I move amendment No. 1:—
In page 7, Section 2 (1), to delete lines 36 to 42.
This is a drafting amendment to delete the definition of a functional area as that expression no longer appears in the Bill.
Transport (No. 2) Bill, 1944— Report.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 2:—
In page 9, Section 10 (3), line 45, to delete the words "or agreement".
During the discussion on Section 10 in Committee, Deputy Costello suggested that the wording of the sub-section, as it appeared in the Bill originally, might operate to invalidate an agreement which would otherwise be valid between parties or to enable one party to break an agreement. I have looked into the matter and as there would seem to be no great purpose in retaining the words "or agreement" I propose to delete them.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 3:—
In page 9, Section 10 (3), line 45, to insert after the word "sell" the words "with the consent of the Minister".
The purpose of this amendment is to ensure that the position which Deputy Norton referred to in the course of the discussion in Committee, relating to air services, could not arise. Deputy Norton, as the House will remember, proposed an amendment that nothing in sub-section (2) of Section 10 would operate to authorise the company to acquire, by purchase or otherwise, any transport undertaking owned or operated by the State. It was suggested that the section might be deemed to permit the acquisition by the company of air services, air ports or similar services and that this section if allowed to stand unchanged might be interpreted by the courts as overriding existing legislation. Under existing legislation no person other than Aer Lingus or a subsidiary of Aer Lingus or a person granted permission, may operate air services. In order to keep the two statutes in agreement it is proposed to insert here, after the word "sell", the words "with the consent of the Minister", which ensures that the position of this Bill will be kept in line with that of the Air Navigation and Transport Bill, 1936.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 4:—
In page 9, before Section 10 (4), line 47, to insert the following new sub-section:—
( ) The company may—
(a) carry on any hotel which was, immediately before the establishment date, carried on by a dissolved company;
(b) carry on a hotel in the vicinity of the route of any of its transport services and for that purpose acquire any interest in land and (if necessary) erect buildings thereon;
(c) do all such things in relation to its hotels as might be done by an individual;
(d) dispose of any of its hotels and of any interest in any land held by it in connection with its hotels.
It will be recollected that during the discussion on the Committee Stage doubt was expressed as to whether the wording of Section 10 was sufficiently wide to permit the company to carry on a hotel business. Each of the companies that were amalgamated into the Great Southern Railways in 1925 had power to operate hotels, a power which was given to them by the statutes under which these companies operated. These powers were transferred to the Great Southern Railways Company and would, by this Bill, be transferred to Córas Iompair Eireann. I had the sections examined and I found that there was no uniformity between the powers conferred by the various statutes upon the original railway companies which were, ultimately, amalgamated into the Great Southern Railways Company. In order to get rid of that lack of uniformity and also to put beyond doubt the powers which the company will have, I am proposing this section. There is a corresponding amendment to delete the various sections of the older Acts and, in future, the powers to carry on hotels and do all things necessary in connection with the carrying on of hotels will be uniform throughout the whole of the company's system.
What about paragraph (b) of the amendment? When this matter was raised, what I had in mind was the power of the company to deal with the hotels that existed. The original Bill gave no power to the company to carry on hotel business at all. In paragraph (b) the Minister proposes to give the company power to erect new hotels. I think that that is going too far.
The railway company has that power under existing legislation and the new company would have had it under that legislation also. But the various Acts which were inherited by the Great Southern Railways Company did not provide uniform powers over all parts of the company's system.
That is because they were, originally, different companies created under different statutes. We have enacted a Tourist Traffic Bill authorising the Tourist board to deal with the hotel business and to do many of the things included in this amendment.
The function of the Tourist Board is to regulate the conduct of hotels.
And subsidise their erection.
The Great Southern Railways Company carries on hotels subject to the regulations of the Tourist Board.
That is the power I wanted them to have but we are giving them power to "erect buildings" under paragraph (b). What kind of buildings will they erect under the powers given in this paragraph? Hotel buildings.
Yes.
I think that we should not give them that power seeing that we have given the Tourist Board power to erect hotels and subsidise their erection.
The Tourist Board have not that power at present.
We are giving this company a monopoly. My aim was to protect the railway company's property as it existed. It was not intended that, the fly having been cast, they were to take it in their mouth and run down stream.
We are not giving Córas Iompair Eireann any powers the Great Southern Railways Company have not got.
They have not got them in their entirety.
They have.
They have them so far as the amalgamated companies are concerned and what the Minister says could be read into the powers if they were all taken together. We are giving this company a monopoly of transport and control of their present hotels and I do not think we should give them this further power, seeing that we have a Tourist Board to deal with hotel traffic and the amenities required by tourists. If new developments are to take place, they should take place on the initiative of private persons, with the assistance and supervision of the Tourist Board.
I do not agree with that. Transport legislation in all countries permits transport operators to undertake the development of hotels. In fact, a great deal of the business of transport undertakers arises out of the provision of hotel accommodation. I do not want to be taken as indicating that no other arrangement for the development of hotel accommodation will be considered in future. I am merely proposing to continue the existing situation in this case. The railway company has power to carry on, acquire and construct hotels at present. Those powers were given in the statutes which established the various companies which were, ultimately, amalgamated into the Great Southern Railways Company. The only effect of introducing this section will be to secure that those powers will be uniform throughout the system, instead of varying, as they do at present, over different sections which were formerly under the control of independent railway companies.
That does not alter my view, having regard to the provisions of the Tourist Traffic Act.
The Deputy has misunderstood the terms of that Act.
Not at all. We are too much disposed to create half a dozen organisations to deal with the same thing. I think that we should endeavour to get co-ordination and that, if the Tourist Board has any purpose, hotel traffic should be left under its guidance. If the railway company or any other body say that a hotel is required in a particular place, then let private capital provide the hotel, subsidised and helped by the Tourist Board. At present, we have the Tourist Board, the railway companies and private individuals interesting themselves in the hotel business. I have no interest in the matter but I want to see some measure of co-ordination. The railway companies have hotels at present. They are associations of private persons and are entitled to have those hotels but we should not do anything which would accentuate the present position and multiply the number of bodies interested in the provision of hotel accommodation.
The Chair would remind Deputies that the House is not in Committee.
Amendment No. 4 put and agreed to.
I move amendment No. 5, which is consequential:—
In page 9, Section 10 (4), between lines 47 and 48, to insert the words "the word ‘hotel' includes a restaurant, refreshment rooms and similar undertakings".
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 6, which is in Deputy Davin's name and my name:—
In page 10, Section 12, after line 6, to add the following new sub-section:—
(2) On the establishment date every person who immediately before the establishment date was an officer or servant of a dissolved company shall, by virtue of this section, be transferred to and become an officer or servant (as the case may be) of the company.
We consider that this amendment is necessary. To show that it is necessary, I refer to Section 45 (4) (b) where the phrase "by virtue of this Act" is introduced. Under Section 12, it is provided, too, that the several undertakings of each dissolved company shall, "by virtue of this section," be transferred to and vest in and become the undertakings of the company. The Minister assured us that, by virtue of the incorporation of the Railway Clauses Act, 1863, the insertion we propose was unnecessary. But if Deputies refer to Section 45, they will find that "the service or employment or dismissal under or by the company of any officer or servant of that dissolved company who is transferred, by virtue of this Act, to the company shall be deemed to be service or employment or dismissal under or by that dissolved company." We are merely anxious to secure that the protection which, I am sure, the Minister desires to give, will be actually given. There seems to be some conflict of opinion as to whether or not the operation of the Railway Clauses Act, 1863, will be sufficient to effect our purpose. If it is essential in Section 12 to use the phraseology which has been used, we think that it would be well to make the insertion which we propose and thus secure the position of officers and servants of the dissolved company under this Bill whether or not they are protected by the Railway Clauses Act. Section 45 seems to raise a doubt as to whether the Railway Clauses Act suffices for this purpose.
I think that the Deputy has not adverted to Section 8 (2) which says that.
"Part V of the Railway Clauses Act, 1863, is, subject to the provisions of this Part, incorporated with, and forms part of, this Part".
The effect of that sub-section is precisely the same as if we took the various sections of the Railway Clauses Act, 1863, and incorporated them as sections of this Bill. They are incorporated by virtue of that sub-section and the Railway Clauses Act provides for all the circumstances which arise on the amalgamation of transport undertakings. Section 49 of the Railway Clauses Act provides that
"all clerks, officers and servants who at the time of amalgamation are in the employment of the dissolved company shall thereupon become clerks, officers or servants, as the case may be, of the amalgamated company, with the same rights and subject to the same obligations and incidents in respect of such employment as they would have had as clerks, officers or servants of the dissolved company and shall so continue unless and until they respectively are duly removed from such employment by the amalgamated company or until the terms of their employment are duly altered by the amalgamated company."
The effect of sub-section (2) of Section 8 of this Bill is precisely the same as if we took those words and inserted them in the Bill. The Act of 1924, dealing with amalgamation, did not incorporate the Railway Clauses Act, 1863, but it provided that the provisions of that Act would be incorporated in every amalgamation scheme given effect to under it. Precisely the same procedure was followed here, although under a different scheme, and the idea was that there should be a complete transfer of the rights, privileges and terms of employment of officers transferred to the new company as when employed by the amalgamating companies. For that reason, therefore, I think that the amendment is unnecessary.
I think that the Minister should listen to the points I have put forward. I am suggesting that there is a certain amount of looseness here, and I should like to put before the Minister——
I would point out that, on the Report Stage, a Deputy is only allowed to speak once. The Chair, however, will not rule over-strictly. I would ask the Deputy to be brief in his further remarks.
Yes, Sir, I quite understand that. I only want to know why this thing is being introduced, and why it should not be for the benefit of the people concerned.
But it is being introduced for their benefit.
I suggest that there is some looseness in the provisions inserted under Section 45.
Under Section 8, these provisions are being incorporated in this Act, and the effect of sub-section (2) is to make the provisions of the 1863 Act part of this Act.
They are being made part of this Act?
Yes.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 7:—
In page 11, at the end of Section 16, line 64, to add the following sub-section:—
(2) In calculating, for the purposes of sub-section (1) of this section, the total amount of debenture stock (including substituted debenture stock) created and issued, account shall be taken of any debenture stock which has been redeemed.
There was some doubt as to whether the wording of Section 16 was sufficiently clear, when we were debating this matter on the last occasion, and in order to remove completely the doubt that £16,000,000 represented the aggregate total of the values of debenture stock which could be issued, I am proposing this amendment.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 8:—
In page 16, Section 36 (3), line 49, to delete the words "some daily newspaper published in Dublin" and to insert the words "each of the daily morning newspapers for the time being published in Dublin or in Cork."
