the other shop door than to have them taken from one railway station to another railway station. It is not a fair comparison to calculate the cost of sending goods by road as against the cost of sending them by rail. Included in the cost of sending them by rail must be the cost of bringing them from the railway depot to the store where the goods are to be delivered. Ordinarily we can arrange that the charges will be related to the facilities. For most classes of goods the actual cost of transport by rail will be lower than the cost by road, but the facilities will not be the same.
It is the area that I am concerned with. There are grievous complaints in the west about the charges for live stock.
There was a special problem there in so far as on the Clifden line, owing to an arrangement which was made—I need not go into the reason for it now—the cost of transporting cattle was substantially below the cost of transporting cattle over corresponding distances on any other portion of the railway system. There was a change made by bringing into operation in that area the standard charges that applied everywhere else.
Section 101, as amended, and Section 102, agreed to.
SECTION 103.
I move amendment No. 178:—
Before Section 103, to insert the following new section:—
(1) Where a mechanically-propelled vehicle or a vehicle drawn by a mechanically-propelled vehicle is used for the carriage of merchandise, then, subject to this section, the merchandise shall until the contrary is proved, be deemed for the purposes of the Act of 1933, to be carried for reward.
(2) Where—
(a) merchandise, which is supplied by a person in the course of a trade or business carried on by him is, for the purpose of delivery to the customer, carried in a mechanically-propelled vehicle owned by that person or in a vehicle drawn by a mechanically-propelled vehicle owned by that person, or
(b) merchandise, which is to be or has been subjected to any one or more of the following processes, namely, repairing, cleaning, laundering and dyeing, by a person in the course of a trade or business carried on by him is, for the purpose of collection from or delivery to the customer, carried in a mechanically-propelled vehicle owned by that person or in a vehicle drawn by a mechanically-propelled vehicle owned by that person,
the merchandise shall, for the purposes of the Act of 1933, be deemed not to be carried for reward.
(3) Where—
(a) a mechanically-propelled vehicle owned by a person or a vehicle drawn by a mechanically-propelled vehicle owned by a person is used for the carriage of merchandise the property of that person, or
(b) a mechanically-propelled vehicle owned by a company or a vehicle drawn by a mechanically-propelled vehicle owned by a company is used for the carriage of merchandise the property of any company which is in the same ownership, or under the same management, as the company owning the mechanically-propelled vehicle,
then, subject to sub-sections (4) and (5) of this section, the merchandise shall be deemed, for the purposes of the Act of 1933, not to be carried for reward.
(4) Where—
(a) a vehicle (being a mechanically-propelled vehicle or a vehicle drawn by a mechanically-propelled vehicle) is used for the carriage of merchandise, and
(b) the vehicle is registered in the name of two or more persons,
the merchandise shall, for the purposes of the Act of 1933, be deemed not to be the property of the owner of the vehicle, unless it is proved that it is the common property of the persons in whose name the vehicle is registered.
(5) Where—
(a) a person is, in relation to the carriage of merchandise, charged with having committed on a particular occasion an offence under the Act of 1933, and
(b) it is proved that the merchandise was on the said occasion carried in a mechanically-propelled vehicle owned by that person or in a vehicle drawn by a mechanically-propelled vehicle owned by that person, and
(c) it is alleged by that person that the merchandise was his property, and
(d) it appears that the merchandise was not manufactured or produced by that person, but was acquired by him, and
(e) the court is of opinion that (having regard to the circumstances of the acquisition, the purposes for which the merchandise is capable of being used, the recentness of the acquisition and the calling of that person) the merchandise was not bona fide acquired by him for the purposes of his trade or business or for his own private use,
the court shall, for the purposes of the Act of 1933, deal with the charge on the assumption that the property in the merchandise never passed to that person and that the merchandise was on the said occasion carried for reward by him.
The acceptance of this amendment involves the deletion of Sections 103 and 104. The amendment combines, on the suggestion of the parliamentary draftsman, the somewhat scattered provisions relating to carriage for reward at present set out in Sections 2 and 4 of the Road Transport Act, 1934, Section 2 of the Road Transport Act, 1935, and Sections 103 and 104 of this Bill. It is considered more suitable to have all those provisions combined in one section. We are, therefore, proposing to repeal those sections of the previous Acts, and not to move Sections 103 and 104 of this Bill. There is no other change effected by the amendment other than that of regrouping.
Could the Minister say whether this section applies to property carried by private individuals, or whether it applies only to Córas Iompair Eireann? Does it apply to carrying for reward in general?
By any person licensed to carry for reward.
I think it would be very advisable at this stage if the Minister would give the House an idea as to what it is intended to be possible for a merchant to do who has a lorry of his own?
He can carry his own goods in a lorry, and nothing else.
In what circumstances can he carry his own goods? Can he carry them under any circumstances? Can he take delivery of goods from a railway? Can he take delivery of goods in Dublin and take them down to his place in the country? Can he deliver goods from his own place to customers in the country?
Under any circumstances the merchant can carry his own goods in his lorry. Many of the provisions in this Bill are designed merely to ensure that there will be no evasion of the law by reason of a motor owner representing the goods he is carrying as his own when they are not his own. If they are his own, there is no question of his right to carry them in any circumstances.
But if he has sold the goods?
Goods sold and being delivered to the customers are exempted from the restrictions in any event. That is specially provided for in the Road Transport Act.
Take the question of common property. Suppose there is, shall we say, a builders' providers' business in some town down the country, in which there are two partners. Suppose one of them happens to get married, and he is getting a suite of furniture down from Dublin for himself. Would he be able to take delivery of the suite of furniture at the railway station and bring it to his own place, or would he be prevented from doing so by reason of the fact that the suite does not belong to himself and his business partner?
Of course the type of evasion which this section is designed to prevent is not in regard to the casual type of transport to which the Deputy refers. The practice did grow up of a number of traders in a town appearing, on paper, to be combining to form a company to purchase a lorry to carry their goods. It was in most cases only a purely notional company. In practice, one individual purchased the lorry, and got this fictitious organisation behind him as shareholders in the company of which he was the operative. In that way there was successful evasion of the law, and what we are aiming to do here is to ensure that the goods in the lorry will not be deemed to be the property of the owners of the lorry, unless all the owners of the lorry have a common property in the goods. The Deputy will see that that device, if adopted, will prevent the type of evasion to which I have referred. In such a case as the Deputy referred to there would be no question of reward, and of course we are concerned only with carriage for reward.
It has been strongly recommended by everyone having the best interests of the community at heart, particularly of the small producers, that small producers such as small farmers should combine to purchase such mechanical implements or vehicles as they may be unable to purchase individually.
Co-operative societies are excluded from this.
Suppose a number of small farmers join together and form a co-operative society to own a lorry, and that lorry is used for conveying the farm produce of each individual member of that co-operative society, will they be debarred under this section from using that lorry for that purpose? I think it would be most unfair if that were to happen, because I do not see any reason why a number of farmers may not join together to own a lorry in order to enable them to get their produce delivered to the market at the cheapest possible rate, and to get such necessary materials as manure, lime and so on. As I see it, those people will be debarred from carrying out that work unless they all combine co-operatively to purchase the produce which is being carried. I do not think that is desirable, nor do I think it is possible for small producers, such as small farmers, co-operatively to purchase the materials which they require to be carried. As a matter of fact, it would be absolutely impossible for them collectively to own the produce which is being sold. If a number of farmers own a lorry, that lorry would have to go from one farm to another to collect wheat, oats, barley, or any other produce they wish to convey to the market. That produce would not be the produce of the co-operative society which owns the lorry; it would be the property of the individual farmers who are members of the society. Those people would be debarred by this section from carrying on that work.
That is quite true. That has been the position for the last ten years. Nobody can carry goods for reward except he has a licence to do so. That has been the law since 1933. The various changes which have been made in this bill are merely designed to prevent evasions of that law. I think if we decide to bring the transportation of goods for reward under control we cannot seem to make the exceptions suggested by the Deputy. Those exceptions would nullify the whole purpose of the legislation, and would open wide the door to its complete evasion.
Then the position suggested by the Minister a moment ago is not correct? Is it suggested then that a co-operative society cannot do this?
A co-operative society can own a lorry and use that lorry for the transportation of goods which are the property of the society.
That refers to consumable goods only. Mainly, co-operative societies deal with agricultural produce—milk, butter, flax, potatoes, oats. Deputy Cogan referred to a lorry. That is not a typical case nowadays. What is typical is that a society buys a tractor. The tractor is used, in the first place, to operate a mill when threshing. Secondly, the members get a trailer, and carry goods in that. Then they start a flax mill also. Under the section, they are prohibited from taking any flax to the mill from the co-operative society.
Not if the flax is the property of the society.
The farm on which the flax grows is the property of an individual farmer and the flax does not become the property of the society until it is delivered at the mill. While it is being carried from the individual farm to the mill, does it not remain the property of the farmer?
It should be a simple matter for the society to arrange to purchase the flax on the farm, if they want to do it that way. I think that is the practice adopted in the grain trade, where the grain merchants buy the grain on the farm and transfer it in their own lorries. It is their property once they buy it.
