Committee on Finance. - Transport Bill, 1949—Committee Stage (Resumed).
Debate resumed on amendment No. 25.
Deputy O'Sullivan was in possession but, since he is not present at the moment, I will take this opportunity of intervening. I do not propose to accept this amendment. Deputy Lemass made many statements in the course of moving this amendment with which I find myself in entire agreement. In so far as he made a case at all, I think he made a case for the provisions in the Bill as the Bill was originally introduced. The purpose of this amendment is that the charges shall be fixed or determined by the company subject to the sanction of the Minister. Deputy Lemass laid a good deal of emphasis on the fact that that was a provision in the 1944 Act and that it had worked satisfactorily. The situation when this Bill becomes law will be entirely different from the situation that has existed up to this. When there was a provision in which appeal lay, so to speak, to the Minister you were dealing then with a private company versus the railway users, the passengers and the community generally utilising transport facilities. The Minister held the balance as between the company and those upon whom the increased charges were being made. The situation will, of course, be entirely different when the new national transport concern gets under way. It will not then be a private company. It will be a State company responsible to the Minister for Industry and Commerce. In effect, it will be the Minister's own company. In my opinion that creates an entirely different situation from the situation contemplated under the Act of 1944 at a time when it was a purely private company. I think it would be very undesirable that the Minister for Industry and Commerce could be approached by a company for which he himself is responsible and in whose earnings, charges and ability to operate in such manner as to earn sufficient to pay its working expenses he is primarily interested.
I shall be quite frank and open in this matter. I would prefer to have the Bill as originally introduced. I am introducing the tribunal in response to appeals from both sides of the House and because of the fears expressed by members of all Parties that, if the company were given complete freedom to change their classification of goods in any way they desired, to increase their charges to any point they liked, and to close down any branch lines they liked at any time they liked, the company would thereby inflict undue burdens, grave hardship and injustice if there were no restrictions placed upon them or no right of appeal.
As far as I could gather on the Second Stage, it was the wish of the House that there should be some form of appeal and some authority to whom such an appeal could be made. In that eventuality, I would infinitely prefer a tribunal, or any form of appeal, other than the Minister for Industry and Commerce. If the proposals contained in my amendments are accepted, the position will be that the company can increase its charges up to the maximum without going to the tribunal. If any body affected wishes to appeal against that, then the tribunal is there. If the company wishes to increase its charges over and above the authorised maximum, then it must go in the first instance to the tribunal; it must give public notice of its intention to do so and any aggrieved person, or body, will then have the right to go to the tribunal and the tribunal will determine the case on its merits and their decision will be final.
I think Deputy Lemass over-painted the picture when he was dealing with the tribunal. I think he exaggerated the delays and difficulties that might arise. Undoubtedly there are always delays when questions like this have to be determined, just as there are delays in determining questions of law. What the Deputy said with regard to the array of barristers and so on is, of course, happening every day in our courts. My desire would be similar to his. It would be my wish to simplify the machinery as much as possible and as far as practicable without impeding the usefulness of the tribunal and so to frame it as to ensure that there will be the minimum of delay and the minimum of expense in having a decision reached on the matter appealed.
Frankly, the amendment does not appeal to me because I do not think the Minister is the person who should, so to speak, decide the matter. That is what it amounts to, in effect. I was not in love with that decision even under the 1944 Act when it was a private company. It still less commends itself to me now that we are going to have a national company. If there is to be an appeal board, an authority to whom an appeal will lie, we ought to ensure as far as we can that that will be not merely an impartial authority but an authority in whom the public and the company will have confidence so that they will come before it in the belief beforehand that they will get strict justice and an impartial decision. I would say that a Minister, in spite of himself, when this new national transport company is formed, would almost certainly be blessed to some extent, no matter how small, in favour of giving the company what they require. I think that that danger of bias would be much greater under the new set-up than has been the case up to the present.
If the company are not going to be given the right to determine their own charges, their own classifications and where they will run services, then I think that we must provide a tribunal of the sort or the type I am proposing in the later amendments. I do not wish to labour the matter any further than that but I certainly do not think the Deputy's proposal to revert to the position that obtained under the 1944 Act would meet the situation in the future.
I do not think the change in the constitution of the undertaking proposed in this Bill is of any importance in this connection at all and that it is far more a formal change than a real change. In relation to the essential features of our transport problem or the position of the undertaking vis-a-vis the public and the Dáil, there is no change. Córas Iompair Éireann at present is not a private company. It is a company set up by statute, operating in accordance with that statute, limited and controlled in its capital expenditure by the Government and functioning under a chairman, appointed by the Government, who has certain unusual powers to ensure that the company conforms to Government policy. Therefore, I think that argument of the Minister in favour of a different system from that provided in the 1944 Act is not very strong.
However, as between the Bill as originally introduced and the Bill as it will emerge from Committee if the Minister's amendments were accepted, I would much prefer the original Bill. If the Minister is interpreting the remarks I made upon the Second Reading of the Bill as arguments in favour of imposing greater restrictions upon the freedom of action of the undertaking in the matter of charges and services, I want to correct him. I think it would have been more than reasonable to expect Deputies speaking from this side of the House to decline to accept the opportunity of contrasting the provisions of the Bill and the prospect they hold out of increased charges for transport, closed branch lines and reduced transport facilities with the various criticisms of the previous administration offered by Deputies now sitting opposite and the various promises which they made when seeking election to this House. However, we must not allow these political considerations to affect our judgment too far.
It is true that many Deputies on both sides of the House were perturbed by the prospect that the financial difficulties of Córas Iompair Éireann undertaking would be resolved by a drastic cutting down of the railway services, by the closing of numerous branch lines, railway stations and so forth, and, when expressing their concern in that regard, they were to a far greater extent endeavouring to extract from the Minister a clear indication of the policy which he thought should be followed by the undertaking rather than arguing in favour of limiting the freedom of action of the board.
There is, however, in the House a very strong feeling in favour of retaining to it some power of questioning and, if possible, influencing the policy of the company. What we saw in the original Bill was that the Minister had removed himself from the picture, that the board he was setting up could alter charges or reduce services without reference to him and that if any Deputy was critical of these developments he could not raise them here and get the Minister to explain or defend them. The Minister could—at least if he wished—have declined to answer questions or to deal with motions on the ground that under the legislation he had no official responsibility. It would, I think, meet that particular objection to the original Bill if a simple section were inserted which, while retaining the freedom of action which the Minister proposed to give the undertaking, gave to the Minister power, if he thought fit to use it, to require the board to reverse some alteration in charges or to restore some curtailed service where, in his view, the action being taken was undesirable or where an opinion to that effect had been expressed by the Dáil. The insertion of such a section in the Bill— even though the Minister never used his power under the section; even though he made it clear that it was not his policy to use his power but rather to let the company do what was necessary and desirable—would retain to Deputies the right to question the Minister and make these matters clearly open to discussion and decision here.
I confess that a case could be made to show that the provisions of the 1944 Act, were rather too elaborate. When framing that Act we were abolishing a very large number of statutory provisions relating to the operation of transport companies and we may not have gone as far as could have been justified in releasing them from Ministerial supervision and regulation. There are a number of sections dealing with the conditions of carriage of various classes of goods, the classifications of merchandise and alterations of the classifications as well as with the provision of services and the maintenance of maximum charges. If these provisions could be simplified, while still leaving the ultimate power of sanction in the hands of the Minister, it would be an improvement.