I think it was Deputy Norton who suggested this amendment, the effect of which is to require the company to insert these notices in every daily paper instead of in some daily paper.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 9:—
In page 17, before Section 39 (4), line 25, to insert the following new sub-section:—
( ) Whenever the Minister appoints a person to be chairman, he shall, as soon as may be, lay before each House of the Oireachtas a statement setting out that person's name, his term of office and the conditions upon which he is to hold office.
It was suggested, during the debate on the Committee Stage, that the Minister should lay before the House a statement, setting out the name of the person whom he appointed to be chairman of the company, his term of office, and the conditions on which he should hold that office. I agreed to insert an amendment to that effect, and I think that the proposal contained in this amendment does so.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 10:—
In page 17, before Section 39 (8), line 38, to insert the following new sub-section:—
( ) (a) Every person appointed to be chairman shall, within three months of his appointment, absolutely sell or otherwise dispose of all common stock which he shall at the time of his appointment own or be interested in for his own benefit;
(b) if and whenever any common stock shall come to or become vested in the chairman by will or succession for his own benefit, he shall, within three months after it shall have so come to or become vested in him, absolutely sell or otherwise dispose of it or his interest therein;
(c) the chairman shall not for his own benefit purchase, take or become interested in any common stock.
I think it was Deputy Sheldon who, in the course of the Committee discussion, represented that it was undesirable that the chairman of the company should be a holder of common stock in the company. I agreed, at the time, that the matter was one for consideration, because it appears that there is a question of principle involved, even though it might not prove to be of any practical importance at any time. I propose, therefore, this amendment, the purpose of which is to require that if the chairman, at the time of his appointment as chairman, should be the holder of common stock in the company, he shall sell or otherwise dispose of it; and the purpose of the amendment is also to ensure that the chairman should be prevented from becoming the holder of common stock in the company during his chairmanship of the company.
Does that cover every possible contingency?
Yes.
What about the possibility of the chairman disposing of his common stock to a friend?
No doubt, these things could be avoided. I am not suggesting that this is a practicable method of making the thing watertight, but I am making it a principle that the interests of the chairman should be in matters of public policy, and not merely in the welfare of shareholders. I think we may take it for granted that the chairman to be appointed to such a position will be an honest man.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 11:—
In page 17, before Section 39 (9), line 45, to insert the following new sub-section:—
Whenever the Minister gives a direction under sub-section (8) of this section, he shall, as soon as may be, lay before each House of the Oireachtas a copy of the direction.
On the Committee Stage, Deputy McGilligan suggested that, if a direction is given under sub-section (8), the House should be so informed, and this amendment requires the Minister to lay a copy of such direction before each House of the Oireachtas.
Amendment agreed to.
On behalf of Deputy Davin, Sir, I move amendment No. 12:—
In page 18, Section 40 (1), line 6, after the word "board" to insert the words "other than the chairman".
The purpose of this amendment is simply to prevent the position arising where one individual would be appointed to the two positions of chairman of the board and managing director. I think the undesirability of having one individual appointed to the two positions should be obvious. Whether or not it is the intention that such a position should not arise, I think it is desirable that some provision should be inserted here to prevent that happening.
Without giving any indication of an intention in the matter, I would oppose this amendment. I think it is right that the chairman of the company should be free to become its managing director in certain circumstances. For instance, I think that the circumstances that will exist during the period of reorganisation will be of such a character as to make it possible to contemplate an arrangement of this character and to regard it as a desirable arrangement. For that reason, I think it would be undesirable to have a statutory bar against the chairman acting as managing director of the company in circumstances in which it would be considered that the best interests of the company would be served by having one man acting in both capacities, and where the person appointed by the Government to be chairman of the company was regarded by the shareholders and their representatives as the best person to occupy the position of managing director also.
To be chairman and managing director of the company at the same time?
Yes; it is not an unusual arrangement.
I think there is something to be said against that. Take the case of a chairman who was a man of outstanding personality and who was able to influence the other members of the board. I think we should be very careful in regard to this matter. I can quite see the Minister's point of view, but there is a danger that a man, acting as chairman of the company, with an outstanding personality, might be able to convince his co-directors that he was the only fit and proper person to occupy the position of managing director. There are many people in this country who are able to convince other people, as a result of their outstanding personality, that they are the only people who are capable of doing anything. I admit that there are not many such people, but there are some, and I think we should take care, when we are extending this statutory power, to prevent some man, who might be a good plotter, so to speak, having himself elected to the two positions. I think that there should be two men: one to be chairman of the company, and the other to be managing director.
In my opinion, it would be wise, in the case of a huge commercial undertaking of this kind, that the two positions should be separate, and that the board should have the power of scrutinising the qualifications of the person to be appointed managing director. I think the Minister should consider this matter carefully. It might be economy to give the one salary to a person occupying the dual capacity, but it must be remembered that in a large commercial concern of that kind a salary of £1,000 or £2,000 does not count. What you want is effective management and effective control. Assume that there is a managing director who is also the chairman, how is he going to criticise himself with regard to the general management of the company: whether he is running it efficiently or inefficiently, whether he is doing a certain thing that is right or a certain thing that, perhaps, in the opinion of his co-directors, is not right and is bad for the system? There is that obvious danger, and, therefore, I think that such a loop-hole should not be left open. I agree with the Minister to this extent that I dislike creating a statutory bar, but there is a huge sum involved here. There is also involved the question of the general prosperity of the country. I think that these offices should be kept independent, and that provision should be made in the statute to prevent any attempt to rig the board of directors, and elect somebody who, as I have said, would have a talent for doing that sort of thing — that is, having himself elected to both offices. I suggest to the Minister that the matter is worthy of consideration.
There is no question of economy in this at all. The question is, what is the most desirable arrangement? I would regard it as completely undesirable to have a statutory impediment on the appointment of the chairman as managing director. I can conceive certain circumstances in which that would be the best arrangement, nor is it, necessarily, an undesirable arrangement. It is not an unusual practice in ordinary commerce. One, for instance, could describe the chairman of the Electricity Supply Board as the managing director of that undertaking, and I do not think the arrangement has worked badly in his case. I can contemplate a number of circumstances in which the chairman, the person appointed by the Government to represent public policy, if he is the best person for the post, could also suitably act as managing director of this concern.
I say that the virtue of this thing——
I would again remind Deputies that the House is not in Committee.
I would ask the Chair to bear with me because I look on this matter as one of the keystones of the Bill. This leaves it open to very serious defects. If the chairman is to be managing director, of course, that office technically makes him a director himself. If the general board of directors are to be controllers of the concern, they should be sitting there as critics: as the guides, philosophers and friends of the company as a whole. I think they should be in a position to speak out their minds fearlessly as regards the person who is in the position of managing director. How are they to do that in practice if he is chairman and managing director at the same time? We should not do anything that would be likely to handicap efficiency. When we are putting this thing down inside the four walls of a statute, we should take care that anything of the nature I speak of would not happen.
Is the appointment of the managing director a decision of the board that requires the concurrence of the chairman?
Certainly.
Then the chairman can prevent anyone else being appointed except himself, if he likes?
Certainly.
And he can appoint himself?
He cannot appoint himself.
But his powers will be such as to prevent anyone else being appointed.
I should look on the appointment as one of the most important matters that the board will have to consider
But he can prevent anyone else being appointed. That is the fact.
No. In normal circumstances, I should certainly say that it is right that the chairman appointed by the Government should have the power to exclude from the appointment of managing director any person who was regarded as being unsuitable
Even excluding all other persons?
The person appointed must be a director of the company.
And there will be only one person appointed by the Government. According to the Minister's phrase, that means excluding any person who is not so appointed. It means excluding anybody appointed by an outside body. That is what it comes to. I do not say that it is going to come to that, but it may, actually.
We are giving the chairman the power to veto the board's decisions. That is in the Bill. The most important decision made by the board at any time will be the appointment of a managing director.
Amendment put and declared lost.
I move amendment No. 13:—
In page 18, to delete Section 40, (3) lines 14 to 18, and substitute the following sub-section:—
(3) The remuneration (which shall be by way of fixed salary and not otherwise) of a managing director of the company shall from time to time be fixed by the board.
During the debate in Committee, Deputy Larkin (Junior) proposed, and I agreed, that the remuneration of the managing director should be by way of fixed salary and not by way of commission on dividends, profits or otherwise. I undertook to amend the Bill to that effect. This amendment achieves that object.
Amendment agreed to.
On behalf of Deputy Davin, I move amendment No. 14:—
In page 19, Section 43, line 26, to delete the words "closing of railway lines".
The Minister will recall that, on the Committee Stage of the Bill, he indicated that compensation would be paid, in certain circumstances, so far as the closing of branch lines is concerned, under Section 9 of the 1933 Act. Since then considerable doubts have arisen on the Minister's statement. We have actually got legal opinion on the matter. The Minister may be interested to know that the legal opinion received by us states, amongst other things, that:
"The retention of these words (‘closing of railway lines') is, in our opinion, most unsatisfactory. We have examined all the principles of statutory interpretation relevant to this question and we are forced to the conclusion that an arbitrator might readily hold Section 9 of the 1933 Act to have been impliedly repealed pro tanto by Section 43 or, in other words, that a person who would otherwise be entitled to compensation under the 1933 Act is not so entitled if his redundancy is caused by the closing of a railway line resulting from the amalgamation of the Great Southern Railways and Dublin United Transport Company.”
We feel, because of the anxiety that has arisen in connection with that paragraph in the Bill, that the Minister should put the matter beyond all doubt.
I cannot understand the basis of that opinion. This Bill relates to Córas Iompair Eireann, and provides for the obligations of that company. The Railways Act of 1933, to which the Deputy has referred, applies to all railway companies. It establishes the law affecting all railway companies, and determines their obligations in certain circumstances. I cannot, therefore, see how it can possibly be held by anybody that an obligation applicable to all railway companies under the 1933 Act is removed, even by implication, by the provisions of this Bill which relate to a single company. I have had this matter fully considered by the legal advisers to the Government, and they tell me that there is no question whatever but that, in the case of the closing of railway lines, the obligation to pay compensation under the 1933 Act will apply to Córas Iompair Éireann as to any other railway company, and that there is no necessity whatever to make special provision in relation to that matter in this Bill.
Does the Minister not see that differences can arise? Take the case of two men. One, say, is dismissed, presumably because of the closing of a branch line, and gets compensation if he comes under the 1933 Act. Another man, working beside him, is dismissed for a reason other than the closing of a branch line. His case for compensation will come under this Bill.
But the actual proposal for compensation is the same in each case.
The Minister has been more generous under this Bill than under previous Acts. The compensation here is to date from the date of dismissal, whereas in the previous Act it was to date from a particular date. These are anomalies that we would like to see rectified.