Is it the position that there is no change in the position that obtained prior to the introduction of this legislation, so far as co-operative societies are concerned?
That is so. All the changes which are being proposed here—except some which are by way of easement—are intended merely to deal with successful evasions of the Act which have appeared since it was passed in 1933, mainly by reason of the difficulty of proving that the goods on the lorry were not the property of the owner of the lorry. We are proposing to change that now by the various proposals set out here. In so far as these proposals are effective, they merely make good what was the intention in 1933.
In regard to creameries collecting milk for the creamery, I would imagine that the milk, until weighed in and delivered at the creamery, would be the property of the supplier.
There is no difficulty about that. The creamery can collect its milk, and has been doing so. Some of the creameries have, I think, merchandise licences, and in other cases merchandise licences have been issued to meet the particular problems of collection or delivery, where the railway company did not want to, or was unable to, provide the services.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 102 agreed to.
Sections 103 and 104 not moved.
Section 105 agreed to.
SECTION 106.
I move amendment No. 178a, as given on the Order Paper:—
Before Section 106 to insert a new section as follows:—
On and after the passing of this Act there shall be no legal limit to the number of mechanically-propelled vehicles owned by citizens of Éire and used for the carriage of merchandise, the property of the owner.
My object in putting down this amendment was to ensure that, as far as possible, there would be no interference with the rights of the owner of a private lorry or other mechanically propelled vehicle for the conveyance of the owner's own goods. The Minister has repeatedly stated that it is neither his intention nor the intention of Córas Iompair Éireann to interfere with the private lorry owner, but I am anxious that something should be embodied in the Bill definitely protecting his rights. I can foresee a situation developing which may severely tempt the company to interfere with those rights — that is, in the case of the private lorry owner becoming a real menace to the existence of this company and to its successful and profitable working. I can see that there would be a temptation in that case to interfere with the rights of the private owner.
I agree that this amendment may not cover the position adequately, but I think that a provision such as this should be inserted in the Bill, so that it would be definitely impossible to restrict in any way the number of private citizens of this State who may own lorries or the number of lorries which may be owned by one individual. That should be definitely embodied in the Bill and there should be no restriction.
That is the law at present. There is no reason for the new section in order to make it the law. There is no necessity for it, as there is no restriction on the number of vehicles which a private owner may use for the carriage of his own goods and the company is not empowered to interfere with the carriage of goods by those who own them. That is the law at present and it will be the law after this is passed.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 179:—
In sub-section (3), to delete paragraph (a) and substitute the following paragraph:—
(a) every application shall be made to the Minister in such form and in such manner as the Minister may direct.
The section as it stands says that an application shall be in a prescribed form and made to the Minister in a prescribed manner. As the number of applications will not exceed 50 or 60, it is not considered necessary to prescribe by order any elaborate form of application. Therefore, I am proposing to change the words as indicated in the amendment.
There is no limitation as to when they may be submitted? Is the Minister taking that out?
No.
It says: "Before the 1st day of April" next.
That is sub-section (1). Sub-section (3) says that every application shall be in a prescribed form and made in a prescribed manner and lists particulars to be given in the application. It is not considered necessary to have these elaborate particulars or to make by order regulations relating to the matter. Therefore, I am proposing to adopt a simpler device and say that "Every application shall be made to the Minister in such form and in such manner as the Minister may direct." There will be only 50 or 60 persons entitled to apply—those at present operating transport services in the exempted areas.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 180:—
In sub-section (3) (b) (ii), line 44, to delete the words "proposed to be" and substitute the words "then actually".
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 181:—
In sub-section (3) (b) (v) (1), line 61, to insert after the word "State" the words "by the applicant".
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 182:—
In sub-section (3) (b) (vii), line 5, to delete the words "may be prescribed" and insert the words "the Minister may direct".
This also is designed to introduce a simpler form, in view of the limited number of applications.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 183:—
In sub-section (6), line 57, to delete the word "and"; and in line 58, before the words "be deemed" to insert the words "and this Act,".
This is a drafting amendment.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 106, as amended, agreed to.
Sections 107 and 108 agreed to.
Section 109 not moved.
Section 110 agreed to.
SECTION 111.
I move amendment No. 184:—
Before Section 111 but in Part VII to insert the following new section:—
Where the superintendent of the Gárda Síochána, within whose district a plate issuing station is situated, is satisfied that any mechanically propelled vehicle (in this section referred to as the original vehicle), in respect of which a vehicle plate was issued at that station, is undergoing repairs, he may, if he thinks fit, on the application of the licensee under a merchandise licence who is the owner of the original vehicle, issue to the licensee a permit (which shall be in such form as the Minister directs) to use, for the purposes of the merchandise road transport business authorised by the licence, during such period (not exceeding ten days from the date of the permit) as he thinks fit, another mechanically propelled vehicle (in this section referred to as the substituted vehicle) of the like kind, the unladen weight of which, if the licence is a merchandise (existing carrier's) licence, does not exceed the unladen weight of the original vehicle, and, in that case, sub-section (2) of Section 34 (which relates to an obligation to carry vehicle plates on vehicles carrying merchandise) of the Act of 1933 shall not, during the period specified in the permit, apply in respect of the user for the purposes of the said merchandise road transport of the substituted vehicle.
This amendment is being proposed at the request of the Irish Licensed Hauliers Contractors' Association. It provides that a merchandise licensee may be permitted by the Gárda Síochána to use a substitute lorry for the purposes of his merchandise road transport business for a period up to ten days while his normal lorry is undergoing repairs and that during that period the vehicle plate may not be affixed to the substitute lorry as required by the Act of 1933. The association has represented that inconvenience has been caused to hauliers due to the delay in complying with formalities for the exchange of the plate, during which period they were unable to use a substitute vehicle.
I take it that the period may be extended for another ten days on application?
During the ten days which they are allowed they can comply with all the formalities needed for the transfer. They are given ten days in which they can use the substitute lorry without a plate, but there should be no difficulty in arranging for the transfer within ten days.
But if the repairs take 15 days, what happens?
The position is that the licensee has a lorry with a plate on it. It may break down and, in the past, he could not put a substitute lorry into use until he made application for a permit and got permission to transfer the plate from the old lorry to the new lorry. We are proposing to allow him ten days during which he can use the substitute lorry without a plate while he is arranging for the transfer of the plate from the old lorry.
Has a fee to be paid for a transfer?
I could not answer that offhand.
Amendment put and agreed to.
I move amendment No. 185:—
Before Section 111, but in Part VII, to insert the following new section:—
(1) Where a licensee, whose existing standard lorry weight is less than his maximum lorry weight, applies to the Minister to amend his merchandise (existing carrier's) licence by increasing his standard lorry weight to his maximum lorry weight, the Minister shall amend the licence accordingly.
(2) For the purposes of this section—
the word "licensee" means a licensee under a merchandise (existing carrier's) licence, other than any such licence granted by virtue of Section 106 of this Act;
the existing standard lorry weight for a licensee shall be taken to be the weight which was his standard lorry weight on the establishment date;
the original standard lorry weight for a licensee shall be taken to be the standard lorry weight specified in his licence as originally issued or, if his standard lorry weight has been increased or determined under sub-sections (1) or (3) of Section 11 of the Road Transport Act, 1934 (No. 17 of 1934), his standard lorry weight as so increased or determined;
the maximum lorry weight for a licensee shall be taken to be—
(a) in case his original standard lorry weight is four tons or less—
(i) his original standard lorry weight increased by one-fifth, or
(ii) two tons and five hundred-weights, whichever is the greater, or
(b) in case his original standard lorry weight exceeds four tons—
(i) his original standard lorry weight increased by one-tenth, or
(ii) four tons and sixteen hundred-weights, whichever is the greater.
The standard lorry weight for an existing carrier's licence, as determined in the Act of 1933, had reference to the unladen weight of the vehicles used by the applicant during the qualifying period. Certain provisions later gave power to increase the standard lorry weight such as those made in various sections of the 1933 Act. Other sections of the 1933 Act provided that the Minister might increase the standard lorry weight in a case where an unserviceable vehicle had been replaced by another vehicle of greater unladen weight but of substantially the same carrying capacity. Another amendment made in 1935, provided an automatic increase to two tons on application, owing to difficulties experienced in replacing 30 cwt. vehicles by vehicles of the same weight. Another section of that Act provided that where the body of a vehicle is worn out and is replaced by a similar body of Irish manufacture which has a greater weight, a compensating increase in the standard lorry weight might be allowed. In addition, increases in the standard lorry weight were given where it was found that creels were normally used but had not been included when the vehicle was weighed for registration purposes during the qualifying period.