If the Minister does not wish to go so far, then I think he would be wise to consider adopting the alternative suggestion of taking a negative power, power to require the undoing of something that was done where, in his view, it was contrary to the public interest and where that view had been expressed in the Dáil and supported by a majority of the Deputies. A simple device of that kind would retain the functions of the House in the administration of transport and would not necessarily involve any impediment to the freedom of action of the company and certainly would be far preferable to elaborate provisions for the establishment and functioning of a transport tribunal. I hope the Minister will not proceed with the tribunal suggestion. I gather it has not received an enthusiastic welcome from anybody, but if it came to an issue where the alternative I had suggested was defeated, and I had to choose between the tribunal device and the Bill as originally introduced, I would choose the Bill as introduced. I would not lose any opportunity of pointing out to Deputies the contrast between their performances and promises, but that would be Party politics, in which I do not often engage.
You would not know anything about that.
There is, however, one matter to which it seems to me we must give some attention—that is, the right to fix maximum charges for transport and to make it the law that the company must not exceed these charges. It never has been the difficulty that the company wanted to exceed the maximum charges. In fact, the worst type of difficulty was that the company wanted to cut charges below the maxima prescribed in a manner which appeared to give preferential treatment to individual firms or to particular ports or towns or to certain sections of the community. Under the 1944 Act, we contemplated a considerable simplification of the merchandise classifications and of the charges relating to them. I think it is true to say that at one time the Great Southern Railways had something like 200,000 classifications of merchandise. These classifications of merchandise and the special charges relating to them were regarded as so secret that not even a member of the board could, on his own initiative, have access to the records in order to ascertain the exact cost of transporting particular goods from one area to another in stated quantities.
They never heard anything about rates.
There were occasions when, in order to attract particular traffic, they agreed to charge the lowest rate they were permitted to charge and they gave further concessions in the form of passenger traffic to the directors of the firm concerned. That was not done out of malice or out of any peculiar kink in their own minds. They were in the situation where legislation compelled them to raise a certain revenue and where practical considerations forced them to cut the charges in order to get the traffic at all. In an effort to compete with the growing volume of motor haulage, they were compelled to adopt extraordinary and unusual devices to get round the legal difficulties and to keep the charges low enough to attract traffic to their services. Circumstances could well arise where the new board would find it necessary to cut rates in particular circumstances in order to hold business or to win back to the undertaking business which had been lost because the firm concerned had purchased their own lorries. While it is probably desirable to give them that power, it is clearly a power which could be abused because two traders in the same class of goods could find themselves differently treated by the company, one being placed at a competitive disadvantage vis-a-vis the other by reason of his rival's greater influence with the officials of the company concerned with the fixation of these charges or the arrangement of special charges. If a simplified system of charges were adopted that could not arise. Under the 1944 Act, the number of classes was reduced to six and there was a fixed charge for each class.
Two hundred thousand to six?
The 200,000 may be an exaggeration. There were not merely these numerous classes of merchandise but there were also these special charges which the company was permitted to make by the railway tribunal below the standard charges which the tribunal had fixed and the total of these possible variations of rates came to something like 200,000. The classifications, as I say, were reduced to six and for a time the company was in the position that they could adhere to these classifications and anybody could send his goods at the charges quoted in the various classifications.
That continued so long as there was a scarcity of transport but as soon as motor lorries began to appear on the road and traders began to engage in the transportation of their own goods to a greater extent, and the volume of traffic available to the company began to decrease, then the need to cut rates here and there in order to retain traffic arose again. It will continue to arise in future so that the company will be forced more and more, in dealing with the special problem of the individual trader, into making a bargain with him in order to retain his business. They should have power to do that but there should be, in the hands of somebody else, authority and power to supervise the doing of it to prevent the possibility of anything like real abuses emerging.
On the main issue before us, the question of giving freedom of action to the company, I am in favour of it but I think we should have some simple and easily operated system of supervision by an authority independent of the company. I prefer that authority to be the Minister for Industry and Commerce because if he is responsible here, the individual Deputy faced with grievances amongst his constituents will not be debarred from raising them here and getting whatever satisfaction he can. If, however, we are limited to a choice between giving the company complete freedom of action and the establishment of the tribunal which the Minister proposes. I am for complete freedom of action. I think that there is much more likelihood that the transport problem which will arise in the future will be resolved by giving freedom of action rather than by going in the opposite direction. Circumstances could arise again when the transport monopoly will become more effective, when the company may be exploiting their monopoly position to the detriment of the public and in that case the matter will have to be reconsidered. I still suggest, as the best of the three courses mentioned, the maintenance of power by the Minister to control the situation which automatically ensures the retention of the power of the Dáil. If that is out, then I prefer the Bill as originally introduced. I ask the Minister to consider whether he should not now consider proceeding with the Bill as originally introduced, with some simple provision which would give him power to intervene, if circumstances should necessitate it, and which will also have the effect of enabling Deputies to voice the grievances of the constituents here and to get redress for them.
This is a very involved and technical matter. I have listened to the arguments by the Minister and by Deputy Lemass. There is a substantial change, in the transport system that we will have if this Bill becomes law, from the transport position hitherto. It is right to say that, looking back on the historical development of the railways, many statutory limitations were placed upon them and there were good and sound reasons why that should have been done at the time. But this new transport undertaking, as visualised by this Bill, is a national concern for which the Government, the Minister and this House will have considerable and serious responsibilities. The Government will have the responsibility, the Minister will have the responsibility and this House will have the responsibility, for many years to come, of making available out of the revenue of the State moneys to keep this concern going. I think that is a fair statement of the position.
We all hope that the establishment of this new board will enable a more efficient transport service to be provided for the community. We hope that the board will do everything possible to make the service pay and to provide up-to-date equipment, carriages, engines, railway lines and buses. That is what we expect of them. Naturally, we must be prepared to face the fact that we will have to foot the bill, or a considerable portion of it, for a long time to come. That being so, one would imagine that it would be vitally necessary to have the strictest control by the Minister, on behalf of the Government and representing Parliament, on that organisation from the point of view of finance. This new board is charged with responsibilities in regard to the encouragement of national economic development and the maintenance of reasonable conditions of employment. I take it that the encouragement of national economic development will necessitate the carriage or conveyance of goods at the most reasonable rate at which they can be carried economically. That seems to me to suggest that the responsibilities will have to be properly placed and properly borne.
If we establish a tribunal such as is visualised in this amendment—a transport tribunal consisting of five persons, appointed by the Government, holding office for a period of five years each, with the duty of investigating this question of transport charges, and whose decision will be final, in accordance with this amendment—we are hamstringing the whole thing and we are placing a very serious obstacle in the way of the board and of the Minister. It is like spancelling or tethering a racehorse and expecting him to win the race.
I agree that this is a very serious matter and that it deserves further consideration. The Minister should indicate that, in view of the opinions expressed in the House, this matter will be further considered by himself and by the Government. Will this suggested tribunal be helpful in any way? I do not think it will. If the procedure is followed which we expect before that tribunal, those five people, who may know nothing about transport——
They might know as much as the Minister.