If the Deputy's point is that there are certain provisions in this Bill which are not in the 1933 Act, I think that is an argument for amending the 1933 Act rather than this Bill. As I have said, the 1933 Act applies to all railway companies. It would, obviously, be an anomalous situation if you had more favourable terms applying to one company than to others in the same circumstances. I doubt very much if circumstances, such as the Deputy imagines, will ever arise. If, however, you are to have any change in the circumstances of the 1933 Act, it should be effected by an amendment of that Act, and should apply, as I have said, to all. I have the definite legal opinion that by the insertion of the words "closing of railway lines" there is not any likelihood of the Act being interpreted in the way the Deputy suggests.
That is the main point we are trying to guard against.
I was not in the House at the time when this was discussed on the Committee Stage and so far I have been unable to get the argument. Is it a fact that because a man is dismissed owing to the closing of a railway line he will be debarred from compensation?
No; he will be compensated under the 1933 Act.
It appears from a reading of this that if a dismissal is caused by the closing of a railway line he will not get compensation under this Act.
No. He will get compensation under the 1933 Act.
He will get compensation under the 1933 Act. Why is there the difference in terms then as between this Act and the 1933 Act?
They were not different when I introduced the Bill. They have been improved by way of amendment in Committee. They do not represent the original intention.
What dismissal due to the closing of a railway line will be debarred from compensation?
None. The 1933 Act covers all circumstances in which a man is dismissed as a result of the closing of a railway line, with this difference, as I explained to Deputy Keyes, that that Act applies to everybody and this Bill applies only to Córas Iompair Eireann.
According to your interpretation, it is a matter of the amount which may be determined according to different standards.
The actual provisions for the determination of compensation in the 1933 Act are practically similar to those in this Bill. The few modifications which will be made by way of amendment of this Bill do not alter the position fundamentally, and I doubt very much if in practice the company will show any attempt to discriminate between the provisions of one Act and another.
Why is this phrase in the Bill?
Because it is already covered. Compensation in the circumstances of the closing of a railway line is already provided for in an Act which applies to all railway lines.
I can see there will be a certain amount of confusion in this. As I understand it now, the 1933 Act does set it out that if dismissal is shown to be due to closing of a railway line a man is entitled to compensation. Notwithstanding the fact that the amount of compensation will be judged pretty nearly by the same standards, there is included in this, which is the later measure a statement that right to compensation will be debarred because of the closing of a railway line.
I suggest there may be considerable difference in the compensation. Men who have been dismissed owing to the destruction of lines and dislocation of lines will be compensated under the 1933 Act. In some instances their service is broken, but that does not debar them under the 1933 Act. Therefore, there will be very considerable difference in the compensation to two similar types of men dismissed for different reasons.
If that should constitute a serious difficulty, the possibility of bringing the 1933 Act into conformity with the provisions of this Bill might be considered, but I should dislike a situation in which we would have different provisions applying to Córas Iompair Éireann on the closing of railway lines from those which would apply to the Great Northern, or County Donegal Railways. I think, in legislation which applies to all railway companies, we must provide for the treatment of all the railways equally.
We are trying to guard against anomalies.
If a servant of Córas Iompair Éireann is dismissed because of the closing down of a railway line, will he get compensation?
Yes. He must get it under the terms of the 1933 Act.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 15:—
In page 19, Section 43 (1), lines 26 and 27, to delete the words "or other economic cause".
In his speech on the Committee Stage, the Minister gave two examples of what the term "economic cause" would cover, which would seem to be obvious. One was the stoppage of the imports of petrol and the other the question of the imports of coal. We agree that either of these would be an "economic cause", but they are covered by the term, as far as the section itself stands. Since the question of reduction in traffic is good defence so far as compensation is concerned, we do not see the necessity for an ambiguous phrase of this character. I rather gathered from the discussion in Committee that the Minister himself was not too happy with this particular term, and I had hoped that in the interval he would agree to delete it, or would substitute some more satisfactory term. As we see it, there is no necessity for a term of this character at all, because it will only lead to endless legal argument involving heavy costs on whomsoever may have to pay them. We suggest that there is no necessity for it, and that the Minister might very well delete this phrase.
It seems to me that if we are to try to substitute some other form of words for those in the paragraph at the present time, the only words we could find to cover the idea which it is intended to express there would be "or a decline in revenue" and I can imagine that Labour Deputies would not regard that as an improvement. The Arbitrator under the 1924 Act did rule that the term should be construed in the sense of having relationship with saving money necessitated by a diminished revenue due to lesser volume of traffic or a modified scale of charges. Some provision of that kind must be contained in the Bill. The intention is that persons who lose their employment by amalgamation will be compensated, but that a person who loses his employment from any other cause will not be compensated under this Bill, and amongst the other causes are economies which either of the amalgamating companies could have introduced in any case, a decline in traffic, a decrease in the amount of work that has to be done on renewal and maintenance, or the introduction of improved methods of working. If these circumstances should arise, then there may be provision for the men who will be affected by them. There may even be agreements between the company and the men's unions dealing with these circumstances, but, obviously, we are not proposing to compel the company to pay compensation in such circumstances. It was designed merely to secure people who may lose their employment as a direct result of amalgamation. You do not cover all the circumstances under which fluctuation in the volume of employment might occur in the future if you leave out the phrase "other economic cause". It seems to me that some such phrase as that must go in, and as that phrase has been in previous legislation and as attempts have been made to give it an interpretation by the arbitrator under the previous legislation, I think it is better to leave it as it stands rather than to attempt to substitute for it some other phrase which might prove to be far more restrictive than this one is. If we were to attempt to amend it by the substitution of some other phrase with a somewhat similar effect we would, I think, be creating the risk that a much narrower interpretation would be put upon it.
Reference was made here to the Kerins case under the 1924 Act. I have had the decision of the arbitrator in that case examined and I find that in effect the Kerins case was not lost because of any interpretation of the phrase "other economic cause"; it was lost on the ground of reduction of renewals and maintenance and that ground is still provided in this paragraph as it stands. I again ask the House to remember that we are dealing here with entirely different circumstances from those which arose in 1924. The 1924 Act amalgamated 26 companies which were operating overlapping services. Now we are proposing to amalgamate two companies operating more or less self-contained services. There cannot be similar grounds for dispute as to the applicability of Section 45 to any person who may lose his employment and there will be less inclination on behalf of the company to insist upon a very narrow or rigid interpretation because the few cases that may arise will not involve any more than a limited number of individuals. Unlike the other Act, they had to fight a typical case, because substantial sums of money were involved, and the number of people who might be held to correspond to the case being fought, would be considerable. That cannot arise here. I have really no fear that there will be an attempt to impose too narrow an interpretation of the section. I think it is a good rule always to take phraseology out of existing legislation where it is applicable, and particularly phraseology which has been the subject of legal interpretation. We could never be sure that other words would not be given an interpretation different from what is intended.
In that other case the learned judge and counsel described the term as impossible of definition. In view of that, why retain it?
I reminded the Deputy before that the section says that the abolition of the office or situation must be shown by the company to be due to one of these causes. If the section is impossible of definition presumably the company would have difficulty in showing cause.
These words were also in the adjudication in the Kerins case.
The decision in the Kerins case was that the loss of employment was due to a reduction of maintenance.
The arbitrator said he knew no rules which threw the onus of proof from the applicant, even though these words were there.
I suggest that the Minister could not get a more all-embracing phrase for the purpose of giving the railway company a loop-hole to get away from its responsibility. Even accepting the optimistic views of the Minister, that the operation of this section would not be on the same scale here as in the earlier Act, the Minister will agree that the railway company will avail of every opportunity under this new legislation.
They will have much less reason to do so under this Bill than under the 1924 Act.
It is impossible to define when anyone would be superfluous. That has been said by people better qualified to judge than I am. I am wondering why we should persist in putting into legislation words that are considered to be unnecessary and that a judge said were impossible of interpretation, seeing that we have already given the railway company every opportunity to do all things arising from "economic causes," including lack of maintenance of services due to lack of revenue from traffic, and falling railway receipts. All are covered. I am wondering why this term "or other economic cause" is being persisted in.
We are satisfied that whatever redundancy will arise, the instrument that company is provided with will be freely used to provide fruitful discussions in the courts at the expense of others, and probably to the detriment of people claiming compensation. I think we have already given the company sufficient protection.
I would not agree that the decision in the Kerins case would be held as meaning that the term was impossible of interpretation. Here is what was said:
"... on the contrary, I would come to a different conclusion, because I would hold that a proper genus under which to classify the particular words was a genus of economic causes, construing economic in the sense of its having relation to a disposition to save money."
In effect he said that the company found itself in the position of having to cut its cloth according to its measure.
That would appear to be the real economy.
Certainly. We say in relation to these people that if as a result of our action in the amalgamation of two companies workers are disemployed, they will be compensated. We are not ensuring that the employees of the company will be protected from disemployment due to economic causes in future, such as an alteration in the general circumstances, an alteration in the general methods of conducting traffic, new inventions and various things that might cause a fall of employment in any industrial occupation. Whatever reasons are given for other occupations being changed, as well as the volume of employment, will be attached in this case. We propose to compensate people for what we do by amalgamation. Once amalgamation is completed we recognise that economic causes may result in a fall in the volume of employment, but we are not proposing that workers with the company shall be indefinitely protected against economic causes.
I notice that the Minister is trying to provide against economic causes with one exception. "Economic causes" covers a decrease in traffic, a reduction of renewal and maintenance and improved methods of working. If my memory serves me, the only other matter is decreased revenue which apparently is not one caused by decreased traffic. A decrease of revenue, the Minister said, could occur through reduced charges. There are other charges involved. Towards the end of the Committee Stage, the Minister gave a hint, and people are rather anxiously wondering whether it was to be taken as a signpost, that there might be an off-loading of traffic from the railway to the roads. If that happened on a big scale, and it could happen without closing the railways which might not be so much used, it might bring about a reduction in revenue. Does the Minister mean there is to be a policy of that kind?
That would be a reduction in traffic, not a reduction in revenue.
That might bring about a reduction in revenue. If it did not cause a decrease in traffic and if there was not the same revenue, apparently the Minister would say it was due to economic causes. If there is going to be an off-loading, surely the permanent way which the railway company have to keep there might then show a decrease in revenue and it might be desirable to reduce charges to get traffic. There might be a period in which an increase of traffic would not come in and revenue would decline. Does the Minister think that a proper reason for debarring people from compensation?
I would say that that would not be a circumstance arising from the amalgamation. That circumstance could arise if there was no amalgamation.
We do not know. It could not arise unless there was power in a monopolistic concern to shift from one service to another. That has not arisen. Apparently that is what is in the Minister's mind in debarring people from compensation. The Minister would call that "economic causes".