Owing to the increasing difficulty of getting accurate information in regard to the vehicles used in the qualifying period, and to the spiralling process of claiming increased weight through the more general use of creels and the use of native timber in body repairs, it has been almost impossible to administer the provisions of the 1933 Act and the amendments which I am proposing now in regard to standard lorry weights are intended to stabilise the position once and for all, and, at the same time, to compensate licensed hauliers reasonably for the increase in weight due to the use of native timber, and the use of creels or other causes. It is well known that road hauliers try to evade road tax, that they strip their vehicles of movables in order to bring them down to the standard lorry weight specified in the licence. The Irish Licensed Hauliers Contractors' Association made representations in this matter and are responsible for the proposal to effect such increases as are contemplated here. These increases will operate to compensate hauliers in all the circumstances in which we consider compensation should be given and will stabilise the position in so far as no further variations in lorry weight will be permitted after the enactment of the Bill. What I have said in regard to standard lorry weights, applies also to standard tractor weights.
Does the Minister say that an increase of one-tenth in the standard lorry weight is sufficient to cover the whole vehicle including the chassis?
If the original standard lorry weight exceeded four tons it will be increased by one-tenth. The position under the 1933 Act was that every person then engaged in a hiring business was entitled to a licence for vehicles of the same carrying capacity as he had then. In order to effect that intention we devised a system of standard lorry weights. Whatever the standard weight of the vehicle he had then was, he got a licence to operate a vehicle of a similar weight. For the reasons I have mentioned, we have modified that position from time to time. When heavier bodies made of native timber were used we permitted an increase. When creels were used for the carriage of turf we permitted an increase. A number of modifications have been made within the last ten years, all of which were increasingly difficult to administer because they related to the position before 1933. We propose to get rid of that difficulty by stabilising the position. In this proposal we are giving everybody the percentage increase in the standard weights set out here, and once they have got this increase, they will get no further increase.
The margins allowed in the past were very limited. Does the Minister consider that these provisions are ample to cover the use of native timber?
Fully. The effect is to increase somewhat the carrying capacity of licensed vehicles.
Amendment put and agreed to.
I move amendment No. 186:—
Before Section 111, but in Part VII, to insert the following new section:—
(1) Where a licensee, whose existing standard tractor weight is less than his maximum tractor weight, applies to the Minister to amend his merchandise (existing carrier's) licence by increasing his standard tractor weight to his maximum tractor weight, the Minister shall amend the licence accordingly.
(2) For the purposes of this section—
the word "licensee" means a licensee under a merchandise (existing carrier's) licence, other than any such licence granted by virtue of Section 106 of this Act;
the existing standard tractor weight for a licensee shall be taken to be the weight which was his standard tractor weight on the establishment date;
the original standard tractor weight for a licensee shall be taken to be the standard tractor weight specified in his licence as originally issued or, if his standard tractor weight has been increased, or determined under sub-sections (2) or (4) of Section 11 of the Road Transport Act, 1934 (No. 17 of 1934), his standard tractor weight as so increased or determined;
the maximum tractor weight for a licensee shall be taken to be—
(a) in case his original standard tractor weight is four tons or less—
(i) his original standard tractor weight increased by one-fifth or,
(ii) two tons and five hundred-weights, whichever is the greater, or,
(b) in case his original standard tractor weight exceeds four tons—
(i) his original standard tractor weight increased by one-tenth, or
(ii) four tons and sixteen hundred-weights whichever is the greater.
This is a similar proposal in regard to tractors.
Amendment put and agreed to.
I move amendment No. 187:—
Before Section 111, but in Part VII, to insert the following new section:—
Every document purporting to be a copy of an entry in the register of merchandise licences kept under Section 29 of the Act of 1933, and purporting to be certified by an officer of the Department of Industry and Commerce to be a true copy of such entry shall, without proof of the signature of the person purporting so to certify or that he was such officer, be received in evidence in any legal proceedings and shall, until the contrary is proved, be deemed to be a true copy of such entry and to be evidence of the terms of such entry.
This amendment provides that a certified copy of an entry in the register of merchandise licences kept under Section 29 of the Road Transport Act of 1933 shall be received in evidence in any legal proceedings and be evidence of the terms of such entry. This provision is on similar lines to a provision in the Road Traffic Act of 1933. The need arises from the fact that the holder of a merchandise licence commits a breach of the Act by carrying goods of a class not included in his licence or by operating outside his area. There is no provision at present for furnishing a certificate signed by an officer of the Department setting out what is contained in the merchandise licence. When prosecuting, Gárdaí have had to take the actual register into court and, as it is becoming a very bulky document, it has been found impracticable to transfer it to country districts for the purpose of prosecutions.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 188:—
Before Section 111, but in Part VII, to insert the following new section:—
(1) Where a mechanically-propelled vehicle is about to be used for the purpose of the merchandise road transport business of a licensee under a merchandise licence, the licensee shall deliver to the person who is to act as driver of the vehicle while being so used a true copy of the licence.
(2) If the licensee under a merchandise licence fails or neglects to comply with sub-section (1) of this section, he shall be guilty of an offence under this section and shall be liable on summary conviction thereof to a fine not exceeding ten pounds.
(3) In this and the next following section the expression "merchandise licence" does not include a merchandise licence held by an authorised (merchandise carrying) company.
This amendment and succeeding amendments have been suggested by the Gárda Síochána, who are responsible for the administration of the Act. Sub-section (1) provides that, when a vehicle is to be used for the purposes of the merchandise road transport business of a licensee, the licensee shall deliver to the person who is to act as driver a true copy of the licence. Sub-section (2) provides that failure of the licensee to give a true copy of the licence to the driver will be an offence and sub-section (3) provides that statutory companies need not supply copies of their licence to their drivers, the reason being that statutory companies are licensed for all classes of merchandise and their vehicles are indistinguishable.
Are the copies to be made by the owner of the vehicle?
If the owner himself is not driving the lorry, he must give the driver a copy of the licence so that, if a Gárda stops the lorry and requests production of the licence, the driver will be able to produce either the licence or a true copy of it. A licensee may be authorised to carry goods for reward in a certain area or he may be authorised to carry only certain classes of goods. The amendment is intended to facilitate the Gárda in enforcing the law by having available to them the actual licence, or a true copy of it, so that they can ascertain whether the classification of the goods or the area in which the vehicle is operating is in accordance with the terms of the licence.
The owner can deny that he ever furnished a copy of the licence.
Will this provision not lead to forgeries?
If the owner of the licence gives a false copy to the driver, he commits a further offence. It may be assumed that, if a Guard stops a lorry and checks the licence, he will take measures by subsequent inquiry to satisfy himself that the copy presented to him was identical with the licence issued.
If there are legal proceedings arising out of that, it will be to establish whether it is a genuine document or not or whether or not the owner of the vehicle issued it.
Should not the Gárda issue the copy?
Not necessarily. The owner can, of course, give the actual licence to the driver if he likes, but I do not think that that is necessary. The purpose of this provision is to ensure that the law will not be broken. If a Gárda, on inspecting the copy of the licence, finds that everything is in order—that the licence is for the whole country and that the class of goods being carried is the class authorised— then, subject to whatever inquiries he may make as to the authenticity of the copy of the licence, no further action will be taken. If he finds that the copy was not authentic, then there will be a double prosecution—one for furnishing a false copy of the licence and another for the carrying of goods in an area in which he was not authorised to carry them, or for carrying a class of goods which he was not licensed to carry.
Suppose the document is a forgery, and that the owner swears in court that he was not the author of it, while the driver swears he received it from the owner?
I shall look into that point.
This provision will lead to endless trouble and confusion.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 189:—
Before Section 111, but in Part VII, to insert the following new section:—
(1) Any member of the Gárda Síochána may demand of any person, driving a mechanically-propelled vehicle which is being used for the purposes of the merchandise road transport business of a licensee under a merchandise licence, the production of a copy of the licence, and if that person refuses or fails to produce a copy of the licence there and then, or though producing a copy of the licence, refuses or fails to permit such member to read it, that person shall be guilty of an offence under this section and shall be liable on summary conviction thereof to a fine not exceeding ten pounds.
(2) A person who, when the production of a copy of a merchandise licence is lawfully demanded of him under this section, does not produce a copy of the licence because he has not one in his possession shall be deemed to fail to produce a copy of the licence within the meaning of this section.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 190:—
Before Section 111, but in Part VII, to insert the following new section:—
(1) The holder of a merchandise licence shall not describe himself or hold himself out as—
(i) carrying on a merchandise road transport business in respect of merchandise other than merchandise specified in a merchandise licence held by him, or
(ii) carrying on a merchandise road transport business within any area (not being an exempted area or an area specified in a merchandise licence held by him).
(2) If the holder of a merchandise licence acts in contravention of this section, he shall be guilty of an offence under this section and shall be liable on summary conviction thereof to a fine not exceeding five pounds.
The effect of this amendment is to prevent a person from advertising or holding himself out to carry goods for reward which he is not licensed to carry.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 191:—
In line 25, to insert after the words "used for" the words "the carriage of passengers under a passenger licence within the meaning of the Road Transport Act, 1932 (No. 2 of 1932), or".
Section 2 of the Railway and Canal Traffic Act, 1854, provides that railway and canal companies shall afford reasonable facilities for traffic and shall not grant undue preference to any person or traffic. That section is being extended to the carriage of merchandise under a merchandise licence. The amendment extends the provision so as to include road passenger services, so that a public transport organisation will have the same obligation with regard to undue preferences, reasonable facilities, and so on.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 111, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
SECTION 112.