The Minister is a corporate body.
The Minister has a responsibility placed upon him and in coming to a decision he will have the benefit of advice from a number of people who are experts. What will be required of the Minister then is to exercise a judicial function, not forgetting his own sound common sense. If we have, first or foremost, a board selected because of their ability to make a success of the undertaking, one of the big responsibilities of that board will be the question of charges. They are in competition with other services. If we have this tribunal, that sits anywhere it likes in the city, five people, with the board represented before it by counsel, senior and junior, and with some other objectors similarly represented, the argument may last for weeks. Eventually they may come to a decision which may be harmful to the board and which the Minister may know would be harmful to the board in its operation, but under this amendment the decision of the tribunal on any matter before it shall be final. I think that is a situation which we should not permit to develop.
For some years, at least, there must be given to the board a certain freedom and, if they are the sensible expert people that we hope they will be, who will carry out their functions in accordance with the duties and responsibilities placed upon them under this Bill, we can be satisfied that they will do the right thing. But, if the matter of alteration of charges is put into the straitjacket of this new tribunal, we will be hampering and strangling the board from infancy.
I take it that the Minister will accept that this is not a political matter in the sense of criticism of the Minister. It is an endeavour to be helpful to the Minister. It is an endeavour to look into the future of a board that we hope will be successful and it is our duty as Deputies, at this stage, to try to give it a chance to be successful. For these reasons I would ask the Minister, in view of what has been said, to indicate that he will reconsider this whole matter of the transport tribunal in relation to charges.
Candidly, I must confess that I do not like the alteration proposed to be made in this vital section of this measure by the Minister. I would not object, under other circumstances, to the establishment of a tribunal of the kind now proposed by the Minister because, provided all sections of the community engaged in the transport industry were to be brought within the authority or under the power of this proposed tribunal, there would be nothing radically wrong in a proposal of that kind. The tribunal would be standing as a body between the community interest and the company that might at some time propose to inflict excessive charges upon the users of the transport undertaking.
I do not know whether the Minister has definitely made up his mind to bring in further legislation at a later time dealing with the people now in the transport industry who are not covered by any of the terms of this measure. It is a queer state of affairs that we are to have a nationalised transport service, road and rail, brought under the powers of the tribunal now proposed by the Minister to fix rates and fares whereas their competitors, who are acting as pirates, without any proper or effective control, are to be left free from the authority of a rates tribunal of any kind. We have less than 1,000 lorries operating under the control of Córas Iompair Éireann. Their right to raise charges in future will be subject to the authority of this tribunal whereas the 17,000 other lorries that are operating at their own sweet will can fix any charges that will enable them to capture the cream of the traffic.
They do not come under this Bill.
I am sorry to say they do not. I agree with you there.
If they do not come under the Bill, they do not come under a section of it or an amendment.
I am arguing that the section of the Bill as it now stands is much preferable to the amendment proposed by the Minister. We inserted last night—not with any enthusiastic support, from me at any rate—an amendment which was argued at considerable length. I did not take part in the discussion. Amendment No. 18 says:—
"To insert before sub-section (2) the following new sub-section:—
(2) It shall be the duty of the board so as to conduct its undertaking as to secure, as soon as may be, that, taking one year with another, the revenue of the board shall be not less than sufficient to meet the charges properly chargeable to revenue."
The contents of that new sub-section will have to be taken into consideration by the members of the new tribunal when they come to consider the objections that may be raised to the company at any time that they may propose to increase charges and the contents of that section, as I read it, with the limited knowledge of the working of the transport industry, may help to create a first-class row on the new Transport Board.
The Deputy should not take the bit in his teeth. We disposed of amendment No. 18. The Deputy says he did not participate in the discussion, which is lamentable, possibly, but he may not do so now. We are on amendment No. 25.
I share to a considerable extent the views expressed by Deputy Lemass in this discussion and I would urge, as other Deputies on this side have urged, that the Minister should give this matter further and more serious consideration before he decides finally to amend the section in the way he now proposes to amend it.
It is an advantage to listen to everybody with an open mind. It seems to me that Deputy Davin has thrown a grain of wisdom into the debate on this section. The difficulty I find is that we still do not seem to have made up our minds as to what exactly we require of a national transport undertaking. Are we in fact going to look for a transport undertaking which, in effect, will pay its way? If we are, are we going to put it in a position to fix charges which will enable it to obtain traffic in competition with every other type of transport undertaking, regardless of the consequences to the community or to its employees or, alternatively, are we requiring this new Transport Board to provide a transport service for the community? There is a vital difference. It is because of the fact that we are discussing a machinery Bill, without having had any indication of the policy that will be operated through this machinery, that this type of difficulty arises.
I am frankly, at the moment, quite confused as to what is the best type of machinery in relation to the fixation of charges. It is quite clear that if we expect the transport undertaking to carry out its operations in conformity with the general policy of the amendment moved last night we must put it in a position to fix its charges in such a way as to enable it to take traffic from its competitors if they still exist. From that point of view, the original drafting of the Bill is preferable either to the present amendment or to the alternative suggested in the Ministerial amendment in regard to the tribunal because, in effect, we are giving the new transport board complete freedom of competitive operation, but there may be consequences there that we have not yet foreseen. They may be so competitive that they drive themselves out of business. They may be so competitive that they drive half of their staff out of employment and create such difficulties between their staff and the community generally as to make their efficient operation almost impossible.
On the other hand, if we take the view that the transport board is to provide a transport service, then there is a number of policy questions that we have not yet faced up to. One of those is the relationship in future that we will allow to exist between this national transport service and competing services.
The matter before the House is not the fixation of charges but who will fix the charges.
Agreed, and that is the matter I should like to discuss—who will fix the charges. The amendment says that the responsibility for the fixation of charges should be vested in the Minister, and clearly, in the fixation of these charges, the Minister must have regard to public policy, to public goodwill. We are still in the dark as to whether that is an obligation to be placed on the transport company— whether they are to have regard to the provision of transport services as service to the community or to the running of a highly competitive, profitable transport undertaking. So long as we are in the dark, it seems to me that it is anybody's choice which method of fixing the charges is preferable.
If we are to expect the new board to provide transport services on the basis of the requirements of the community, it is clear that it would be best to have the ultimate responsibility vested in the Minister, as suggested by his amendment, because that clearly carries with it an implication of policy; but there still remains to be decided the question of future policy in regard to private hauliers and private transport. If that policy is decided on on the basis of granting a monopoly to the public transport system, clearly the operations of that monopoly must be subject to the control of the House, through the Minister. It is equally clear that, granted such a monopoly, the Minister should have powers to correct its operations in such a way as is best suited, not merely to the needs of the community but to the needs of special sections of the community or parts of the country in relation to overall general policy.