I am not debarring people from claiming compensation. I am providing that people will be paid compensation in certain circumstances and I have pointed out the circumstances.
That will be taken, and was taken by a previous arbitrator, so to speak, as terms of reference. He found that if a reduction was due to economic causes, decreased traffic or decreased renewal work or improved methods of working, a man was debarred from compensation.
What we say is that if a man's disemployment is due to amalgamation, the company shall pay him compensation. If the company does not pay him compensation, the man has the right of appeal to an arbitrator.
And the arbitrator will then consider, as the pivotal point, whether the dismissal was due to other economic causes, and, if so. the man does not get compensation The Minister in that context brings in this idea of decreased revenue, and I suggest that one way in which decreased revenue is going to arise is by this off-loading of traffic for a certain period when receipts will be down because of the attempt to get traffic on the new system. In these circumstances, it does not seem equitable that whole-time employees of the system, who would in all probability have continued in their employment for years, should be debarred from compensation because of this changeover.
That surely would not be a consequence of the amalgamation.
I suggest it would be. It is a question of whether it would be called a direct consequence or a consequence in some way connected with it. The position was that railway employment was supposed to be so definitely permanent employment that railway employees were excepted cases under the unemployment insurance code. They were regarded as so definitely employed that they did not pay, but this unsettles that situation. I do not want to weary the House by repetition, but having had experience of putting through the 1924 Act, and later finding it part of my duty to try to get compensation for people who had been dismissed arising out of the amalgamation, I found that in a situation in which I felt it clear that individuals should have got compensation the arbitrator would not give it to them. Men whose only experience was whatever they had got in the way of training of their hands, people at the age of 50, were being thrown out of whole-time employment at a time when they had no other field of employment arising out of their previous experience, and when there was nothing they could do. They were thrown out without any compensation. If there are very few people who will be affected by this, so long as the Minister continues to use that argument, not much harm is done by leaving the phrase out. It may mean that a small number of people will creep in who would not have got compensation on a strict interpretation of the provision, but it will not matter very much.
We want to prevent continuous litigation in circumstances which may arise.
As Deputy O'Sullivan has pointed out, there will be much more litigation over such a phrase as this than over a section which contains a precise phrase. I should like to see in here the phrase "decreased revenue". Decreased revenue is something which can be objectively found and everybody knows what it is.
I gave an illustration during the Committee Stage. I said that assuming that next year, after the company had been constituted, the supply of petrol or coal stopped, and services stopped as a consequence, that would be an economic cause, and nobody could say that persons who lost their employment through that cause lost it by reason of amalgamation.
Obviously that could not be related to amalgamation.
Similarly, there are circumstances in which we could contemplate the company losing so much revenue that it just could not continue to pay the wages of all its workers. That is what the arbitrator means when he said "circumstances in which the company might have to cut its cloth according to its measure." The company would have considerable difficulty in showing at any time that a decline in revenue was due to amalgamation. The effect of the amalgamation will be to improve the company's revenue, and I do not think there is much likelihood of a dispute under that head, but in circumstances in which the revenue had declined and in which there was a diminution in employment, we would not like the position created in which workers might feel that that situation was due to the amalgamation.
Again, I want Deputies to understand that we say that if workers lose their employment because of amalgamation, they must be compensated, but we want to ensure that there will be no tendency to continue to press claims which obviously cannot succeed because the company will be able to demonstrate beyond doubt that the disemployment of the individual worker was not due to amalgamation but to such circumstances as are stated here: a decline in traffic; a decrease of renewal and maintenance work; the introduction of improved methods of working or other economic causes such as those I mentioned by way of illustration. If the company can show that the disemployment of an individual was due to these circumstances, the obligation to pay compensation may not arise. Whatever provision the company may make for employees as a whole, the statutory obligation to pay compensation because of amalgamation will not arise in these cases.
Mr. McGilligan rose.
Might I remind the House that we are not in Committee? The Minister has already spoken twice on this question. If Deputies who have something to say wish to hear the Minister's views they might intervene before the Minister does so.
After a very long discussion in Committee, there are very few of these amendments which call for discussion, and I suggest that a free exchange of views would not be a waste of time.
The Chair has been rather lenient so far, but does not want leniency to go too far. If it is abused, Deputies shall have to adhere to the Rules of Procedure.
The ordinary practice of the House, when so many as 60 amendments are tabled for this Stage, to go into Committee again.
That is a matter for the Minister, not for the Chair.
I want to put just one point. The chairman in his speech said that even a modernised transport system could not carry 1,300 employees. If they are to be got rid of, it will, apparently, in the chairman's mind be the result of economic causes and not of amalgamation. He apparently contemplated the whole lot going and they will not be compensated under this measure.
Any improved methods of working which the company could have introduced in any event will not be "due to amalgamation".
Is it not a good defence for the company to say that a man was discharged because of one or other of a set of economic causes rather than to amalgamation, which would tie the hands of the arbitrator in the light of this all-embracing phrase?
I would not agree with the Deputy at all.
The company has done it before and will do it again.
I think the company will have difficulty in showing that loss of employment due to amalgamation was due to some other cause, if in fact it was due to amalgamation. I have said that the amalgamation will have the effect of improving the company's prospects, of increasing its traffic, increasing its revenue and generally improving its financial status. It will still be open to the company to adopt improved methods of working just as the present company could adopt them, but it will have difficulty in showing that the amalgamation worsened its financial position, or that any worsening of its financial position could possibly be due to amalgamation.
Were these words not the subject of an adjudication by the arbitrator who declared that he saw no reason, notwithstanding the fact that they were there, to throw the onus away from the applicant? I think it was in the Kerins case that the arbitrator said that, notwithstanding the fact that these words were there, he saw no rule of construction which would enable him to lift the burden from the applicant.
In that case, the decision of the arbitrator did not rest on the words "economic causes" at all.
The only other point made was that if the phrase "economic causes" remains here, the burden of proof will be on the company and if it is incapable of definition, the Minister's line of argument is that the company will not be able to establish it. My answer to that is that, although those words were there in that particular case, the arbitrator said there was nothing to relieve the applicant of the onus of proof.
The arbitrator said:
"Each applicant has to come and prove to me (1) that his services were dispensed with (2) dispensed with because they were unnecessary (3) unnecessary by reason of certain changes of administration, and (4) that these changes of administration were due directly to amalgamation."
He then went on to say:
"These averments are all positive and though the information necessary to prove them would be peculiarly within the knowledge of the respondents, I have been able to discover on principle of evidence which would relieve the appellants of the burden of proving these averments before they can succeed."
Question proposed: "That the words proposed to be deleted stand."
The Dáil divided: Tá 60; Níl, 35.
Tá
- Aiken, Frank.
- Bartley, Gerald.
- Beegan, Patrick.
- Blaney, Neal.
- Boland, Gerald.
- Bourke, Dan.
- Brady, Brian.
- Breathnach, Cormac.
- Brennan, Thomas.
- Breslin, Cormac.
- Buckley, Seán.
- Burke, Patrick (Co. Dublin)
- Butler, Bernard.
- Carter, Thomas.
- Childers, Erskine H.
- Colbert, Michael.
- Colley, Harry.
- Corry, Martin J.
- Crowley, Fred H.
- Daly, Francis J.
- Derrig, Thomas.
- Flynn, Stephen.
- Fogarty, Andrew.
- Forgarty, Patrick J.
- Friel, John.
- Furlong, Walter.
- Harris, Thomas.
- Hilliard, Michael.
- Humphreys, Francis.
- Kennedy, Michael J.
- Killilea, Mark.
- Kilroy, James.
- Kissane, Eamon.
- Lemass, Seán F.
- Little, Patrick J.
- Lydon, Michael F.
- Lynch, James B.
- McCann, John.
- McCarthy, Seán.
- MacEntee, Seán.
- Morrissey, Michael.
- Moylan, Seán.
- O Briain, Donnchadh.
- O'Connor, John S.
- O'Grady, Seán.
- O'Loghlen, Peter J.
- O'Reilly, Matthew.
- O'Rourke, Daniel.
- O'Sullivan, Ted.
- Rice, Bridget M.
- Ruttledge, Patrick J.
- Ryan, James.
- Ryan, Mary B.
- Sheridan, Michael.
- Skinner, Leo B.
- Smith, Patrick.
- Traynor, Oscar.
- Walsh, Laurence.
- Walsh, Richard.
- Ward, Conn.
Níl
- Anthony, Richard S.
- Beirne, John.
- Browne, Patrick.
- Burke, Patrick (Clare).
- Byrne, Alfred.
- Coburn, James.
- Coogan, Eamonn.
- Corish, Richard.
- Cosgrave, Liam.
- Dockrell, Henry M.
- Dockrell, Maurice E.
- Doyle, Peadar S.
- Dwyer, William.
- Mongan, Joseph W.
- Murphy, Timothy J.
- Norton, William.
- O'Higgins, Thomas F.
- O'Leary, John.
- Fagan, Charles.
- Giles, Patrick.
- Halliden, Patrick J.
- Heskin, Denis.
- Hughes, James.
- Keating, John.
- Keyes, Michael.
- Larkin, James.
- McAuliffe, Patrick.
- MacEoin, Seán.
- McFadden, Michael Og.
- McGilligan, Patrick.
- McMenamin, Daniel.
- O'Sullivan, Martin.
- Redmond, Bridget M.
- Reidy, James.
- Roddy, Martin.
Tellers:— Tá Deputies Kissane and Kennedy; Níl: Deputies Keyes and Larkin.
Question declared carried.
Amendment No. 15 negatived.
Amendment No. 16 not moved.
I move amendment No. 17:—
In page 20, Section 43, line 5, before sub-section (5), to insert the following sub-section:—
(5) Any person who is in receipt of an annual sum by way of compensation under this section may, within one year from the date on which the annual sum is fixed, apply to the company to commute not more than one-fourth of the annual sum by the payment of a capital sum, and thereupon the following provisions shall have effect:—
(a) the company shall not unreasonably refuse the application;
(b) if the company refuses the application the applicant may, within one month after the company has notified the applicant of such refusal, appeal to the standing arbitrator, who shall hear and determine the appeal, and the decision of the standing arbitrator shall be final and conclusive;
(c) where the company grants the application or, on the refusal of the application by the company, the standing arbitrator, on appeal, decides it should be granted—
(i) the company shall, after the capital sum to be paid by way of commutation has been calculated, inform the applicant of the amount thereof and the applicant may, within one month after being so informed, withdraw his application,
(ii) if the applicant does not so withdraw his application, the company shall pay to the applicant the said capital sum by way of commutation of the said part of the said annual sum;
(d) the said capital sum to be paid by way of commutation shall be such sum as would, on the date of the application, purchase, through an annuity scheme approved by the Minister, an immediate life annuity payable to the applicant equal to the annual amount of the said part of the said annual sum, the applicant's age for this purpose being reckoned at the age he will attain on his birthday next following the date of the application.