I move amendment No. 192:—
Before sub-section (2) to insert the following sub-section:—
(2) Where the Minister proposes to make in relation to a canal undertaker an Order under this section he shall cause a draft of the Order to be prepared and serve a copy of the draft on the canal undertaker and shall, before making the Order, consider any representations made by the canal undertaker within fourteen days after the service of the draft.
This amendment follows representations from the Grand Canal Company to the effect that Section 112, as originally drafted, afforded them no opportunity of making representations and they feared they might be required to comply with an Order made on the recommendation of an inspector without being heard. This sub-section requires the Minister, when he proposes to make, in relation to a canal undertaker, an Order under this section, to cause a draft of the Order to be prepared, to serve a copy of the draft on the canal undertaker and, before making the Order, to consider any representations which the undertaker may make within 14 days of receiving the draft.
Will this be in the case of a private canal?
It will apply only to statutory undertakings such as the Grand Canal, the Shannon Navigation and the new company.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 193:—
To add at the end of the section the following sub-section:—
(3) Where the Minister by an Order under this section requires any canal undertaker to execute any works, he may, after consultation with the Minister for Local Government and Public Health, require the local authority in whose functional area the works are situate, to pay to that canal undertaker, as a contribution towards the expense of the works, such sum as he thinks proper, and in that case the canal undertaker may recover the said sum from the local authority as a simple contract debt in any court of competent jurisdiction.
In moving this amendment, I should like to say that I may have to revise it on the Report Stage, following representations which I have received from the Minister for Local Government and Public Health, who is concerned with its provisions. It is considered desirable to have some arrangement under which, if works have to be performed which would improve road facilities, the full costs of executing these works will not fall upon the canal undertaker, that, to whatever extent will be regarded as reasonable, they will be met by the local authority of the area. It may be necessary to add certain safeguards in that connection, but I think that the principle is, on the whole, sound.
Why should the ratepayers be asked to contribute? The local authority is bound to keep the public highway in such a condition that people will not meet with accidents but, if a canal or railway company desire to undertake special works to meet their own requirements, why should the ratepayers be asked to contribute towards the cost of them?
In the case of a railway undertaking, if there is an accident, under similar circumstances, which involves an inspection by an officer of the Department of Industry and Commerce, then on receipt of the report of that inspector, the railway undertaker may be ordered to carry out certain works. We are proposing in this case that the Minister may, by Order, require any canal undertaker to comply with any recommendation of an inspector duly appointed under Section 14 of the Railway and Canal Traffic Act, 1888, and "any Order of the Minister under this section shall be complied with by the canal undertaker to which the Order relates and in the event of non-compliance shall be enforceable by the High Court on the application of the Minister". The complaint may come from any source. In other words, there need not necessarily be an accident or some development which would necessitate an inspection, but if, for any reason, the Minister may require an inspection to take place in regard to these matters, and if the inspector recommends that works have to be undertaken by the canal company, then the canal company must carry out these works. If the works concerned have to be limited to the repair of the canal, well and good, but if the works recommended by the inspector entail, not merely repairs to the canal itself, but the providing of improved facilities for the public, then it is considered proper that the local authority concerned should contribute towards the cost of the provision of those facilities. For instance, it might be a case of a bridge or some other obstruction—a bridge, for instance, which might be too narrow—and if we were to put the whole cost on the canal company it might be possible that they might just leave it as it is. If it is a question of widening the bridge, for instance, then I think that a portion of the cost should be borne by the local authority concerned.
Is the Minister referring to a public bridge?
Yes.
A bridge used by the public?
Yes.
Does this not merely refer to any improvement, and not merely to a bridge? I suggest that the scope of this proposal is much too wide. Supposing that, under the section, you can compel a local authority to subscribe to an improvement which would be of no benefit to one particular locality but which would be of benefit to a locality further down. I can understand the necessity for this where there is the question of the provision of a loading bank, but I want to know what the Minister means by referring to this matter of a bridge, or the widening or improving of a bridge over a canal.
What I meant was something either over the canal or under it. That is why I said that where the Minister for Local Government and Public Health and the Minister for Industry and Commerce, in consultation, agree that it is necessary that work of this kind must be undertaken, then the additional cost of the work should be added to by the local authority concerned. However, as I have said already, it may be necessary to amend that.
I know, of course, that people who were looking for loading facilities have found it impossible to get them because the transport people were not prepared to provide the necessary facilities. I agree with the Minister, so far as that matter is concerned but I think that this is too wide altogether.
I am not sure whether that would be covered or not here, but, as I have said already, I shall look into the matter. The section here refers to the question of safety.
Amendment put and agreed to.
Section 112, as amended, put and agreed to.
Sections 113 and 114 put and agreed to.
SECTION 115.
I move amendment No. 194:—
In sub-section (1), page 46, line 8, to insert the words "with any other transport undertaking" after the word "arrangement"; and in line 11, to delete the words "by railways".
This is purely a drafting amendment.
Amendment put and agreed to.
Section 115, as amended, put and agreed to.
Sections 116 and 117 put and agreed to.
FIRST SCHEDULE.
I move amendment No. 195:—
Before the First Schedule to insert the following new section:—
The dissolved railway company shall have and be deemed always to have had power to redeem in cash by agreement with the holders thereof any of the following stocks, that is to say:—
North Wall Extension, Lines 1 and 2—£100 shares.
4 per cent. New Ross and Waterford Extension Railways' Guaranteed Stock.
4 per cent. City of Dublin Junction Railways' Debenture Stock, 1884 and 1887.
4 per cent. City of Dublin Junction Railways' Debenture Stock, 1894 and 1897.
4 per cent. City of Dublin Junction Railways' Preference Stock.
4 per cent. City of Dublin Junction Railways' Guaranteed Stock.
4 per cent. Redeemable (1947) Debenture Stock.
On the 4th January, 1944, Great Southern Railways issued a circular letter to the holders of New Ross and Waterford Extension Railways' Stock and City of Dublin Junction Railways' stocks, informing them that reconstruction proposals were contemplated and offering them redemption in cash at par, or redemption by issue in exchange of 3 per cent. redeemable debenture stock of the new company, when issued. A circular letter was also addressed to the holders of Great Southern Railways' 4 per cent. redeemable (1947) debenture stock, offering redemption in cash at £102 on 30th June, 1944. The London, Midland and Scottish Railway, by agreement, accepted cash at par in respect of the North Wall Extension Stock. The holders of the stock, in the main, elected to accept redemption in cash. In the case of the North Wall Extension, lines 1 and 2, the amount was £126,800, and the amount redeemed in cash at par, on 5th April, 1944, by agreement was £126,800. In the case of the 4 per cent. New Ross and Waterford Extension Railways' guaranteed stock, the amount redeemed in cash was £199,495 out of £200,000, and the amount to be redeemed by issue in exchange of 3 per cent. redeemable debenture stock, by agreement, £505. In the case of the 4 per cent. City of Dublin Junction Railways' debenture stock, totalling £130,230, the amount redeemed was £129,536, and the holders of £700 worth of stock accepted debenture stock. Similarly, in the case of the 4 per cent. City of Dublin Junction Railways' guaranteed stock and in the case of the unguaranteed stock, and also in the case of the 4 per cent Great Southern Railways redeemable stock, totalling £344,931, it was decided to accept redemption in cash to the extent of £307,731.
This amendment sanctions the redemption in cash, already effected by agreement, amounting, in all, to £1,024,657. Provision is made under Section 13 (1) of the Bill, and an amendment to the Third Schedule, No. 206, which I shall propose later on, for the redemption by issue in exchange of 3 per cent. redeemable debentures of the balance of the stock not redeemed for cash. Part of the 4 per cent. redeemable stock of Great Southern Railways, together with 3½ per cent. stock of the Dublin United Transport Company will be carried over as liabilities of the new company, under the provisions of the Railways Clauses Act of 1863. The idea is to get rid of all these stocks and have only the two main stocks in the company.
What is the total amount? How much has been redeemed already, and how much will be carried over?
The total amount redeemed in cash was £1,024,657. The amount which will be redeemed by the issue of debenture stock is £15,104. The £25,000 of unguaranteed stock in the City of Dublin Junction Railways, held by the Great Southern Railways Company, will be cancelled, and the balance, that is, the £37,000 of Great Southern Railways debenture stock, and the mortgage debentures of the Dublin United Transport Company, will be carried over as liabilities of the new company. Both these debentures are due for redemption in 1947.
Was the stock, which was redeemed in cash, redeemed at par?
It was in all cases except the one I mentioned. The redeemable debentures in the Great Southern Railways Company are redeemable at par in 1947. The company exercised the opportunity of redeeming them at £102 per £100 of stock except to the extent that the holders of £37,200 of stock would not accept these terms. They will get their redemption at par in 1947.
It is clear from the White Paper which the Minister has issued that the paid-up capital of the company will, at the outset, total £13,401,290, consisting of £9,875,556 redeemable debenture stock. As regards the latter, I take it that is entirely different stock from the stock that we are dealing with here.