I frankly at the moment cannot decide, in view of the complete absence of any indication of policy, which is the best type of machinery. That is why I think it is to some extent regrettable that in regard to certain main lines of policy some decisions were not taken before we sat down to establish the machinery which will provide for the board to carry out a policy which we ourselves have not yet decided. If it were merely a question of establishing a board to carry on the undertaking on an interim basis and to report later, we could possibly have left certain questions of policy to a later date; but here we are dealing with machinery which will vitally affect the operation of any policy which may subsequently be decided upon in relation to the main character of this undertaking, that is, whether it is to be a competitive undertaking paying its way, and, as it was put on an amendment we had last night, meeting its revenue charges one year with another, or whether it is to be a public service run under the direct control of the community through the House and at times possibly required to provide service which is not economic but which is good national policy from the point of view of the community's requirements. We have already had questions raised as to whether it is expected that this undertaking will be able to pay its way and to what extent we shall have to provide subsidies in future. All these questions revolve around the machinery for the fixation of charges and it would be helpful on this debate, although I do not think it is possible at the moment, if we got some indication of the type of policy which we expect to be carried out by this machinery.
I am afraid it would not be in order.
It would have been very much in order on the Second Reading and we did not get it.
I assume the Minister has noted the fact that nobody in the House, not even himself, spoke in favour of the transport tribunal idea. If he thinks, in view of that, that he would like to reconsider the position in that regard, I would not press the amendment, but if I am forced to choose, I will put the amendment to a division. If, however, the Minister is likely to reconsider the position, in view of the fact that there is no enthusiasm for the transport tribunal idea, we might let the matter stand over.
I suppose the Deputy is entitled to make that point and I might be entitled to wonder what has become of all the people on all sides of the House who were clamouring for a safeguard for the public. Seriously, however, there is no doubt that on the Second Reading representations were made from every side of the House for some protection, as it was put, for the public against giving unlimited powers regarding charges, services, classifications and so on to the company. These representations were not merely made to me here by Deputies of all Parties, but were conveyed to me from very responsible bodies and organisations outside and from some of the biggest users of the national transport system. I must confess, as I do confess, that my view originally was that the company should be put, as some Deputy said, on at least a competitive basis in relation to the competition, it has to meet, but, rightly or wrongly, I was impressed by the representations made here from all sides and all Parties, and I was conscious of the fact that there was, outside, a fear on the part of people in the commercial world, people who are using the transport system, rail and road services, that their costs would be very considerably increased, and I felt that they should have some court to which they could appeal.
I have to choose, apparently, between the tribunal and the amendment put forward by Deputy Lemass. I have no difficulty whatever in making up my mind in that regard—I am in favour of the tribunal. The Minister, in my opinion, should not be there at all. The Minister, whoever he may be, may be influenced by considerations other than transport considerations and he may be influenced by considerations other than economic considerations. There is no doubt whatever that, if it comes to a decision as to whether a particular branch line is to be closed or to remain open, the Minister will be influenced, and almost coerced, by political pressure, apart from any other pressure, in arriving at his decision. Let us face the facts—that is so and I do not think anybody will deny it. Under the Bill as originally introduced, the company could close down a particular line, or cease to run services over a particular line, if they so decided, and there was no appeal. Under the tribunal they must go to the tribunal; they must publish notice of their intention to close that line or to cease running services on it. Anybody concerned whose interests are affected by the company's intention can go before the tribunal. The tribunal hears both sides and it must have advertence to the obligations which are laid on the company under Section 14 of the Bill which is before the House in arriving at their decision. It seems to me that that is a much fairer, a much more equitable and a much better way of having a particular question decided on its merits than leaving it to be determined by a Minister who is bound to be open to influence and pressure to which a tribunal would not be open.
What about the collective opinion of the board as well as the Minister?
They could not ignore Government policy. If it is Government policy to retain branch lines is that not some guidance for them?
It might be desired to retain or to try to retain services on a particular branch line but it might not be necessary to do it. As somebody said recently on the question of railways, it might not be a question of the company closing the lines on the people but of the people themselves deserting the lines. Certainly I do not think that any Minister would say here and now that he would give an undertaking to this House or to anybody else that under no circumstances would a particular branch line be closed in the future. I do not think that any member could ask that.
Any member would be entitled to ask the Minister that a branch line would not be open to such competition as would force it to close down.
That is another question.
That is the nub of the question.
That is a question that will probably have to be dealt with.
I quite agree, not now. Deputy Lemass's amendment is that the position which obtained under the 1944 Act should be retained or carried into this Bill, that is, that in respect of all those various matters such as charges, classifications, services, lines and so on the Minister should be the final authority. I again make the point that whatever justification there was that the Minister should be, so to speak, the final court of appeal when it was a question of a private company versus the public, when it is the question of a national transport company for which the Minister himself is responsible as against the community or particular sections of the community, then I do not think the Minister is the person who should be there. I doubt very much if Deputy Lemass himself is very much in love with this particular amendment or the particular machinery he is suggesting. I am asked to provide some sort of impartial and fair tribunal to stand, so to speak, between a State transport company and the users of it, the business community or the ordinary travelling community, and I am suggesting this tribunal. Having regard to the fact that it is either the tribunal or Deputy Lemass's amendment I think on the merits alone there is a better case for the tribunal.
For the Bill as originally introduced.
Yes, and if anybody wants to make anything out of that he is welcome. I am not suggesting that; the Deputy is trying to if anybody is. There is a different atmosphere here this afternoon from that here on the Second Reading.
We did not change our attitude.
Let us be fair. We are not to assume that because people are not voicing their fears this afternoon as they were on the Second Reading those fears have grown any less. Simply, they have taken it, I dare say, as I had given an undertaking that there would be an appeal tribunal and provided for it in amendments, that there would be no necessity for them to go over the same ground again. I am not particularly influenced one way or the other except by the merits. It is not a question of avoiding responsibility, but I think that the Minister should not be brought back into the Bill in the same way as his functions were set out in the 1944 Act. I would say to the House that it is better to have a tribunal in whom the ordinary public will have confidence and that tribunal in arriving at its decisions must advert to the responsibility placed on the company by this House as it is set out in this Bill. If the tribunal is doing its duty and is competent to do it those decisions will be arrived at on their merits and having a full regard to the obligations we are placing on the company in this Bill.
I should like to clarify the matter. The amendment I am proposing relates only to charges. These sections of the 1944 Act which I proposed should be inserted into this Bill relate to the regulation of charges by rail, road or canal. As far as the tribunal is concerned, I have no very strong objection to the tribunal idea where the closing of branch lines is concerned. I expressed the view before that the closing of branch lines, where there is opposition to it, should follow some form of public inquiry into the justification of the action and the tribunal would serve as an inquiry in my view. The objection which has been voiced by many Deputies and which I hold to the tribunal is solely its function with regard to charges because it is a cumbersome machine with regard to charges.
The alternatives are to give the company a free hand, to give the Minister power of sanction or to have a tribunal. People who are familiar with the problem will agree that the tribunal idea is the worst. If the Minister will not bring himself back into the picture either in the positive way by requiring his sanction or in the negative way by requiring the undoing of something to which the Dáil objects, we would prefer to fall back on the original proposal to give the company a free hand. I should like to give the Minister one bit of advice. Whether a branch line is closed as a result of an inquiry or not he will not escape the consequences. He will not as I did not.
I do not suppose that that would worry the Deputy and it would not worry me either. There is this to be said for it: it would be closed after the people concerned, the company and the local interests, had an opportunity of a full hearing in public.