The Minister might say how far amendment No. 17 meets amendment No. 55, which is in the name of Deputy P.S. Doyle.
I think this amendment meets the amendment in the name of Deputy Doyle completely. The purpose is to provide for the commutation of portion of the sum given by way of compensation.
I appreciate the provision which the Minister has made in this amendment. It covers the one I have tabled, No. 55, and is very satisfactory. I should like to point out, however, that under the 1924 Act facilities were given for calculating under the British or the Northern Ireland annuity scheme, and I was wondering if the Minister is adopting the system that is now operating in the present company regarding the calculation. There is no annuity scheme under the Irish Post Office, and it appears they have been adopting the scheme operated by Britain and Northern Ireland. I do not know if the Minister has anything special in mind as regards the annuity scheme referred to in the amendment.
I think the Deputy's amendment, which was taken from the amalgamation scheme of 1924, would be somewhat archaic in the present circumstances. I think the form which I am proposing is more suitable to modern conditions, and it serves the same purpose.
Thank you.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 18:—
In page 20, Section 43 (5), line 9, to add, at the end of the sub-section, the words "or any appeal to him under sub-section (5) of this section".
This amendment is consequential.
Is not sub-section (5) the sub-section in which we are putting this amendment?
Yes. The new amendment will become sub-section (5). Amendment No. 18 refers to sub-section (5); that is the new sub-section.
Thank you.
Amendment agreed to.
Possibly amendment No. 19 is met by amendments Nos. 20 and 21.
The amendment is not being moved.
Amendment No. 19 not moved.
I move amendment No. 20:—
In page 20, Section 43 (7), to delete paragraph (c), lines 20-22, and substitute the following paragraph:—
(c) may do all or any of the following things—
(i) summon witnesses to attend before him,
(ii) examine on oath any witnesses attending before him,
(iii) require any such witness to produce any document in his power or control which the arbitrator considers necessary.
This amendment, with amendment No. 21, is designed to meet in full the points in the amendment tabled by Deputies Davin and Keyes.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 21:—
In page 20, at the end of Section 43, line 26, to add the following two new sub-sections:—
(8) A witness before the standing arbitrator shall be entitled to the same immunities and privileges as if he were a witness before the High Court.
(9) If any person—
(a) on being duly summoned as a witness before the standing arbitrator makes default in attending, or
(b) being in attendance as a witness refuses to take an oath legally required by the standing arbitrator to be taken, or to produce any document in his power or control legally required by the standing arbitrator to be produced by him, or to answer any question to which the standing arbitrator may legally require an answer.
such person shall be guilty of an offence under this section and shall be liable on summary conviction thereof to a fine not exceeding twenty-five pounds.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 22:—
In page 22, Section 48 (1), line 58, after the word "provided" to insert the words "with particular regard to authorising and compelling the company (a) to erect posts, indicating compulsory and optional stopping-places for omnibuses, and (b) to provide adequate cloakroom accommodation at populous seaside resorts.
The Cork Corporation had this matter under discussion on several occasions and, arising out of their conversations, it was decided to get in touch with the Gárda Síochána with a view to relieving, if not altogether abolishing, the confusion that exists on all of the bus routes in Cork City. There are no indicators to tell passengers where the recognised stopping-places are. Of course, by custom a number of stopping-places have been established, but there is no written word to proclaim to all and sundry that these are recognised stopping-places. The consequence is that most citizens, including myself — I am a regular passenger on these buses — are left in doubt about where to stop for a bus.
If I were off my own route I would be quite at sea as to where the stopping-places are. When citizens are confused in relation to these stopping-places, how much more confusing must it be for visitors to the city? They are frequently compelled to ask passers-by where they should remain in order to catch such-and-such a bus. Knowing the difficulties citizens have experienced, and visitors to the city have experienced, in this connection, we thought it advisable to request the company to erect indicators at all the stopping-places. The company have refused point-blank to do so. They throw the onus over on the ratepayers of Cork City. They might as well ask our citizens to put up signposts from Cork to Blarney on the Great Southern Railways as to ask them to put up these indicators on the side-walks of the city.
As regards the portion of my amendment which seeks adequate cloakroom accommodation at populous seaside termini it would be better. When I put down resorts I had in mind the scenes that have been witnessed from time to time at Crosshaven, a seaside resort about 12 or 14 miles from Cork City. This place is much patronised, especially by working-class people from Cork City, on Sundays and holidays. There have been some disgraceful scenes in Crosshaven as a result of the shortage of bus accommodation and the shortage of cloakroom accommodation. In this civilised country one would imagine that better services would be provided for our own people, not to speak of visitors from other countries. One would imagine that in a country like this, which is supposed to be civilised at any rate, we would have adequate cloakroom accommodation, especially at the bus termini. Disgraceful scenes have been witnessed at these places on Sundays and holidays. Crowds of people are taken down there and some are left until 3 or 4 o'clock in the morning. In many cases people were compelled to remain all night because of the shortage of buses.
As regards inadequate cloakroom accommodation, I have in mind Crosshaven and Youghal. I trust the Minister will make suitable provision in this Bill in connection with the points I have raised. Perhaps he may not be prepared to accept the amendment in the form in which I have submitted it, but if he accepts the spirit of it he could adopt more suitable wording. The principal point is that the company should be compelled to erect indicators setting out the compulsory and optional stopping-places for buses in the City of Cork, and to provide adequate cloakroom accommodation at seaside resorts. I do not think it is asking too much, having regard to the fact, which is common knowledge, that the Cork City services are among the best paying services in Eire. It is computed that they take out of Cork City alone something between £60,000 and £70,000 per annum in bus fares, so I do think that the least the company might do is to erect the indicators suggested in the amendment.
With regard to the first part of the amendment, the erection of posts indicating stopping places for omnibuses, the Deputy should take the matter up with the Minister for Local Government. The administration of the Road Traffic Act is a matter for the Minister for Local Government. An amendment of that kind would be inappropriate in this legislation. There is power under an Emergency Powers Order of designating stopping places, and the Minister for Local Government may require the erection and maintenance of signs.
By whom?
There is, I understand, frequent difficulty in getting the consent of the local authorities to the erection of signs, but the only point I want to make at the moment is that the object which the Deputy has in mind has got to be secured by the use or amendment of the Road Traffic Act and not by the amendment of this Bill. The Road Traffic Act, as I have told him, is the responsibility of the Minister for Local Government.
Might I ask the Minister, who put up the indicators in Dublin? Who footed the bill in Dublin?
I cannot answer that question. Again, it is a matter for the Minister for Local Government.
But the Minister for Local Government refuses to foot the bill.
The Deputy must argue that matter with him.
I think it is quite appropriate to this Bill.
It would be inappropriate to this Bill. The regulation of traffic, as distinct from the provision of road services, comes under the Road Traffic Act, which is the responsibility of the Minister for Local Government. The provision of adequate cloak-room accommodation at seaside resorts is a matter for the local authorities catering for those resorts. If the Deputy has in mind the provision of cloak-room accommodation at the termini of transport services, then under the existing law the railway company is required to provide cloak-room and waiting-room facilities at railway termini, and under Section 125 of the Bill it is being required to afford similar facilities in connection with passenger services by road.
Under what section?
Under Section 125.
Would not the Minister consider amending the particular section to which I have referred? The section provides that the Minister "may attach conditions as to frequency and routes of services, facilities to be provided and other matters." Would not those be amongst the facilities to be provided?
So far as the company is concerned, they are required by the Railway and Canal Traffic Act, 1854, to provide cloak-room and waiting-room facilities at railway termini. We are extending the operation of that section of the Railway and Canal Traffic Act, 1854, to the road services of the company, which means that they must provide waiting-room and cloak-room facilities at the termini of their road transport services.
Why not add some other facilities?
Were the railways, under the original Act, bound to provide facilities at intermediate stations?
At railway stations.
They were provided at intermediate stations, but were they bound to provide them?
At railway stations, yes.
Are you making the same provision for bus services?
Not at intermediate stations, only at the termini.
Why not provide them at intermediate points?
I think that is much more an obligation of the local authority than of the transport company. If Deputies want to provide public conveniences and cloak-room accommodation at populous seaside resorts and other centres, they must take the matter up with the local authority whose duty it is to provide those facilities.
Why is there a differentiation between the termini and intervening points? The travelling public might have to wait at intervening points.
Does the 1854 Act apply only to stations that are termini?
Yes.
Are you sure?
The Act requires the company to afford all reasonable facilities for the receiving and forwarding and delivery of traffic. That is what the Act requires, but the appropriate section has been interpreted in the courts as involving the provision of cloak rooms and waiting-rooms.
At all stations?
At certain stations where there are facilities for the receiving and forwarding and delivery of traffic.
Does not that mean all stations?
Not necessarily.
This may be a small matter, but it is an important one in Cork. First of all, there is the question of bus stops. The absence of indicators is an inconvenience even to the citizens of Cork. The point has been raised already by a Deputy of the Minister's own Party, Deputy Daly, I think. If the Minister would agree to Deputy Anthony's amendment now, I think we could do away with a lot of bickering and petty trouble over this question of bus stops. We all look forward to tourist traffic at the end of the war and the Government is prepared to spend a lot of money in that direction. I am not quite sure that I would go the whole way with Deputy Anthony in regard to those enormous and perhaps expensive rest-houses at seaside resorts like Crosshaven or Youghal, but I think the question of bus stops is one that affects everybody. When I hear Deputy McGilligan and Deputy Hughes advocating the erection of bus stops in Cork, I think of the Greeks, and I fear them bearing gifts, but I would ask the Minister to take Deputy Anthony's amendment in a friendly spirit and put it in. The absence of those stops is a great nuisance to people who come to a city like Cork. It is quite a big city; it is not as big as Dublin, we know, but we hope it will be bigger. I am asking the Minister to approach this amendment in a friendly way, and to accept it if he possibly can.
I have considerable sympathy with the amendment. All I have to say is that it is in the wrong place and to the wrong Bill. It is the Road Traffic Act that must be amended.
It is another Minister has the doing of it?
It is another Minister has the doing of it.
Would the Minister use his influence with the other Minister who has the doing of it?
Yes. The Government has extended the powers under the Road Traffic Act by an Emergency Order.
Would the Minister get the other Minister to issue the order?
The Minister for Local Government has the power now of designating stopping places and requiring the erection of signs.
Is the Minister for Industry and Commerce and Minister for Supplies willing to have a kindly word with the Minister for Local Government in order to get over this difficulty about the erection of signs, quite apart from the provision of cloak-rooms? The company is bound to erect signs. There should not be so much red-tape about it.