To the extent of £15,000. There will also be redeemable debenture stock issued in exchange for this stock. It is a trivial amount, but it must be mentioned in that connection.
The stock that is mentioned in the amendment is stock that is entirely different from the £9,875,556?
These are the subsidiary stocks of the company.
So that an additional £15,000 will be issued in fresh debentures and carried over? As regards the £1,024,657, which has been redeemed in cash, will the Minister say out of what cash has that stock been redeemed?
I could not answer that question until the accounts for this year are completed.
It is an important point, and we should be clear on it. If, say, the railway company during this year was able to wipe out debentures——
These were all redeemed before April, even though the company could not possibly have earned enough before April to have redeemed all this stock in cash out of this year's revenue.
We are making a serious effort to understand the financial mentality that is at the back of this Bill.
The funds at the disposal of the company and, possibly, funds secured by bank overdraft, were utilised to get rid of these liabilities. That situation will have to be considered by the company before the end of the financial year. An account will have to be given then as to how the resources available to the company will be utilised in the light of this position and of how this redemption was effected.
Will the cash payment be treated as a capital liability, or will the position be that it will be met out of revenue?
That may prove to be so, in so far as if the company finds itself short of cash next year, it may have to issue new debenture stock to provide itself with the cash. If it finds that it has completely tied up its liquid assets by means of these redemptions, it may have to issue new debenture stock.
Before the Bill reaches its final stage, we would like to get a picture from the Minister as to what exactly has happened in the matter of the paying off of these debentures, whether in cash or otherwise. I think it is desirable that we should get as full a picture as possible on the financial side of this Bill.
I will endeavour to get that information. I assume that what happened was that the manager of the company went to the company's bankers and said: "We have these liabilities and we are anxious to liquidate them; we think it is good business to liquidate them, having regard to the interest charges attaching to them, and we want your assistance or support in order that we may be able to redeem all these liabilities for cash at par." Now, to what extent that may have affected the liquid financial position of the company I cannot say at the moment, nor do I think anybody could attempt to give a clear picture of it until later in the financial year.
I think that we should know what is going to be treated as a capital liability or whether this is going to be met by way of loan.
The company will start off with the capital liabilities indicated in the Bill: that is, the substitute debenture stock, plus the common stock which will be issued in exchange for Great Southern Railways stock. It will have the right to incur new capital liabilities to the extent of £6,500,000. When it is constituted it will be faced with the problem of financing its activities. If the company does not require fresh capital for that purpose, it will not issue it until these liabilities will have completely disappeared. If the company does require fresh capital for any reason, such, for example, as the provision of liquid assets for this purpose, it will have to issue it.
We would like to know how all that was managed before we come to the Fifth Stage of the Bill?
Amendment agreed to.
Amendments Nos. 196, 196a and 196b might be debated together.
I move amendment No. 196:—
Before the First Schedule to insert the following new section:—
(1) The company, the Dublin Corporation and the Grand Canal Company may enter into an agreement (in this sub-section referred to as the said agreement) with respect to the maintenance, opening and closing of the Victoria Bridge across the Grand Canal in the County Borough of Dublin, but the said agreement shall not have any force or effect unless confirmed by the Minister, who is hereby authorised, if he thinks fit, to do so.
(2) If the said agreement is confirmed by the Minister, the following provisions shall thereupon have effect, that is to say:—
(a) the said agreement shall have statutory effect,
(b) each of the parties thereto shall, notwithstanding any limitation on the power of that party to enter into it, be deemed to have power to enter into the said agreement,
(c) It shall be the duty of each of the parties thereto and each of the said parties is hereby empowered to carry out the said agreement so far as the provisions thereof are to be carried out by that party.
The amendment relates to the Victoria Bridge. It merely authorises the company, the Dublin Corporation and the Grand Canal Company to enter into an agreement. The position is that, because of the effect of existing statutes, they could not enter into such an agreement and give it statutory effect. This is the only way in which the companies may enter into an agreement, and if they do, that agreement will have statutory effect. We are authorising the various parties to make such an agreement, irrespective of any limitation on their power to do so imposed by statute. I am not at all sure that it may not be desirable to go further than I am suggesting at the moment, and to include a provision to the effect that, if there is not an agreement, the matter will be submitted to arbitration and disposed of by arbitration. I think everyone will agree that it is desirable that something should be done about Victoria Bridge. Whilst it is clear that it is in the interests of the corporation that a better bridge should be put there, it is equally clear that it would be unfair to impose on the transport company the cost of putting a better bridge there.
With regard to the suggestion that, if there is no agreement, some arrangement may be imposed on the parties by the Minister for Local Government and Public Health, I think that both the company and the Grand Canal Company would be violently opposed to it. At least, they would not regard the Minister for Local Government as an impartial person for the purpose of deciding on the equities of the position as between the Dublin Corporation and these commercial organisations. They would assume that he would be prejudiced in favour of the Dublin Corporation, and that the companies would be left with the worst of the bargain. What I propose is that either we merely empower the parties to come to an agreement, and provide that if they do come to an agreement it will have statutory effect or else we will go a step further than that and say that if they do not come to an agreement an arbitrator will be set up to decide what is a fair arrangement.
As this amendment refers to only one item, we might decide that first and then take Deputy Doyle's addition to it.
Amendment No. 196 agreed to.
I move amendment No. 196a:—
At the end of the proposed new section to add the following sub-section:—
In the absence of any such agreement as is hereinbefore provided for nothing in this Act shall alter or lessen the rights and obligations of the company, the Grand Canal Company and the Dublin Corporation under the Dublin Tramways Company (Extensions and Alterations) Order, 1899.
The Dublin Corporation, the Grand Canal Company and the Dublin Transport Company have had very definite rights and obligations binding on each other in respect to the use of Victoria Bridge, Dublin.
The Dublin Tramways Company, under the Extensions and Alterations Order, 1899, were bound at their own expense to rebuild this bridge over the canal in accordance with plans approved by the city engineer and the engineer of the Grand Canal Company, and thereafter to maintain and keep it in good order and repair. The control and management of the bridge were to remain as theretofore with the Grand Canal Company and the Tramways Company were to have no right in connection therewith save that of user only.
The Transport Company's obligations for the running of the lines over the bridge continue and the abandonment of them would not of itself release the company from these obligations.
If the Transport Company's obligations were to be terminated by legislation, the Grand Canal Company should be compensated and restored to their former position of obligation to maintain the bridge and its approaches. I submit to the Minister that, having regard to all the circumstances, the acceptance of this amendment is desirable. I am advised by the Corporation's Law Agent that this would meet the case from the corporation's point of view.
Let me say that amendment No. 196a is unnecessary because the incorporation of the Railways Clauses Act transfers to the new company all the obligations of the old company, whatever they are. Some of the Deputy's legal colleagues might not agree with the Deputy as to what these obligations are but, whatever they are, they are transferred. There is a situation in which the company have obligations in relation to the bridge and there is a general desire that something should be done to get a better bridge. I am merely proposing that if the three parties concerned agree on some arrangement which will be satisfactory to all of them, that such agreement as they make will have statutory effect. That may be sufficient. In fact, I should assume that with goodwill in all quarters it would be sufficient. The Deputy says if they do not agree let the Minister for Local Government say what is to be done.
I do not think that would be a fair arrangement because the Minister is not an impartial party in this matter. He would be unduly influenced in favour of the local authority. Whether he would be or not, it is natural to assume that the Transport Company and the Grand Canal Company would think that he probably would be. Therefore, I am not disposed to accept the Deputy's amendment to let the Minister for Local Government impose some arrangement on the parties. If the view is that it is not sufficient merely to give statutory effect to any agreement that may be voluntarily arrived at, then I would contemplate going further and bringing in an amendment which would provide for arbitration on the obligations of the parties in this regard. May I say as to what the obligations of the company may be, there are, I believe, diametrically opposite legal opinions in this case?
Apart altogether from that, the three companies have worked in harmony under all these agreements, and all they want is to have them maintained.
So far as the maintenance of the obligations of the company is concerned, there is no need for any amendment. The obligations of the Dublin United Transport Company are transferred in full to the new company. I think we should do more than that, however. I think, in addition to transferring these obligations we should empower the new company and the corporation and the Grand Canal Company to make a new agreement in relation to that bridge. They cannot do it now. At least, any agreement which they made could not be brought into effect without legislation. Now that we are legislating for transport purposes, we should do something about it. That is why I am proposing amendment No. 196. I am proposing that if they do agree, that agreement will have statutory effect, notwithstanding any other enactment to the contrary. I think it might be desirable to go further and say that if they do not agree the matter must be referred to arbitration, so that something will be done about it and the present situation, which means that there is a bridge unsuitable to modern traffic blocking an important highway of the city, brought to an end as early as possible.
Does the Minister hope to have negotiation between these parties, to get the agreement which he desires?
I think that once this amendment becomes law and the companies are empowered to make the agreement, there will be a move towards negotiating such an agreement.