That is the existing law, the 1933 Act. It applies to all railways.
It is not the same thing at all. I am quite satisfied that the Deputy knows as well as I do that the Minister might be coerced in the other direction more likely than in the direction of agreeing to the closing of a branch line.
There is a general law relating to railways and the closing of branch lines. The Minister will be in the position to close a Great Northern branch line but it will require the tribunal to close a Great Southern branch line.
What we are worried about is the danger of their being closed whether we like it or not. The Deputy's latest suggestion is that we should have the Minister plus the tribunal. Whether in regard to branch lines or charges, I think the tribunal is the fairer way. It will meet more with the goodwill and confidence of the public. I am entirely against the Minister being brought into this.
On the question of the procedure followed by the tribunal in the past when dealing with applications either in regard to increased charges or a variation in existing rates, can the Minister say if it is not a fact that from the date an application was submitted by the company to the tribunal under its previous procedure, it often took a year from the day the application was put in until a decision was given? Would it not be possible for the concern to go into bankruptcy in that period?
The Deputy can have all that on amendment No. 78.
Amendment put.
The Committee divided: Tá, 49; Níl, 69.
Tá
- Allen, Denis.
- Bartley, Gerald.
- Beegan, Patrick.
- Blaney, Neal T.
- Boland, Gerald.
- Bourke, Dan.
- Brady, Seán.
- Breathnach, Cormac.
- Brennan, Thomas.
- Buckley, Seán.
- Burke, Patrick.
- Butler, Bernard.
- Carter, Thomas.
- Colley, Harry.
- Collins, James J.
- Corry, Martin J.
- Cowan, Peadar.
- Crowley, Honor Mary.
- Davern, Michael J.
- Derrig, Thomas.
- De Valera, Eamon.
- De Valera, Vivion.
- Flynn, Stephen.
- Friel, John.
- Gorry, Patrick J.
- Harris, Thomas.
- Kennedy, Michael J.
- Kilroy, James.
- Kissane, Eamon.
- Lahiffe, Robert.
- Lemass, Seán F.
- Little, Patrick J.
- Lynch, John.
- McEllistrim, Thomas.
- MacEntee, Seán.
- McGrath, Patrick.
- Moran, Michael.
- O Briain, Donnchadh.
- O'Grady, Seán.
- Ormonde, John.
- O'Sullivan, Ted.
- Rice, Bridget M.
- Ruttledge, Patrick J.
- Ryan, James.
- Ryan, Mary B.
- Ryan, Robert.
- Sheridan, Michael.
- Traynor, Oscar.
- Walsh, Richard.
Níl
- Beirne, John.
- Belton, John.
- Blowick, Joseph.
- Browne, Noel C.
- Browne, Patrick.
- Byrne, Alfred.
- Byrne, Alfred Patrick.
- Coburn, James.
- Cogan, Patrick.
- Collins, Seán.
- Commons, Bernard.
- Corish, Brendan.
- Cosgrave, Liam.
- Costello, John A.
- Crotty, Patrick J.
- Davin, William
- Desmond, Daniel.
- Dillon, James M.
- Doyle, Peadar S.
- Dunne, Seán.
- Esmonde, Sir John L.
- Everett, James.
- Fagan, Charles.
- Finucane, Patrick.
- Fitzpatrick, Michael.
- Norton, William.
- O'Donnell, Patrick.
- O'Gorman, Patrick J.
- O'Higgins, Michael J.
- O'Higgins, Thomas F.
- O'Higgins, Thomas F. (Jun.).
- O'Leary, John.
- O'Reilly, Patrick.
- O'Sullivan, Martin.
- Palmer, Patrick W.
- Flanagan, Oliver J.
- Flynn, John.
- Giles, Patrick.
- Halliden, Patrick J.
- Hickey, James.
- Hogan, Patrick.
- Hughes, Joseph.
- Keane, Seán.
- Keyes, Michael.
- Kinane, Patrick.
- Kyne, Thomas A.
- Larkin, James.
- Lehane, Con.
- Lehane, Patrick D.
- McAuliffe, Patrick.
- MacEoin, Seán.
- McFadden, Michael Og.
- McGilligan, Patrick.
- McMenamin, Daniel.
- McQuillan, John.
- Madden, David J.
- Mongan, Joseph W.
- Morrissey, Daniel.
- Mulcahy, Richard.
- Murphy, William J.
- Redmond, Bridget M.
- Reidy, James.
- Reynolds, Mary.
- Roddy, Joseph
- Rooney, Eamonn.
- Sheldon, William A.W.
- Sweetman, Gerard.
- Timoney, John J.
- Tully, John.
Tellers:—Tá: Deputies Ó Ciosain and Ó Cinneide; Níl: Deputies Doyle and Kyle.
Amendment declared negatived.
So far as amendment No. 26 is concerned, I will be satisfied if the explanation of the position in future is as I anticipate. As the Bill was introduced, the company could fix any fares or charges they like and require nobody's sanction for any alteration of them. I was proposing that the existing schedule of maximum charges should be the actual charges of the company, unless and until they are changed with the Minister's sanction. As I understand the Minister's amendment No. 80, that will be the position, that the existing maximum charges will remain the maximum charges until altered with the consent of the tribunal. In that case there is no use in going on with the amendment.
Amendment No. 26 not moved.
As to amendment No. 27, I think I am correct in saying that the point is met by amendment No. 81.
At any rate, my main concern was to ensure that the company would display in a place where it would be convenient for everybody to see a copy of the classification of merchandise and the charges.
Amendment No. 27 not moved.
As to amendment No. 28, if I read rightly amendments Nos. 79 and 80, the tribunal which the Minister proposes to establish will have to be consulted by the board before maximum charges are altered and can only alter maximum charges if the board agrees. The tribunal, however, will have nothing to do with the classification of merchandise and it seems to me that that stultifies the whole proposal, because maximum charges are of no significance unless they are related to the merchandise classification. If we assume that there are half a dozen classifications and a separate charge for each, the company could, of course, avoid or evade the maximum charges by altering the classification of particular classes of goods. If it is intended that the maximum charges to be fixed with the approval of the tribunal under amendment No. 79 are to be related to the classification fixed by the company under a previous amendment, then that point is met. But, if it is to be the position that the company cannot alter its charges except with the consent of the tribunal but can alter its classification at any time without consultation with the tribunal, then it seems to me that the whole tribunal idea is of no value whatever.
I do not think that is the position. At any rate, it is not the intention that that should be the position. If there is any doubt, I will have it looked into.
Then the Minister will look into it.
Amendment No. 28 not moved.
Section 17 deleted.
SECTION 18.
Amendment No. 29 is met by amendment No. 86.
Amendment No. 29 not moved.
I move amendment No. 30:—
Before Section 18 to insert a new section as follows:—
18. The board shall not by rebates, commissions or allowances of any kind whatsoever grant to any person advantages in respect of fares, rates, tolls or charges for the conveyance of passengers or merchandise, or for affording any other services or facility which are not available in similar circumstances to everybody.
The position at the moment under the 1944 Act is——
I believe sub-section (3) of Section 4 would cover that.
It could, but I do not know whether it does or not. What is Section 2 of the Railway Canal Act of 1854?