How does the Minister defend his contention that we should compel the new company to provide facilities at termini and not at intermediate places?
It may not apply to halts, but it would certainly apply to all ordinary stations.
It would not apply to ordinary halts, but they would be much more numerous in the case of road services.
The 1854 Act is going to be applied to road vehicles. That will surely apply to definite stopping places, apart from halts, and therefore, cloak-room facilities will have to be provided. Am I right in supposing that in some of the decided cases a distinction was made between cloak-room and lavatory accommodation?
Between waiting-room and cloak-room accommodation?
It is only those are to be provided, and not lavatories?
Well, I take it that cloak-room, accommodation includes lavatories.
I would have thought so, too, but I think there are cases against that.
There may be subsequently another interpretation by the courts as to what constitutes a reasonable facility in relation to a road service.
In view of the development of road services, does the Minister not consider it advisable to have such facilities provided, especially in the big towns?
Certainly. That is why the obligation is being placed on the company to provide them, but I do not want to make them do what should be done by the local authority.
As a representative of a local body, I am aware— and I am sure Deputy Anthony must be aware also — that the Cork Corporation, just as other corporations throughout the State, has the right under the Road Traffic Act to establish road-stopping places for buses.
We have done so.
We have done so and have established our own stopping-places.
That is not fair. We have not suggested that we have not established the compulsory stopping-places, but the company will not tell us where they are. I think it is unfair of the Deputy to make that suggestion.
Will the Minister agree to the spirit behind this?
As far as the Road Traffic Act is concerned, I think the Cork Deputies can combine against the Minister for Local Government and Public Health with success.
Will the Minister support us in the matter?
Certainly. I think you will be pushing an open door.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 23:—
In page 23 to delete Section 49, lines 14 to 31, and substitute the following section:—
(1) In this section, the expression "agreement to which this section relates" means an agreement or arrangement being—
(a) an agreement or arrangement for the allocation or routing of traffic or for the pooling of receipts from such traffic or for differential rates on traffic passing by sea to or from the State, or
(b) an agreement or arrangement varying or rescinding any such agreement or arrangement as is mentioned in paragraph (a) of this sub-section.
(2) Except in so far as authorised by an Order of the Minister, the company shall not enter into any agreement to which this section relates with any other transport undertaker.
(3) An Order under sub-section (2) of this section shall not be made in relation to any agreement to which this section relates save on the application of the parties proposing to enter into the agreement.
(4) If—
(a) an application is made for an order under sub-section (2) of this section, and
(b) it appears to the Minister that the interests of any transport undertaker (not being a proposed party to the agreement) would be affected if the agreement were made,
the Minister shall, before making the Order, give that transport undertaker an opportunity of making representations in relation to the agreement and consider any representations so made.
Deputies will recollect that the question of the suitability of the original section was raised in Committee by Deputy Coburn and other Deputies. The proposed amendment provides that the company cannot enter into any agreement for the allocation or routing of traffic or rescind any such agreement with any other transport undertaker except under a Ministerial Order and no Order may be made save on the application of the partners. If the interests of other transport undertakers appear to be affected, the Minister shall hear their representations before making an Order. The amendment differs from the original section in so far as only parties to the agreement can apply to the Minister for an Order. Previously, such applications could be made by any other transport undertaker affected by such agreement or by any representative body of traders. Secondly, the matter is not referable to the Advisory Committee, which was one of the points made by Deputy Coburn. Thirdly, provision is made to hear representations from any other transport undertaker whose interests appear to be affected; and, fourthly, the original section was incomplete as drafted, in that it left it open to the company to come to agreement with another transport undertaker without the necessity for a Ministerial Order, if they had not already got an agreement with any such undertaking. That matter is now being corrected. I agreed to reconsider the form of the section during the discussion in Committee and I found, on reconsideration, that amendments were necessary in the form in which I now propose them.
Is it now the situation that one of the parties to the agreement can apply?
Yes.
And, with the consent of the other party, an Order can be made varying it?
No, no; both parties must agree.
I wonder where that is contained. I see in sub-section (3) that the parties must apply.
The application must be made by the parties.
If one party is in disagreement and does not apply, then there cannot be any variation?
There cannot be any variation.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 24:—
In page 24, Section 52 (3), line 10, before the words "the Minister" to insert the words "the Chief Justice at the request of".
This amendment gives effect to the promise I gives to Deputies Hughes and Cosgrave on the Committee Stage, to provide for the appointment of the arbitrator by the Chief Justice instead of by the Minister.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 25:—
In page 24, Section 52 (5), line 19, to delete the word "Minister" and substitute the words "Chief Justice".
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 26 not moved.
I move amendment No. 27:—
In page 29, Section 65 (6), to delete line 9, and substitute the words "may determine".
This is only a drafting amendment.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 28:—
In page 42, before Section 106, line 6, to insert a new section as follows:—
The company shall pay to the Chairman of the Railway Tribunal on the abolition thereof a sum equal to the salary (less suspended pension) received by him as Chairman during the period of two years expiring on the day before the establishment date.
This amendment raises the position of the Chairman of the Railway Tribunal Deputy Davin has one down in the same terms and with the same effect, though his wording is different. The gist of both appears to be that the chairman will be put in a position approximating to that of the directors of the dissolved companies. The Chairman of the Railway Tribunal was appointed originally for a fixed term of five years, after which the appointment might be on a year-to-year basis. The position in regard to the present chairman of the tribunal — there has never been any other chairman — is that he was previously a judge and qualified for pension rights arising under his original judicial office. That pension was, of course, suspended while he was in receipt of pay as chairman of the tribunal. As a matter of fact, he got the difference between such pension as he might have secured if he retired and the exact salary as fixed. He has been enjoying that difference for a certain number of years. There was no reason to expect that he would not have gone on enjoying that for years to come.
It is quite true that he had no security and it can be objected that we should not give payment here, where there was no security of tenure, on the simple falling in of his particular post. But that falling in was brought about by the introduction of this measure and it is at that point that the analogy arises with the railway directors. The railway directors hold their appointments from year to year, from general meeting to general meeting, and might have been dislodged at any point. Under this measure, the directors are being carried forward; those who were directors on the establishment day are being declared to be the shareholders' directors and there is a provision that, if there is no agreement on the matter, there is to be determination by lot as to which shall hold office for one year, which for two years and which for three years.
The provision of the Bill go further and say that, if any of these people, who are carried forward by this Bill only on a year-to-year basis, likes to resign office, he is to be given two years of the emolument he would receive if he stayed on. Therefore, with regard to the directors, the situation is that they have exactly the same tenure of office as the chairman of the tribunal. In fact, in present circumstances, it might be said that their reliance on the continuance of their office was very much less than in his case, as there might have been considerable agitation over the way they behaved and managed the company for some time past, whereas no such complaint has arisen against the chairman of the tribunal. We are continuing them in order to buy them out by this offer of two years' salary.
I suggest that it would be a gracious thing to give the Chairman of the Railway Tribunal the same terms. I suggest that he is owed something. Ordinarily, a person put into an office of that type — originally with a fixed period of five years and continuing thereafter from year to year — has an expectation that, unless he is given something in the nature of notice or warning, he may rely on continuing for a certain period. I agree that he has no legal right whatever and could have been dropped at the beginning of any year after the first five and that, if that happened, he would have had no resort to the courts, but neither could the directors resort to the courts. I suggest that the position is very analogous in his case.
It can also be said that, if he had not been given the fixed term originally, he would not have taken the post. At his time of life and with his experience as a County Court judge, there were other possibilities open before him. There was the possibility —I suggest, the probability — that he could have accepted other lucrative employment and, by taking the railway tribunal position, he deprived himself of that. He was given a five-year contract at the beginning and, apparently, that was sufficient to make him turn his back on other offices which might have been open to him. It could be said after that that it was an appointment only from year to year. That applies to a number of public servants, but they have all this, in any event, that on their agreeing to take up a position, they are appointed for a term of years and if they do not behave in any unsatisfactory fashion, or to put it positively, if they behave well, they are likely to be carried forward, because it is always agreed in getting people for positions of this type that one has to accept that unless there is some sort of inducement held out to them they will not take a short term. They may take a short term on the understanding that if they carry out their duties efficiently, then they will be carried forward. I think that in all the circumstances this amendment should be given favourable consideration.
I desire to support the amendment. Deputy McGilligan has said practically everything that could be said in favour of it, but it might also be pointed out that the individual who is chairman of the tribunal enjoyed a very large practice prior to his appointment as County Court judge, and that alternative employment of one kind or another was certainly available to him. He declined that on the understanding that he would be appointed for a fixed term. Under the original arrangement, the appointment lasted for five years, and it was then put on a year-to-year basis. As Deputy McGilligan has mentioned, compensation is being paid to the directors on the basis of two years' fees. This amendment, if accepted, would make similar provision for the chairman of the tribunal. The fact that the tribunal is being abolished is not due to any fault of his, and it is reasonable to assume that, had the tribunal been continued, he would have continued to be chairman. I understand that he discharged the duties of the office extremely efficiently, and in view of the fact that all other people who could be compensated are being compensated, it is possible that it was only through an oversight that no provision was made for the chairman. I would urge on the Minister the desirability of accepting this amendment, or at any rate of accepting the spirit of the amendment, and of making some provision for this individual.
I do not agree at all that there is any analogy between the case of the chairman of the tribunal and the directors of the amalgamating companies. The amalgamating companies, whatever may have been their history, had their origin in private enterprise, and the State, when it interferes with the operation of private enterprises of that kind, has an obligation to ensure that the consequences of its action are not unduly hard on individuals. The Railway Tribunal was established by statute, and it was obviously within the power of this House to abolish it at any time. The chairman of the tribunal was appointed originally for five years, and has latterly been appointed from year to year. There was no obligation of any kind to reappoint him at the end of the year, and no ground for the expectation that he would be so reappointed. In fact, I think I could say that the Government would have found difficulty in reappointing the chairman of the tribunal as far back as 1939, on the grounds of age, were it not for the fact that I then informed the Government that the reorganisation of transport, which we had in contemplation, and the new legislation which would be required to give effect to that reorganisation, would in all probability provide for the disappearance of the Railway Tribunal.
I think I can say that in the past four or five years the reappointment of the existing chairman by the Government was determined by the knowledge that the Railway Tribunal would eventually disappear. I could not, therefore, agree that there is any moral obligation whatever to provide compensation for the chairman on the abolition of the tribunal. Having regard to the fact that on his retirement from the chairmanship of the Railway Tribunal the person concerned becomes entitled to a pension of £1,500 a year as Circuit Court judge under the financial agreement of 1938, I cannot agree that there will be any hardship caused by leaving the position as it is.