Does the Minister propose to bring in an amendment covering arbitration proceedings?
That is my present intention. I should like to look into the matter further.
Will the Minister bring it in on Report?
I may bring it in on Report. I am not committing myself to it but keeping the way open to do it if necessary.
Amendment No. 196a, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 196b:—
At the end of the proposed new section to add the following subsection:—
In case such agreement as is hereinbefore provided for shall not be entered into and confirmed within three years after the passing of this Act it shall be lawful for the Minister for Local Government and Public Health to prescribe the terms of an agreement providing for the future maintenance (including reconstruction) and control of Victoria Bridge and the Company, the Grand Canal Company and the Dublin Corporation shall enter into an agreement in the terms so prescribed.
As it is quite possible that it may be found necessary to reconstruct the present Victoria Bridge, Dublin, or erect a new bridge of a more costly type to make it more suitable for present-day traffic, this amendment would provide for an amicable agreement between the Transport Company, the Grand Canal Company and the Dublin Corporation.
I do not think the Minister for Local Government is the impartial person that we could entrust with this task. I might think he is impartial but I do not think the company would.
If the Minister brings in his amendment covering arbitration——
It will be arbitration by an agreed arbitrator. I think that will meet the Deputy's point.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 197:—
Before the First Schedule to insert the following new section:—
(1) The company, the Lord Mayor, Aldermen and Burgesses of Cork and the Cork Harbour Commissioners may enter into an agreement (in this sub-section referred to as the said agreement) with respect to the maintenance, opening and closing of the bridge across the North Channel of the River Lee and the bridge across the South Channel of the River Lee, both in the County Borough of Cork, but the said agreement shall not have any force or effect unless confirmed by the Minister, who is hereby authorised, if he thinks fit, to do so.
(2) If the said agreement is confirmed by the Minister, the following provisions shall thereupon have effect, that is to say:—
(a) the said agreement shall have statutory effect,
(b) each of the parties thereto shall, notwithstanding any limitation on the power of that party to enter into it, be deemed to have power to enter into the said agreement,
(c) it shall be the duty of each of the parties thereto and each of the said parties is hereby empowered to carry out the said agreement so far as the provisions thereof are to be carried out by that party.
This is a precisely similar amendment to deal with a corresponding position in Cork, relating to the maintenance of bridges in Cork.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 198:—
Before the First Schedule to insert the following section:—
The original or counterpart, or a copy, certified, in such manner as the Minister shall direct, to be a true copy, of every agreement made after the passing of this Act in accordance with Section 10 (which relates to the regulation of conditions of service of road transport employees of railway companies) of the Railways Act, 1933 (No. 9 of 1933), shall be deposited with the Minister within one month after the making of the agreement.
This is an amendment which I undertook earlier to bring in. It relates to the lodging with the Minister for Industry and Commerce of a copy of any agreement made with the trade union representatives of employees in regard to rates of pay, hours of duty and other conditions of service. The company is required to do that under the Railways Act in respect of railway employees. Section 10 of the Railway Act, 1933, provides similar machinery for the regulation of rates of pay, etc., of the road transport employees of the railway companies, but there is no provision for the lodging of an agreement with the Minister and that omission is being remedied by this amendment.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 199:—
To insert, after the entry relating to the Midland Great Western Railway of Ireland (Moate Deviation) Act, 1848, the following:—
|
“ 63 & 64 Vic., c. clvi |
Dublin Wicklow and Wexford Railway Act, 1900. |
Section 26 |
|
3 Edw. VII., c. clx. |
Great Southern and Western Railway Act, 1903. |
Section 38 |
|
3 Edw. VII., c. clxiii. |
Midland Great Western Railway of Ireland Act, 1903. |
Section 31, so far as relates to trespass by persons.” |
This amendment provides for the repeal of almost identical sections which provide in respect of the particular railway lines to which they refer for a fine of £2 for trespass by persons subject to certain warning notices being displayed by the railway company. Amendment No. 114 provides for an almost identical provision which will apply to all the lines of the company.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 200:—
In the third column referring to the Statutory Undertakings (Temporary Increase of Charges) Act, 1918, to delete the words "The whole Act" and substitute the words "The Act so far as it relates to tramways".
The First Schedule as originally drafted provided for the total repeal of the Statutory Undertakings (Temporary Increase of Charges) Act, 1918. I understood at the time, and I think I said on the Second Reading, that water rates are now included under Public Health legislation. The law agent to the Dublin Corporation has pointed out, however, that charges for water supplied by the corporation to Bray Urban District Council and to Dun Laoghaire Borough are regulated by an Order made under the 1918 Act. We intended to repeal the Act and it is, accordingly, necessary to qualify the repeal.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 201:—
In the third column, referring to the Road Transport Act, 1933, to delete the word and figures "Section 16" and substitute the words and figures "In Section 2, the definition of the expression ‘carriage for reward'; Sections 4 and 16;".
This is consequential on amendment No. 178.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 202:—
At the end of the First Schedule to insert the following:—
|
“No. 17 of 1934 |
The Road Transport Act, 1934. |
Section 11 |
|
No. 23 of 1935 |
The Road Transport Act, 1935. |
Sections 2 and 3.” |
This is a consequential amendment.
Amendment agreed to.
First Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
SECOND SCHEDULE.
I move amendment No. 203:—
Before paragraph 8 to insert the following paragraph:—
(1) A dissolved company shall, on and after the establishment date, continue to be liable under the Income Tax Acts to prepare and deliver any statement, return or particulars required for the purposes of those Acts for any year of assessment ending on or before the 5th day of April, 1945.
(2) Assessments to income tax for any year of assessment ending on or before the 5th day of April, 1945, may be made on a dissolved company on or after the establishment date, and income tax in respect of any such assessment so made, which shall have become final and conclusive, shall, when it becomes due and payable, be deemed to have become due and payable before the establishment date.
(3) For the purposes of subparagraphs (1) and (2) of this paragraph the secretary of the company or other officer performing the duties of secretary of the company shall be deemed to be secretary of a dissolved company or other officer performing the duties of secretary of that dissolved company.
(4) The company shall be and is hereby empowered to deduct out of the emoluments of any person holding an office or employment of profit under the company any income tax charged on the dissolved railway company in respect of any office or employment of profit held by such person under the dissolved railway company.
This amendment is proposed at the suggestion of the Revenue Commissioners. By Section 10 of the Bill the railway company and the transport company are, subject to the provisions of the Second Schedule, dissolved on the establishment date. Normally, when a company is wound up a liquidator is appointed for the purpose of winding up its affairs and distributing its assets. Its corporate existence continues until liquidation is completed, and assessment to income tax on the company may be made during the liquidation period. As there is no liquidation period in the case of a dissolved company, the paragraph is required to enable the assessment on the companies to be made after the establishment date in respect of the periods ending before that date.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 204:—
Before paragraph 8 to insert the following paragraph:—
(1) The dissolved transport company shall, on and after the establishment date, continue to be liable, under the enactments relating to corporation profits tax to prepare and deliver any statement, return or particulars required for the purposes of those enactments for any accounting period ending on or before the 31st day of December, 1944.
(2) Assessments to corporation profits tax for any accounting period ending on or before the 31st day of December, 1944, may be made on or after the establishment date on the dissolved transport company and corporation profits tax in respect of any such assessment so made, which shall have become final and conclusive, shall, when it becomes due and payable, be deemed to have become due and payable before the establishment date.
(3) For the purposes of subparagraphs (1) and (2) of this paragraph, the secretary of the company or other officer performing the duties of the secretary of the company shall be deemed to be secretary of the dissolved transport company or other officer performing the duties of secretary of the dissolved transport company.
(4) In this paragraph references to corporation profits tax shall be construed as including references to excess corporation profits tax.
This amendment provides for the delivery of returns, on behalf of the dissolved transport company, after the establishment date in respect of the accounting periods ending before that date for the purpose of corporation profits tax and excess profits tax, and for the making of assessments in respect of such periods. It also provides for the collection of the tax.
Amendment agreed to.
Second Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
THIRD SCHEDULE.
Amendment No. 205 not moved.
I move amendment No. 206:—
To insert at the end of Part I the following:—
|
“ 5 |
4 per cent. New Ross and Waterford Extension Railways' Guaranteed Stock. |
3 per cent. Redeemable Debenture Stock. |
100 |
|
6 |
4 per cent. City of Dublin Junction Railways' Debenture Stock, 1884 and 1887. |
3 per cent. Redeemable Debenture Stock. |
100 |
|
7 |
4 per cent. City of Dublin Junction Railways' Debenture Stock, 1894 and 1897. |
3 per cent. Redeemable Debenture Stock. |
100 |
|
8 |
4 per cent. City of Dublin Junction Railways' Preference Stock. |
3 per cent. Redeemable Debenture Stock. |
100 |
|
9 |
4 per cent. City of Dublin Junction Railways' Guaranteed Stock. |
3 per cent. Redeemable Debenture Stock. |
100 |
This amendment is consequential on amendment No. 195.
Amendment agreed to.
Third Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
Amendments Nos. 207 to 210 are interdependent. They were discussed on amendment No. 50.