I am advised your point is covered.
It gives the trader the right of appeal to the courts.
I am advised it covers the point you are seeking in the amendment.
I will look up the Act of 1854 and meanwhile I withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 31:—
Before Section 18 to insert a new section as follows:—
18. (1) The Minister may, whenever and as often as he thinks fit, by Order, made on his own initiative or on the application of any person representative of trade or a locality, require the board to establish and maintain such services for the conveyance of traffic by rail, road or water as he thinks fit and to make such increase, variation or alteration of existing services as he thinks fit and may attach conditions as to frequency and routes of services, facilities to be provided and other matters.
(2) The Minister may at any time by Order revoke or amend any Order made under this section.
(3) The obligations imposed on the board by any Order under this section shall be in addition to any statutory obligation imposed on the board as regards the provision of facilities for the receiving, forwarding and delivering of traffic.
This is a different point. One of the matters which we considered when framing the 1944 Act was the need to give to the Minister power to require the company to provide a transport service in any locality where the Minister considered it was needed. Up to the present we have been discussing th restrictions we should put on the power of the company to curtail or withdraw services. I want to direct attention to the need to have in the Minister, or some other authority, power to require the company to provide services.
A fear has been expressed that in outlying parts of the country where the need for a transport service is considerable, but where a service would not be economic, the tendency of the company or the board might be to withdraw or unreasonably curtail the facilities offered. Under the 1944 Act, representatives of a particular locality or any business interests in that locality could come to the Minister with the complaint that a reasonable service was not provided and the Minister had power to require the company to provide a service.
There was not an obligation similar to this under the 1944 Act.
Yes, the Minister had power to require the company to provide services.
Section 48 of the 1944 Act—that is right.
What I am coming at is that we have in Section 14 put very definite obligations on them.
You do not; you merely define their duties. There is no obligation in the ordinary meaning of that term. Under Section 48 of the 1944 Act the Minister has power to require the company to establish or maintain services for the conveyance of traffic by rail, road or water or increase or alter existing services. It seems to me that power has gone and nothing takes its place and that there is need to have something in substitution for it. It is by far the most likely complaint a Deputy will receive, that the services provided by the company are insufficient, or that some village or area is not provided with freight or passenger services at all. If a Deputy gets that complaint and brings it to the Dáil the Minister will be in the position that, even though he sympathises with the complaint, he can only make formal representations to the company; he will have no power to require the provision of services or investigate the need for such provision. It seems to me he should hold this power, or alternatively give the tribunal the power, if it is to be brought into existence, to require an adequate service. The safeguard against a monopoly of this kind is not merely the restrictive safeguard which the Minister proposes but also the positive safeguard of requiring the facility which the public is entitled to expect.
I think they are required and the point is met in Section 14 where there is a definite obligation on them to provide for the needs of the public, of agriculture, commerce and industry.
What happens if they do not? Section 14 is merely a declaratory section which involves no sanctions.
I think it is quite clear and it is an obvious direction to the company.
It is only an enabling section. It says the board shall have power.
It says it shall have the duty, but there is no sanction. If there is a village in County Mayo with no bus service and the local people think there should be one, Deputies should have a right to go to somebody and say that the company has refused this service which is considered reasonable and they should have some prospect that someone will have power to take action even if it is only to ensure an inquiry into the desirability of providing the service.
I do not think it is necessary, but I am prepared to look into the matter. I do not see any particular objection, but we can look into it before the next stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Minister wants Section 18 deleted?
Yes.
Section 18 deleted.
SECTION 19.
I move amendment No. 32:—
To delete paragraph (a) of sub-section (2) and substitute the following two new paragraphs—
(a) Where—
(i) an Order has been made under Section 9 of the Railways Act, 1933 (No. 9 of 1933), authorising the termination of all train services run over a specified railway line owned or operated by the board, or
(ii) an Order has been made under Section — exempting the board from the obligation to operate a service of trains over a specified railway line or to restore any service of trains over a specified railway line which has been temporarily discontinued under the Emergency Powers (Córas Iompair Éireann) (Reduction of Railway Services) Order, 1944 (S.R. & O., No. 354 of 1944), and the Order relates to all trains over that specified railway line and is not expressed to be in operation for a specified period,
then, the board may, subject to this sub-section, by order (in this section referred to as an abandonment order) declare its intention of abandoning that railway line.
(b) An abandonment order shall operate as an authority to the board to abandon the railway line to which the order relates.
The purpose of the amendment is that the board may not proceed to abandon the railway unless an Order has already been made by the Minister under Section 9 authorising the termination of the service, or the transport tribunal makes an order which exempts the board permanently from operating a service on the line. Certain Orders have been made, as Deputy Lemass knows, in that connection, and I am advised that it is desirable we should have this amendment.
I take it this means that where the company has by ministerial Order under the 1933 Act been released from the statutory obligation to run train services over a line, or where an order is made by the transport tribunal exempting the company from the obligation to restore a service of trains on a line where the service was withdrawn under an Emergency Powers Order, then the company can abandon the line. That seems to me to be logical and necessary. If there are going to be no services on the line, there should be no obligation on the company to maintain them.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 33:—
In sub-section (5), page 17, line 18, to insert, "having regard (amongst other matters) to any unconditional offer of compensation made by the board and not accepted by that person or to any unconditional offer by that person, to accept a certain sum as compensation and not accepted by the board", before "by his award".
The purpose of this amendment is to provide that where an arbitrator has power to award costs he shall have regard, amongst other matters, when awarding such costs, to any unconditional offer of compensation made by the board and not accepted by the other party. In other words, if the company was willing in the first instance to make a reasonable settlement they should not be penalised subsequently by having to pay heavy costs. There is a similar section. I think, in relation to the acquisition of land by such bodies as the Electricity Supply Board, Bord na Móna and the Tourist Board. I think the principle has been discussed here on many occasions.
This is compensation payable to anybody prejudiced by the abandonment of a branch line.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 19, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 20.
I move amendment No. 34:—
In sub-section (1), page 17, to delete paragraphs (a) and (b), lines 42 to 47.
The proposal here is to delete the provision relating to the making of by-laws by the board for certain purposes; for example, for providing for the due management of the affairs of the board, and so on. The Bill provides machinery for the confirmation by the Minister of by-laws made by the board. This machinery has been extended by amendment No. 36 to provide for the prior publication of by-laws and for representations being made to the Minister. I feel that the matters referred to at paragraphs (a) and (b), which are related only to the internal affairs of the board, should be covered by regulations made by the board and should not be subject to confirmation by the Minister.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 35:—
In sub-section (1), page 18, to insert between lines 16 and 17 the following paragraph:—
( ) for providing for the safe custody and re-delivery or disposal of any property found on or in any premises, vessels or vehicles belonging to the board and for fixing the charges to be made by the board in respect thereof.
This again deals with by-laws. The amendment provides that the board may make by-laws concerning the custody and re-delivery or disposal of lost property. I understand there is no statutory provision at present regarding the disposal of lost property found on premises, vessels or vehicles belonging to the board. The Garda have power to make sales relating to unclaimed property found in public vehicles and so on. This power is revoked by amendment No. 37 in relation to the board. I should say that the Department of Justice and the Department of Local Government have been consulted in this matter and have agreed.