Is the Minister quite sure that the pension is as large as he says?
Yes, £1,500 a year.
He was only a Circuit Court judge.
That is the pension to which he is entitled under the financial agreement.
Has he a sufficient number of years' service to entitle him to that pension?
Yes. In fact, it was the knowledge that there was a certain saving arising out of the fact that this pension was in abeyance which influenced the Government in appointing the existing chairman in the circumstances to which I have adverted. I might also say that I would regard it as completely inequitable to have this charge placed on the company. Under the 1924 Act the company was liable only for half his salary; the Government was liable for the other half.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 29 not moved.
I move amendment No. 30:—
In page 44, Section 110 (4), paragraph (a), sub-paragraph (ii), lines 4 and 5, to delete the words "in whose functional area the bridge is situate" and substitute the following words", charged, under Section 24 of the Local Government Act, 1925 (No. 5 of 1925), with the maintenance of the public road,".
I gave notice of the necessity for this amendment on Committee. It appears that some local authorities have a responsibility for the maintenance of bridges in the functional areas of other local authorities and consequently the wording of the original section has to be amended in order to deal with the situation.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 31:—
In page 44, Section 110 (4), paragraph (b), sub-paragraph (ii), lines 52 and 53, to delete the words "in whose functional area the bridge is situate" and substitute the words ", charged, under the said Section 24 of the said Local Government Act, 1925, with the maintenance of the public road,".
This is a similar amendment.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 32:—
In page 45, Section 110 (4), paragraph (e), to add at the end of the paragraph, line 66, the following new sub-paragraph:—
(iii) where, immediately before the operative date, a right of way was exercisable over the said bridge—
(I) in case the railway company, before the date referred to in sub-paragraph (i) of this paragraph 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, a right of way similar to that which was exercisable over the said bridge shall, by virtue of this sub-paragraph, be exercisable over the said crossing, and any person for the time being entitled thereto may do all such things as are reasonably necessary for keeping the said crossing fit and safe for use,
(II) in any other case, the right of way over the said bridge shall continue to be exercisable, and any person for the time being entitled thereto may do all such things as are reasonably necessary for keeping the said bridge fit and safe for use.
This amendment preserves rights of way and is being inserted on representations from the Minister for Lands who considers that where the railway company replaces a bridge by a level crossing, a right of way thereover should be conferred on those persons previously entitled to use the bridge inasmuch as the company may proceed to sell the site of a line and the purchaser may be in a position to take objection to the use of the level crossing unless the parties using the level crossing have a legal right to do so. Again there may be a case where the railway company would choose to pay compensation on ceasing to be liable to maintain a bridge instead of constructing a level crossing. If part of a holding is cut off by the line and access to the holding can be obtained only through the part of the line purchased by some person other than the landholder, it is necessary that the purchaser should be ready to maintain the bridge and repair the structure. A right of way is conferred on the landholder in addition to being paid compensation for the burden of keeping up the bridge as a means of access to the land.
If the man who has a right of way over the bridge is to be made responsible for the maintenance of the bridge, he is to get compensation?
If the person to whom the land is transferred chooses to maintain the bridge, then he is to be compensated for the burden of maintaining the bridge over which other people have a right of way.
A bridge over a railway is a considerable structure.
These are accommodation bridges which were erected by the railway company under agreement with certain landholders. They are not public bridges.
I understand we are dealing with the private bridge built to accommodate a farmer where his farm was divided when the railway was constructed. Supposing the responsibility for maintenance is taken over by the occupier, if the bridge gets into a dilapidated condition in future and that it has to be rebuilt, that would be a big proposition for a single individual.
It is proposed to pay compensation for the burden of maintaining the bridge if that burden falls on him.
What will be the position in the event of reconstruction being necessary?
Normally, the bridge will be demolished and a level-crossing substituted for it. The main purpose of this amendment is to secure that, if that happens, those who had a right of way over the bridge will have a right of way over the level crossing. If the bridge has to be maintained, the obligation of maintaining it will devolve on the landowner, subject to his being compensated for the burden.
The bridge may have to be maintained——
In which case, the adjoining landowner receives compensation. That is in the case of the abandonment of the railway.
Is there any provision for reconstruction? If a bridge becomes dangerous and has to be reconstructed, who will be responsible for the cost?
The owner is compensated for maintaining the bridge.
You are compensating him for maintenance but should there not be some provision for reconstruction? The bridge may have to be rebuilt.
If the bridge is maintained, it will not need to be rebuilt.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 33:—
In page 46, Section 110 (8), to add at the end of the sub-section, line 23, the words "either by private treaty to the owner of the land on both sides of such line or by public auction".
This amendment has also been suggested by the Minister for Lands and it is designed to prevent disputes arising in cases in which a railway line has been abandoned and the permanent-way is being sold. The amendment provides that the land will be offered, in the first instance, to the adjoining landowners and, only if they decline to buy, will it be sold by public auction. It is thought that there might be unnecessary cause for dispute if the land were put up for public auction, in the first instance, and purchased by persons other than the adjoining landowners. The intention is that the land should be sold to the adjoining landowners, if they want to buy it.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 34:—
In page 53, lines 42 to 49, to delete Section 125 and substitute the following section:—
Section 2 of the Railway and Canal Traffic Act, 1854, shall apply to the road traffic of any person under a passenger licence, within the meaning of the Road Transport Act, 1932 (No. 2 of 1932), or under a merchandise licence, within the meaning of the Road Transport Act, 1933 (No. 8 of 1933), in the same manner and to the like extent as the said section applies to the land traffic of a railway company.
This is a drafting amendment. In drafting this section, the draftsman used the limiting words "in any vehicles". That limitation is now being removed so as to bring the section in line with corresponding provisions in respect of railway and canal services.
A couple of important matters arise on this amendment, and I want to get information concerning them. The Railway and Canal Traffic Act, 1854, applied mainly to railways, but also applied to canals. It is now being applied to roads. That Act was supposed to give a right of action in connection with undue preferences. That was in what was called the "inequality clause". That provision was found to be extremely deficient when cases came up for decision. The law was amended, and I notice that this Act is being applied to the road business of the new company. Will that carry with it the amending legislation?
It carries the Act, as amended.
It is not so stated and, if the Minister will glance at other statutes, he will find the phrase used "and Acts amending the same". This Act never applied to road traffic. We are making it applicable to something to which it never previously applied. When that section was brought before the courts, the judges exposed its weakness. It was not applicable to any great extent and it was fortified by two other sections of the 1888 Act. So far as I remember, Section 25 and 27 are the sections which are specially applicable. Under Section 27, there was prima facie evidence of a preferential rate or unequal treatment if it was found that the rates, fares or tolls varied as between one trader and another and, from that moment, there was an onus on the railway company to prove various things. A few other provisions which followed were in ease of the railway company. Section 25 referred to the granting of continuous services — that a company might be made link up with another company, even a private company, so that through rates could be demanded over a particular route. However, the point I am mainly anxious about is whether or not merely bringing in this precise reference to the Railway and Canal Traffic Act, 1854, will necessarily carry with it later amending legislation.
I am advised that that form carries with it amending legislation.
I raised the point because, in a number of statutes, the phrase is used "and Acts amending the same".
The parliamentary draftsman advises that that is not necessary.
The second point is: if there are disputes under this provision, to whom will they go for decision? Will questions of undue preference and preferential rates go to the courts?
To the High Court.
Such amendment of this clause as was effected by Section 25 of the Act of 1888 refers, I think, to routing of traffic by through routes. Notwithstanding legislation by which certain matters of a like nature are referable to the Minister's Department, will such things as are referred to by the 1888 Act go to the courts?
Yes.
On the application of either party?
Yes.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 35:—
In page 54, to delete Section 126 (4), lines 11 to 19.
We had some discussion on this sub-section on the Committee Stage and I intimated that I was not quite satisfied with it. I do not think that many Deputies were satisfied, either. The best course is, I think, to delete the sub-section, and that I now propose.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 36:—
In page 54, Section 129 (1), paragraph (a), lines 46 and 47, to delete the word "undertaking" and substitute the word "undertaker".
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 37:—
In page 55, to delete Section 133, lines 38 to 54, and substitute the following section:—
(1) In this section—
the expression "the bodies concerned" means the company, the Dublin Corporation and the Grand Canal Company;
the expression "the bridge" means the Victoria Bridge across the Grand Canal in the County Borough of Dublin;
the expression "the contemplated agreement" means an agreement to be made between the bodies concerned with respect to the maintenance (including reconstruction), and control of the bridge;
the expression "the appointed period" means the period of one year from the date of the passing of this Act, or such further period as the Minister may allow.
(2) The bodies concerned may, within the appointed period, execute the contemplated agreement, but the contemplated agreement, if so executed, shall not have any force unless confirmed by the Minister, who is hereby authorised, if he thinks fit, to do so.
(3) If the contemplated agreement is executed within the appointed period and confirmed by the Minister, the following provisions shall thereupon have effect—
(a) the said agreement shall have statutory effect;
(b) each of the bodies concerned shall, notwithstanding any limitation on the power of that body 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 bodies concerned and each of the said bodies is hereby empowered to carry out the said agreement so far as the provisions thereof are to be carried out by that body.
(4) If the contemplated agreement is not executed within the appointed period or, being so executed, the Minister refuses to confirm it, the following provisions shall have effect—
(a) the Chief Justice, at the request (made after consultation with the Minister for Local Government and Public Health) of the Minister, shall appoint an arbitrator to determine, after hearing the bodies concerned, the terms and conditions which, having regard to the circumstances then existing, should, in his opinion, govern the future maintenance (including reconstruction) and control of the bridge,
(b) the determination of the arbitrator shall have statutory effect and it shall be the duty of each of the bodies concerned, and each of them is hereby empowered, to carry out the terms of the said determination so far as the provisions thereof are to be carried out by that body,
(c) the remuneration of the arbitrator shall be fixed by the Chief Justice and shall be paid in equal proportions by the bodies concerned,
(d) the arbitrator may, as respects the costs and expenses of the bodies concerned in the proceedings before him, make such order as in his discretion he thinks fit.