I listened very attentively to the very eloquent defence made by the Minister for the scheme of control which gives 85 per cent. of the representation on the board to those who represent 20 per cent. of the capital value of the company. I do not believe it is possible, even after listening to the Minister's eloquent defence, to get him to change his mind and, therefore, I do not propose to move these amendments.
I might persuade the Deputy to change his mind if he went on.
Amendments Nos. 207 to 213, inclusive, not moved.
Fourth Schedule put and agreed to.
FIFTH SCHEDULE.
I move amendment No. 214:—
In paragraph 1 (1) (a), line 39, to delete the word "Railway" and substitute the word "Railways".
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 215 not moved.
I move amendment No. 216:—
In paragraph 1 (1), between lines 41 and 42, to insert the following:—
the expression "former road transport undertaker" means a person who was the holder of a passenger licence, within the meaning of the Road Transport Act, 1932 (No. 2 of 1932), or of a merchandise (existing carriers') licence within the meaning of the Road Transport Act, 1933 (No. 8 of 1933), and whose said licence was transferred to a dissolved company.
The purpose of this amendment is to bring in for purposes of reckoning compensation road merchandise and passenger services absorbed by the transport company and the Great Southern Railways. The amendment gives effect to the intention of an amendment by Deputy McMenamin which was withdrawn.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 217:—
In paragraph 1 (2) (a), between lines 52 and 53, page 51, to insert the following:—
(ii) if that person had service with a former transport company, service in the Irish Railway Clearing House;"
If there was an official of the Great Southern Railways who came from the Irish Clearing House, where he had a number of years' service, that service should count for compensation in the event of redundancy. That principle was admitted in Section 12 of the Railways Act, 1924, which protected the clearing house staff for five years after the passing of the Act. The present reorganisation scheme does not affect the clearing house staff, and consequently no provision is required to be made for them in the Bill. If there was an official in the circumstances I described — and I understand there is one — it is necessary to make provision in order to protect his interests.
I know the case referred to by the Minister. When he refers to the clearing house staff, it is extraordinary that such a possibility was not provided for as was done by Section 12 of the 1924 Act.
The Bill will not affect the clearing house staff.
It may have very serious reactions so far as the clearing house is concerned.
The tramway company is not a member of the clearing house.
No, but the Great Southern Railways Company is.
The Great Southern Railways system as such is not being changed. What happened under the 1924 Act was that a number of railways were amalgamated. In the clearing house business is done for the Great Southern Railways Company and for other railways. The railway undertaking is not being changed now. The business of the clearing house is not affected except that in future it will do business for Córas Iompair Eireann.
If changes did take place, would you not proceed to act if there was redundancy?
I cannot conceive circumstances in which redundancy will result from the Bill. There is one railway, and it is now the Great Southern Railways undertaking. The clearing house business is done there, and the same railway will be the property of Córas Iompair Eireann.
You would agree to take action if there was redundancy?
Certainly. There is the case of an official who was in the clearing house before going to the Great Southern Railways. His service would count for compensation.
Suppose that suggestion was made to the new chairman, who is chairman of the management committee of the clearing house?
If redundancy arose from some economy which the company could have adopted in any event, compensation would not be payable. It is only where economy is made possible by amalgamation that compensation will be payable.
If the chairman is at the head there, as you say he is, a curious thing will happen.
A simplification of accounts would be an improvement rather than a disimprovement.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 218:—
In paragraph 1 (2), between lines 53 and 54, to insert the following:—
(iv) service (being service which is recognised for the purposes of a superannuation scheme, within the meaning of Section 42 of this Act, or an existing superannuation fund, within the meaning of Section 43 of this Act) with any former road transport undertaker.
This is consequential on the acceptance of amendment No. 58.
On the interpretation of what we have before us, it is agreed that an individual could only be compensated on the length of service. That is the basis for compensation, but in actual operation in the service, it may happen that an individual after, say, 20 years' service is promoted from one grade to another and only then enters the superannuation fund. There might be the case of a man with 25 years' service who enters the superannuation fund only after getting promotion in his twentieth year of service. He may become redundant under the Bill after 25 years' service and having been five years in the fund. As the amendment stands, he would be entitled to compensation for the period of five years. We suggest he should get compensation for his whole service of 25 years.
I am afraid I do not understand the point. We are bringing in for purposes of compensation service with any road merchandise or passenger companies absorbed by the Dublin United Transport Company or the Great Southern Railways. This amendment is consequential on that position.
The amendment says "...being service which is recognised for the purposes of a superannuation scheme...."
"...within the meaning of Section 42 of this Act, or an existing superannuation fund within the meaning of Section 43 of this Act."
I should like the Minister to look into it.
I will, but I think it is covered, because so far as I know service which is recognised for the purpose of an existing superannuation fund would include that service with the absorbed companies. However, I shall look into it and see if there is anything in the point.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 219:—
In paragraph 1 (2) (b), line 8, page 52, after the word "Force" to insert the words:—
"or was temporarily absent from his employment for any other reason with the knowledge and consent of a dissolved company".
I should like the Minister to look into this point as I am assured that there are a couple of cases which might not be covered by the Schedule as it now stands. The Minister may think he has made provision to cover everybody who could come within the terms of the Schedule, but, while I do not like to give the details of the cases——
I have no idea of the type of cases the Deputy has in mind, but continuity of service is not a prerequisite for compensation on redundancy and if an employee was voluntarily absent from the company's employment for any reason, I do not see that that period should count. I thought when I read the amendment that the Deputy was thinking about employees of the company who may have joined the armed forces of another country during the present period. In so far as that was voluntary absence, I doubt if it would be desirable to impose this obligation on the company. It does not destroy their right to compensation in so far as continuity of service is not necessary to establish it.
The Minister correctly interprets what I had in mind. I believe there are a couple of such cases and, if I am correctly informed, these people got permission from the directors who had authority to give such permission before the present chairman took office. I should like him to look into it because I am certain it is not the desire of anybody to penalise two or three people.
I am not suggesting that we should penalise them. If they are redundant under the Bill, they will get compensation calculated in accordance with their service; but what the Deputy is now proposing is that their service with the armed forces of another country during this emergency should be counted as service with the company for the purpose of calculating compensation.
It is provided for up to 6th December, 1922.
Yes, because the company had contracts to do that and we cannot ignore these contracts and, of course, we are providing in respect of service with the armed forces of this country during the emergency.
I have no personal interest in such cases, but I have been asked to bring them to the notice of the Minister.
It raises a wide issue and I doubt very much if it is a desirable issue to raise in this connection. There cannot be very many involved.
I appreciate the Minister's point from the policy point of view.
I should not like to promise the Deputy that I will bring this in again, because I feel there are difficulties in legislating for this purpose. I do not care what the company may do or what any other employer may do, but to legislate to require them to do it is a somewhat different matter. The Deputy will appreciate the difficulty.
I appreciate the difficulty, but I also know that this type of concession is granted by certain other Irish firms.
So far as any such persons are concerned, we do propose that they will be compensated in respect of their service with the company and a break in their service will not prevent them getting that compensation.
I am satisfied, having raised the matter.
Does the Minister not realise that there are special exemptions mentioned and others which are not? The point is that if the company for any reason gives a voluntary release to some of its employees without breaking their service, their service ought to be regarded as continuous. There are special circumstances detailed in the Bill and the point sought to be covered here is that if the company voluntarily releases men from its employment for any purpose, these men to return whenever required by the company, they should not be regarded as having broken their service. They are still retained on the pay sheet of the company and should not the same conditions apply to them, irrespective of the purpose for which they left the company's service, so long as the company releases them for a period and they go back into the service of the company on the expiration of that period? In the meantime, they have been retained on the pay sheet.
I think I see what the Deputy means. I will look into the point.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Does amendment No. 220 meet amendment No. 221?
There are some words in it "to which he was not a party", which we regard as very serious.
There is the question of where a man was on strike.
Amendment No. 220 will be moved and amendment No. 221 discussed with it.
I move amendment No. 220:—
In paragraph 1 (2), page 52, between lines 14 and 15, to insert the following:—
(d) if that person was temporarily absent from his employment with a former transport company for a period of less than one year on account of —
(i) the temporary closing or reduction of services on a railway line, due to conditions resulting from the present war, or
(ii) the cessation or reduction of any other transport services, due to the said conditions, or
(iii) illness or accident, or
(iv) any trade dispute to which he was not a party,
such temporary absence shall be included in the period of his pensionable service.
This gives effect to the greater part of the amendment proposed by Deputies O'Sullivan, Keyes and Larkin. It provides for the reckoning, as part of the pensionable service of an employee, of temporary absence not exceeding one year, due to the temporary closing of railway services or other reduction of transport services, to illness or accident or to a trade dispute to which the employee was not a party.
Could the Minister explain what he means by that phrase?