Amendment agreed to.
The following ministerial amendments were agreed to:—
36. To delete sub-section (2) and substitute the following sub-section:—
(2) The board shall submit to the Minister for confirmation any bye-laws made by it under this section, and thereupon the following provisions shall have effect:—
(a) the board shall, as soon as conveniently may be after the submission, publish a notice of the submission at least once in each of two successive weeks in each of the daily morning newspapers published in and circulating in the State;
(b) the notice shall include:—
(i) a statement of the purposes for which the bye-laws are made, and
(ii) an intimation that a copy of the bye-laws is open for public inspection at the principal office in the State of the board, and
(iii) an intimation that any person may submit to the Minister objections to the confirmation of the bye-laws at any time during the period of 30 days commencing on the date of the first publication of the notice;
(c) the board shall, during the said period of 30 days, keep a copy of the bye-laws open for public inspection during ordinary office hours at its principal office aforesaid;
(d) any person who objects to the confirmation of the bye-laws may, at any time during the said period of 30 days, submit his objections in writing to the Minister;
(e) the Minister shall, as he thinks proper, refuse to confirm the bye-laws or by Order confirm the bye-laws without modification or with such modifications as he thinks proper and inserts in the bye-laws, but, if he approves (with or without modification) of the bye-laws he shall not do so until the expiration of the said period of 30 days and until he has considered any objections to the confirmation submitted to him during that period.
37. To insert at the end of the section the following new sub-section:—
(10) Section 127 of the Road Traffic Act, 1933 (No, 11 of 1933), shall not apply to property left in public service vehicles owned or operated by the board.
Section 20, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 21.
I move amendment No. 38:—
In sub-section (4), page 19, (a) in line 50, to delete "and obligations," (b) in line 54, to delete "or obligation".
This is purely and simply a drafting amendment.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 21, as amended, agreed to.
Section 22 put and agreed to.
SECTION 23.
I move amendment No. 39:—
In sub-section (1), page 20, line 39, to insert "par" before "value".
This amendment merely provides that where a person is entitled to a fractional part of a £ of stock he shall be paid in cash.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 23, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 24.
I move amendment No. 40:—
To add a new sub-section as follows:—
(6) Where it is anticipated that, by reason of an arrangement under sub-section (1) of this section, any officers or servants of the board or of the transferor may suffer loss of employment or worsening of their conditions of service, such arrangement shall provide for payment of compensation to such officers or servants in terms no less favourable than are contained in Sections 35 and 36 of this Act.
Section 24 provides that the board may enter into an arrangement for the acquisition of any transport undertaking carrying on any transport wholly or partly within the State. Sub-section (3) of that section provides that such arrangement may:—
"adapt, modify or repeal any statutory provision, contract, deed or other instrument relating to any relevant part of the undertaking."
Amongst other things, this would enable—and this is the point of the amendment—but would not make it obligatory that the sections dealing with the transfer of staff, payment of compensation for loss of employment worsening of conditions and so on, be adopted as part of the arrangement. In the case of small undertakings such elaborate provisions might not be necessary. In the case of such portions of the Great Northern Railway, however, as lie within this State there is no reason why it should not be compulsory that upon such acquisition any arrangement entered into should be no less favourable than that contained in the sections of the Bill. On the Second Reading the Minister indicated that in connection with developments that might take place in relation to the Great Northern Railway legislation would, in fact, be necessary. In this connection I want to break one lance with the Minister. I was disappointed yesterday with regard to another amendment when the House voiced its perturbation on the subject of regulations made under a particular section. The Minister said, in explanation, that matters affecting the Great Northern Railway might be dealt with under the question of regulation. That is my interpretation of the position at any rate. When I was dealing with the question of regulations, I understood that theses regulations would be laid on the Table of the House and would deal only with what is known as the day-to-day business. On the Second Reading the Minister did specifically refer to the Great Northern Railway and said that legislation would, in fact, be necessary. In the meantime there are certain small undertakers who may be taken over and with regard to whom the provisions under sub-section (3) of this section are merely permissive. They are not mandatory. By means of this amendment we want to ensure that any transfers operating in that particular way will bring with them for the staffs all the protective clauses contained in the Act itself.
I think it is obvious that, if this Bill is to make provision for the acquisition of other undertakings by the new board, it is desirable that there should be some safeguard for the employees of any undertaking that may be acquired. Deputy O'Sullivan suggests that the Bill should prescribe that the agreement for acquisition should provide for the payment of compensation to the employees who may lose their employment on terms not less favourable than those set out in the Act. I prefer the other arrangement which the Bill itself contemplates in relation to the Grand Canal Company; that is, to make transfer of the employees to the board, which transfer would then entitle them to all the protection the Act affords them in regard to continuity of employment or compensation for loss of it. I think it is obviously desirable the Bill should contain some such safeguard.
I thought I had satisfied Deputy O'Sullivan on this point long before now, but apparently I have not. I feel I have taken every possible precaution one can take in legislation of this kind to safeguard the rights of people who may be caught under the operations of this Bill or may in some fashion come within the scope of it. We have, in fact, covered everybody, I think, as far as one can foresee every possible contingency in relation to employees. I would not be prepared to accept the amendment as it is but if the Deputy is satisfied I shall make absolutely certain. I am prepared to have it looked into again. However, I do not want that to be taken as an indication that I am accepting it exactly as it is here. If there is a danger of somebody being left unprotected, so to speak, or not covered by the Bill I shall have that examined and looked into.
Let me say that I am much obliged to the Minister. I willingly acknowledge that that is the intention the Minister clearly expressed throughout the Bill. However, the people advising us felt that there was a defect in the actual drafting of the Bill. I would point out that it has struck Deputy Lemass in the same light and that he felt that there was that defect. If the Minister is prepared to take it back and have it examined we are quite satisfied.
I do not know whether the Minister is aware that certain people gave legal advice in regard to some of the people likely to be affected by the operation of this Bill. Of course, they may not be wiser than the Minister's advisers but that is the reason for the amendment.
Does Deputy Davin know who is likely to be affected by this section?
You mentioned some of them.
But not in relation to this section. I shall be satisfied if the Minister will look into the point.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 41 not moved.
Questioned proposed: "That Section 24 stand part of the Bill."
As Deputy Davin appears to know who is likely to be affected by this section, I wonder if he or the Minister would satisfy cur curiosity by saying what undertakings might be acquired.
You, apparently, have some of the brief from the same people as we have. However, they may not be the last word as legal advisers.
It is because I am not so clear in my mind what Deputy Lemass or Deputy O'Sullivan have in mind that I want it looked into.
I am on the section now—not on the amendment—which makes arrangements for the voluntary acquisition of other transport undertakings. I am anxious to know if the powers under the section are likely to be utilised soon and, if so, in what direction.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 25.
I move amendment No. 42:—
In sub-section (2), line 48, after the word "may", to insert the words "with the consent of the board and subject to any arrangement required by the board to ensure that the cost of discharging such functions will not impose any net loss on the board."