Deputy Doyle moved an amendment on the Committee Stage which was designed to provide, that in the event of the company, Dublin Corporation and the Canal Company failing to make an agreement in regard to the Victoria Bridge, the Minister for Local Government and Public Health should decide what was to be done and have power to impose his decision upon the parties. I intimated that the Minister for Local Government and Public Health could not be regarded as an impartial personage in a dispute of that kind and that, in order to secure that something would be done in the event mentioned, I would produce an amendment providing for the settlement of the matter by arbitration. That is what is now proposed in this amendment. If the parties agree as to what is to be done about Victoria Bridge, they are given power to put their agreement into effect. If they do not agree, then the Chief Justice shall, at the request of the Minister for Local Government, appoint an arbitrator to decide what is to be done. Provision is made to carry into effect the decision of the arbitrator.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 38:—
In page 56, First Schedule, to delete the entries relating to the Dublin, Wicklow and Wexford Railway Act, 1900, the Great Southern and Western Railway Act, 1903, and the Midland Great Western Railway of Ireland Act, 1903, and to insert the following:—
|
“63 & 64 Vic., c. clvi |
Dublin Wicklow and Wexford Railway Act, 1900. |
Sections 25 and 26. |
|
3 Edw. VII, c. clx |
Great Southern and Western Railway Act, 1903. |
Sections 36 and 38. |
|
3 Edwd. VII, c. clxiii |
Midland Great Western Railway of Ireland Act, 1903. |
Section 29; Section 31, so far as relates to trespass by persons.” |
This amendment is consequential on an earlier amendment which related to hotels. We put in an omnibus section prescribing the powers of the company in relation to hotels and we are deleting, in this amendment, the various sections of the old Acts which will no longer be applicable.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 39:—
In page 62, line 39, Fifth Schedule, paragraph 1, sub-paragraph (1) to delete the word "undertaker" and substitute the word "licensee".
This is only a drafting amendment, the purpose of which is to delete the word "undertaker" and substitute the word "licensee".
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 40:—
In page 62, Fifth Schedule between lines 44 and 45, paragraph 1, sub-paragraph (1), to insert the following:—
the expression "former transport undertaker" means any person being—
(a) a former transport company, or
(b) a former road transport licensee.
A number of amendments effect nearly the same change, and this, which is a drafting amendment, is one of them.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 41:—
In page 62, Fifth Schedule, paragraph 1, sub-paragraph (1), to add at the end of the sub-paragraph, line 51, the following:— the word "remuneration" shall be construed as including any cost of living or other bonus.
Deputy Peadar Doyle raised this matter in Committee. I pointed out that the wording of the section was intended to ensure that the term "remuneration" would include any cost of living or other bonus, but as there appeared to be some doubt about it I agreed to put the matter beyond all doubt by the insertion of this amendment.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 42:—
In page 63, line 6, Fifth Schedule, paragraph 1, sub-paragraph (2), to delete the word "undertaker" and substitute the word "licensee".
This is also a drafting amendment, similar to amendment No. 40.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 43:—
In page 63, line 8, Fifth Schedule, paragraph 1, sub-paragraph (2) (b), to delete the word "company" and substitute the word "undertaker".
This is a similar drafting amendment.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 44:—
In page 63, Fifth Schedule, paragraph (2), before clause (c), line 19, to insert the following clause:—
(c) if that person was suspended from the service of a former transport undertaker on or after the 1st day of April, 1916, and before the 6th day of December, 1921, and the Minister certifies that his suspension was due to his national sympathies, the period of suspension shall be included in the period of his pensionable services.
There is an amendment — No. 45 — to this amendment, in the names of Deputies M. O'Sullivan and Keyes.
Yes, Sir. I move amendment No. 45, which is an amendment to Amendment No. 44:—
After the word "suspended", where it occurs in the amendment, to insert the words "or dismissed"; and after the word "suspension", wherever it occurs in the amendment, to insert the words "or dismissal".
With regard to amendment No. 44, I think it was Deputy Keyes who raised this question of the possible interruption of a person's employment by the Great Southern Railways Company by reason of his refusal to drive a train or to carry munitions or armed British troops during the period from April, 1916, to December, 1921, and his desire was to arrange that any such period, during which service with the company was interrupted for such causes, would count as service with the company for purposes of compensation or pension under the Bill. I said, on that occasion, that I agreed with the proposition in principle, but that there would be difficulty in getting formal words to cover the difficulty. In view of that, the amendment I now propose is the best that I could do. I propose, under the amendment, that where the Minister certifies that the individual's suspension was due to his national sympathies, and where the suspension occurred between the 1st day of April, 1916, and the 6th day of December, 1921, then that period of suspension shall be included in the period of his pensionable service.
I agree that the Minister has tried to meet the principle, and I admit the difficulty of getting the proper wording to cover these cases, but all I am asking in my amendment is that the Minister should go a step further, in order to make it clear that his intentions will be carried out. The Minister says that where the suspension of an individual during that period was due to his national sympathies, the period of suspension shall be included in the period of his pensionable service, but I have in mind the cases of men who were, not merely suspended, but automatically dismissed.
Yes, I quite understand that, but I have explained that the draftsman found very considerable difficulty in getting the word "dismissal" into the section without providing for a limit in time, which might be very difficult to apply, and in those circumstances I felt that the best thing to do was to leave the amendment in the form in which it was drafted, and to give my assurance that if there should arise any difficulty in applying it, I shall take the matter up with the company, and I do not expect any difficulty in persuading the company to take the necessary steps to cover such cases if they should arise. Because of the legal difficulty in meeting the matter of dismissal, without making elaborate provisions covering the period of time in respect of which the dismissal operated, I should prefer to leave the amendment as it is, but I will give the assurance to the House that, in the event of any difficulty of that kind arising, in applying this provision of the Bill in the case of a person who was dismissed during that period of national difficulty, I shall take that matter up with the company with a view to getting an equitable arrangement with the company in respect of that individual.
I know quite well that the Minister's intentions in that regard are quite sincere, but the trouble is that the time may come when the Minister may not be in a position to take up that attitude with the company when these men are applying for their pensions. In that event, the company may take a certain line and stand upon the terms of the amendment as it is set down here, as to whether it affects suspension or dismissal. I do know that in some cases dismissal did take place here in the City of Dublin, and I have recently come across a case of a man in County Mayo who said he was dismissed because of his national sympathies during that period.
But there is the question of a time limit. For instance, a man may not have gone back to work.
Yes, but he was dismissed because of his national sympathies.
Yes, of course, but if he did not resume work the question of his suspension does not arise. I think it is implicit, both in the Deputy's amendment and in mine, that resumption of work should have taken place, and, as I have pointed out, it would be extremely difficult to cover all that would be implied in the word "dismissal".
All I am endeavouring to do is to point out to the Minister that there are such cases, and that they are not covered here.
I was anxious to meet the Deputy on that point but I found that there were considerable drafting difficulties.
If the Minister can cover the point of those who were suspended but who are still working away, I cannot understand why he should not be able to cover the case of men who were dismissed rather than suspended.
I will give the assurance that, if any such case should arise, I will take the matter up with the company with a view to making an equitable arrangement as between the company and the individual concerned.
Very good.
Amendment No. 44 agreed to.
Amendment No. 45, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 46:—
In page 63, Fifth Schedule, paragraph 1, sub-paragraph (2), before clause (c), line 19, to insert the following clause:—
( ) if that person was, by reason of disruption of railway services due directly to civil strife in the years 1922, 1923 or 1924, temporarily absent from his employment with a former transport undertaker, such temporary absence shall be included in the period of his pensionable service;.
This is another amendment that, on Committee, I undertook to introduce. Its effect is to provide that if a person's employment was interrupted by reason of the disruption of transport services during the civil war, that period will count for pensionable purposes also.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 47:—
In page 63, Fifth Schedule, line 20, paragraph 1, sub-paragraph (2), clause (c), to delete the words "dissolved company" and substitute the words "former transport undertaker".
This is also a drafting amendment.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 48:—
In page 63, line 26, Fifth Schedule, paragraph 1, sub-paragraph (2), clause (d), to delete the word "company" and substitute the words "undertaker or the company".
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 49:—
In page 63, line 38, Fifth Schedule, paragraph 1, sub-paragraph (2), clause (e), to delete the word "company" and substitute the word "undertaker".
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 50:—
In page 63, lines 43 and 44, Fifth Schedule, paragraph 1, sub-paragraph (2), clause (f), to delete the words "in any former transport company" and substitute the words "with any former transport undertaker or the company".
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 51:—
In page 63, in the Fifth Schedule, paragraph 2, line 54, to delete the words "on the critical date" and substitute the words "on the date of the abolition of his office or situation".
Is this covered by the previous amendments?
No, this is different. This has to deal with the case of a trade apprentice with a former passenger licensee, and is concerned with the period of apprenticeship with the company after the establishment date.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 52 not moved.
I move amendment No. 53:—
In page 63, in the Fifth Schedule, paragraph 3, lines 60 and 61, to delete the words "on the critical date" and substitute the words "on the date of the abolition of his office or situation."
Amendment agreed to.
Amendments Nos. 54 and 55 not moved.
I move amendment No. 56:—
In page 64, Sixth Schedule, (a), in first column and at the head thereof, to insert after the word "chapter" the words "or Number and Year," and (b) at the end of the Sixth Schedule to add the following:—
|
No. 11 of 1933 |
The Road Traffic Act, 1933 |
Section 120 |
The reason for this amendment is that if we did not delete this section of the Road Traffic Act, there would be a conflict between it and the relevant section of this Bill. The Bill provides that the tickets issued by the company shall be printed in Irish and may be printed in English also. The Road Traffic Act provided that they should be printed in Irish and English and the deletion of the relevant section of that Act is being provided for here.
Does that mean that the conditions of carriage will be printed in Irish?
No. It refers to permanent notices and tickets.
Tickets, yes, but what about those posters that one never sees, purporting to prevent us from claiming for compensation for accidents?
Not necessarily so. They must be printed in Irish.
It is bad enough that we never see those notices, but are we to take it that these handbills and so on are to be in Irish only?
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 57:—
In page 65, Eighth Schedule, paragraph 2, sub-paragraph (1), to delete all words from the words "but the" in line 16 to the end of the sub-paragraph and substitute the words "but, subject to the provisions of the Seventh Schedule to this Act, the Minister may, on the application of the company or any interested person, by order specify any articles of merchandise upon which the charges may be calculated by reference to cubic capacity and prescribe the method by which the cubic contents for the purpose of charge is to be calculated".
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 58:—
In page 65, Eighth Schedule, paragraph 6, sub-paragraph (1), line 56, to insert after the word "may" the words ",subject to the provisions of the Seventh Schedule to this Act,".
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 59:—
In page 68, Eighth Schedule, paragraph 19, to insert before the words "The Minister" the words "subject to the provisions of the Seventh Schedule to this Act,".
Amendment agreed to.
Question:—"That the Bill, as amended, be received for final consideration"— put, and agreed to.
When is it proposed to take the Fifth Stage?
To-morrow.
Will it be drafted for us by to-morrow?
Yes; arrangements have been made to have the draft ready.
I think it should not be taken too early to-morrow, because it seems to me that, if the amendments are to be inserted, it would not be possible for us to take the Bill early to-morrow.
Very well. I shall consider that.
Fifth Stage ordered for Thursday, 19th October.