Disemployment caused through the suspension or reduction of services resulting from a trade dispute in which other employees of the company were involved. Leaving out the Great Southern Railways, the Deputy will recollect the case of the Great Northern Railway which had a strike in 1932. The conciliation grades went on strike, and, after they had been on strike for a number of weeks, the work arising in the company's shops, where there was no strike, so diminished that a number of shopmen were paid off. The Deputy will remember the case because we had a long controversy here arising out of the decision of the umpire under the Unemployment Insurance Acts as to the right of these workers to unemployment benefit during the weeks they were paid off. These men were disemployed by reason of a trade dispute to which they were not a party. I do not think it would be reasonable to expect the company to compensate men for a period in which they were on strike of their own decision, but it is reasonable to expect them to pay compensation for time lost to a man by reason of a strike involving some other section of the company's employees which ultimately necessitated temporary suspension of his employment.
Will this cover men who were knocked out of employment because of the destruction of Mallow bridge? These men were thrown out of employment through no fault of their own. Will it cover men who were thrown out of employment by the destruction of Killarney bridge?
I do not think so. We only deal with the present war.
The point is that they will suffer through that loss of employment as their service will only count from the date of re-employment after the reconstruction of Mallow bridge and Killarney bridge. I am only giving these as examples. I could quote others such as the Sligo branch being closed down for a period when men were thrown out of employment through no fault of their own and suffered great hardship.
I will look into it. I do not know how many would be involved. I do not suppose many would be affected by this provision, because any redundancy which could possibly arise cannot affect the services in County Cork. I will look into the matter. I suppose, if we deal with the circumstances of one war, we will have to deal with the circumstances of another.
There were men who were knocked out as a result of refusing to carry Black-and-Tans during the Black-and-Tan war and refusing to carry munitions. The Minister is forgetting about these cases. Do you want to penalise the railwaymen who refused to carry Black-and-Tans?
Will the Minister look into that section again?
That his absence from the service was due to the fact that he
"was engaged in service in any of the military forces serving under the authority of the First Dáil Eireann or the Second Dáil Eireann or the Provisional Government of Ireland or on either of the opposing forces during the civil strife in the years 1922, 1923 or 1924 or was interned or imprisoned in consequence of such service...."
—that all this period counts as pensionable service. The Deputy is trying to deal with people who were not engaged in service of that kind but whose employment was temporarily suspended by reason of the destruction of lines or bridges during that period. I will look into that again. There cannot be much in it.
Will the Minister look into the case of men who lost employment because of refusal to drive Black and Tans and who were not serving in the categories covered by (2) (b) because they were not serving under any authority and may not have been interned or imprisoned, but were simply dismissed because they refused to drive Black and Tans? You can hardly expect that they should lose that period for pension purposes.
I will look into the matter. I am somewhat appalled at the prospect of getting words which will cover these.
We will supply the words if you will accept them.
I am sure the Minister will concede that he does not want to penalise men who lost employment for that reason.
Does the Road and Rail Federation strike of 1935 come under it?
This proposal appears to meet it as far as that strike is concerned. If a man went on strike, it is not reasonable that the company should compensate him in respect of that. But, if another man lost employment by reason of the strike——
An unofficial strike.
I think we must draw that distinction. I will look into the point of the interruption of services by reason of the destruction of lines and bridges in 1922 and 1923.
Will the Minister look into the case of loss of service due to men being dismissed for refusing to convey Black and Tans?
They should be covered.
Surely it is not intended to compel these people to forgo that service.
We are going much further than the 1924 Act in this regard. I do not suppose there are many cases arising out of that. I think I can give an assurance that they will not arise out of it.
Will the Minister endeavour to meet the situation on the Report Stage?
I will try. I am not trying to minimise the difficulty of preparing an amendment which will meet the proposal.
You cannot speak for an arbitrator in the future. It will have to be clearly covered.
The case only goes to arbitration if the company refuse to pay.
Amendment put and agreed to.
Amendment No. 221 not moved.
I move amendment No. 222:—
In paragraph 1 to insert before sub-paragraph (2) (d) the following:
If that person was, owing to circumstances created by the emergency, temporarily released from his employment with a dissolved company, such temporary absence shall not constitute a break in the continuity of his service.
This amendment deals with persons who were on short time and who were temporarily released from employment in order to go to another country to earn more money. If they are reemployed, I want the service to be regarded as continuous.
As I understand the amendment, it is that a period will be reckoned for pension purposes during which a person was, owing to circumstances created by the emergency, temporarily released from his employment. What I provide for in my amendment is that the period will be reckoned for pension purposes during which a person was unemployed for not exceeding one year, by reason of the temporary closing or reduction of services of a railway line due to conditions resulting from the present war. I think that particular paragraph of my amendment meets the Deputy's proposal in this amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 222a:—
At the end of paragraph 3 to add a new sub-paragraph as follows:—
(e) the term "remuneration" in this clause shall be taken to include any cost of living or other emergency bonus of which the person is in receipt, provided always that should the bonus payable to the non-retired members of the company's staff in the same grade as the retiring officer or servant be increased or decreased subsequent to the date of retirement of the person, the proportion of the bonus included in the compensation payable by the company shall be increased or decreased by a proportionate amount, whether or not the addition of any portion of the cost of living or other emergency bonus shall bring the total compensation payable to the officer or servant above the equivalent of two-thirds of the remuneration and emoluments payable to the employee at the date of retirement.
The object of the amendment is to secure that, in compensating officers or servants retiring from the service, compensation should provide for the cost-of-living or other emergency bonus.
I am advised by the draftsman that the expression "remuneration and emoluments" includes the cost-of-living and emergency bonuses but, just in case there may be any doubt about the matter, I will introduce an amendment to put it beyond doubt.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Mr. O'Sullivan
I move amendment No. 223:—
Before paragraph 4, to insert a new paragraph as follows:—
4. Compensation payable to a person who shall without his consent be by reason of transfer in any worse position in respect to the conditions of his service as a whole, shall be a lump sum of money to be determined by the company, subject to an appeal as to the amount thereof to the standing arbitrator and such arbitrator may if he so thinks fit upon the hearing thereof award as compensation in lieu of a lump sum of money an annual allowance to be paid to that person not exceeding in any case twothirds of his remuneration and emoluments and, subject to that overriding limitation, not exceed an annual sum calculated at the rate of one-sixtieth of his remuneration and emoluments for every completed year of his pensionable service. In fixing the nature and amount of compensation to be awarded in cases within this provision all the circumstances of the case shall be taken into consideration including any prospective loss or injury.
This reinstates the position under the 1924 Act and enables the arbitrator to fix either a lump sum or an annuity.
I have provided in my amendment that it must be a lump sum. I do not think that we should provide for a lump sum or annuity. I think the compensation in these cases should be by way of a lump sum. The position under this Bill is somewhat different from what it was in the 1924 Act. As I explained previously, when the railways were being amalgamated in 1924 it was contemplated that there would be a considerable redundancy of staffs and that a lot of people would have to be let go, in fact that the more that went of their own accord the better it would be. This is an entirely different situation. We do not think anybody should be encouraged to retire unless definitely held to be redundant. They are required for the company's service and, if there is a worsening of the conditions of employment or future prospects or some other deterioration in their situation following the change, then we should compensate them by a lump sum and let them continue in the company's service. I think that is a more equitable arrangement than one which involves payment of an annuity.
Mr. O'Sullivan
Continuation of a man in the service under worsened conditions might eventually land him in a position where he would be liable to dismissal. You have the extreme case of a clerk being, say, made a signalman and not being fit for the post.
I should say that the arbitrator would make it a big lump sum in a case of that kind. It would be obviously a considerable alteration in the conditions of employment. In my view, the mere putting of the obligation on the company to pay compensation by way of a lump sum will in fact ensure that avoidable changes in status or the nature of a person's employment will not take place. However, I want to draw a distinction between this Bill and the other Act. The other Act did provide that any person who retired before the amalgamation would be pensioned. They were encouraged to retire and got compensation by way of pension. We are not doing that here. We do not think they should be encouraged to retire. The other Act recognised that there would be such redundancy, that it would be completely impossible to employ everybody who was taken over in the type of employment in which they were engaged previously. That situation will not arise here. The few changes that will be made, which will involve compensation under the lump sum provision, will relate merely to future prospects and chances of promotion, where a lump sum compensation would be added.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 224:—
In paragraph 4 (a), line 3, to delete the semicolon and substitute a comma and the word "and".
This is merely a drafting amendment.
Amendment agreed to.
Fifth Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
Sixth and Seventh Schedules agreed to.
EIGHTH SCHEDULE.
Amendment No. 225 not moved.
I move amendment No. 226:—
To delete paragraph 15 and substitute the following paragraph:—
15. The company may charge for a fraction of a mile as for a mile.
The meaning of this is obvious. It enables the company to charge for a fraction of a mile as for a mile, in order to avoid unnecessary minor calculations.
Amendment agreed to.
Eighth Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
Ninth Schedule agreed to.
TENTH SCHEDULE.
I move amendment No. 227:—
In lines 5, 23, and 32, to insert the word "maximum" in each case before the word "rates".
This is a drafting amendment.
Amendment agreed to.
Tenth Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported with amendments. Report Stage ordered for Wednesday, 18th October, 1944.