The amendment relates to Shannon navigation. For some reason, the Minister is anxious to saddle his new undertaking with the Shannon navigation. I do not know if the operations of the Board of Works on the Brosna are going to mean that the managers of the Shannon navigation are going to have an easy time. However, it is a fact that the transfer of the Shannon navigation to the board will involve the board in some loss of money. I admit that it is not a very big undertaking and that the loss will not be very considerable.
I extracted from the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance the information that, in last year, the gross revenue secured from the Shannon navigation by the Board of Works was £5,537 and that there were directly employed in connection with the Shannon navigation 41 persons. Making a brief calculation as to the wages paid to the persons directly employed in Shannon navigation I decided that the costs must have exceeded the revenue. Therefore, I felt that if we were to decide to transfer this enterprise to the new board without their consent we should accompany it by sufficient financial aid to offset the difference between the revenue and expenditure. I admit that I tabled this amendment before I knew that the losses of the enterprise were going to be met by subsidy. If they are going to be met by subsidy it does not matter whether the loss arises on the Shannon navigation or on any other part of the system. Therefore, I shall not press that part of the amendment.
I do not know whether the Minister thinks it desirable that he should seek the consent of the board to accepting Shannon navigation. I do not know whether it would be willing to accept it. It may be that the board may have good arguments against it if it merely means more trouble for them and less trouble to the Board of Works, and no great advantage to offset the trouble. However, I shall not press the amendment if the Minister is keen on transferring this source of trouble to the board and he gives me an assurance that the losses will not be offset by earnings on the other part of the system.
They may convert the losses to a profit. After all, the canal company are the main users— almost the sole users. As the railway company will now become the canal company, so to speak, I think the obvious thing is to transfer it.
There are Deputies in this House who probably know more than I do about this matter. There are obligations on those who control Shannon navigation in relation to the control of flooding. I met a deputation of farmers from that area before the Brosna scheme was started. They were very apprehensive lest the drainage of the Brosna would complicate the problem of flooding on the Shannon. There was some doubt, too, as to who was responsible for the operation of the sluice gates and the avoidance of flooding.
It seems to me that you are handing over trouble to the board which you will not be thanked for.
You cannot make any worse job of it than the Board of Works did.
Oh, but the Electricity Supply Board are also involved. Are they not?
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 43:—
In sub-section (2), page 21, line 49, to insert "or otherwise" after "Acts."
It is merely a drafting amendment.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 44:—
In sub-section (3), page 22, line 3, to insert "or otherwise" after "Acts".
Amendment put and agreed to.
I move amendment No. 45:—
In sub-section (4), paragraph (c), to delete all words after "section 36" in line 44 to the end of the paragraph.
I was not quite clear as to what was intended here. The sub-section provides for the transfer to the board of persons employed by the commissioners in connection with the Shannon navigation. It also provides that every person who is transferred becomes an officer or servant of the board upon the same terms as to remuneration and other conditions of employment as those upon which he was employed by the Commissioners of Public Works. But sub-section (c) says:
"An Order under this section may apply, in relation to any person transferred under this sub-section to the service of the board, the provisions of Section 36 with such modifications and exceptions as may be specified in the Order."
I cannot tell why there should be any modifications and exceptions in that regard, and if there are any special classes of persons or any special circumstances relating to the employment on the Shannon navigation with the commissioners which appear to create the need for exceptions or modifications therein.
I am advised that it is essential that "modifications" will go in but "exceptions" out. If the Deputy will agree to withdraw the amendment I shall have the matter looked into. As I say, I am advised that it is essential to have "modifications".
Modification of the provisions of Section 36?
As I understand it, the Minister will delete "exceptions" and we can have another look at the need for "modifications".
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 25 as amended agreed to.
SECTION 26.
I move amendment No. 46:—
In sub-section (2), paragraph (a), sub-paragraph (i), lines 39 to 42, to delete all words after the word "money" in line 39 to the end of the sub-paragraph.
This is an amendment which I put down before I knew that it was the policy of the Government to subsidise the company in order to meet any losses on working. It seemed to me undesirable to limit the issue of new stock to the provision of money to meet the cost of work properly chargeable to capital. Under the 1944 Act, the corresponding section merely authorised the company to issue stock to raise money and stock could have been raised to meet losses. As, however, the losses of the company are now going to be met by subsidy, there is no need for any change.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question proposed: "That Section 26 stand part of the Bill."
On the section itself, the main issue must be discussed. Sub-paragraph (b) of sub-section (2) provides that the total of the money which may be borrowed by the company under the sub-paragraphs which relate to the borrowing of money shall not exceed £7,000,000. That limitation naturally suggests that we should ask the question whether £7,000,000 is a sufficient sum to make available to the company for capital purposes. The Minister, when speaking on the Second Reading of the Bill, suggested that the figure of £7,000,000 was taken from the Milne Report. Deputies will remember that Sir James Milne estimated the capital needs of the undertaking at £10,500,000 for five years. He assumed that £3,500,000 would be available from depreciation funds and that the new capital needs of the company would therefore be £7,000,000. He set out in his report various headings under which he considered it was desirable that capital expenditure should be undertaken. If it was considered essential that the capital needs of the undertaking should be limited to the £16,500,000 figure, then not much argument or not very strong argument could be advanced against the allocation of that sum to the various sub-heads which he indicated.
The first question we have got to ask ourselves is: is that enough.? The second question we have got to consider is whether it is practicable for the company to undertake heavier capital expenditure in five years. It is true that the five year limitation does not appear in the Bill but in so far as the Bill related the figure in the Bill to the figure in the Milne Report, I assume it had a five year period in mind and contemplated that at the end of that period there would be fresh legislation to raise the amount, if the board required new capital for further development purposes. Sir James Milne, it is true, contemplated that Córas Iompair Éireann undertaking would be able to pay its way and to meet its operation costs and provide for interest upon its debenture stock. He assumed that because of certain developments which he foresaw. Unfortunately the indications of future trends which have become available since his report was published suggest that these developments are not likely to occur. He anticipated a reduction in the cost of fuel and of materials, a reduction in labour costs, certain increases in traffic and other developments beneficial to the company which would tend to diminish the gap between its revenue and its expenditure. In regard to most of the matters to which he referred, it is now clear that in the immediate future his assumptions will not be realised.
We know also that the organisational scheme provided for in this Bill is different from that which he contemplated and, because it is different it involves an increased charge on the undertaking for payment of interest amounting approximately to £90,000. The Minister obviously does not anticipate that it is likely that in this year, next year or in the immediate future the company will pay its way, and that is the problem with which we have got to deal. Are we going to face an interminable prospect of a concern operated with the assistance of a Government subsidy or are we going to investigate the possibilities of so reorganising and equipping the concern that it can reduce its operating expenses and bring them within its likely revenue?
I have always been of the opinion that the financial problem of the railway was due to the unsuitability of its equipment for economic operation. Every Deputy knows the history of our main railway undertaking. The present company was brought into existence as a result of a whole series of amalgamations of small independent companies. The 1924 Act began the process of amalgamation. A number of separate railway companies were combined in the Great Southern Railways system. They brought into that system varieties and types of railway equipment and of workshop equipment which made it very difficult for the new concern created by the 1924 Act to keep at a reasonable level the cost of maintaining and operating its rolling stock. Subsequently road transport concerns were also amalgamated with the Great Southern Railways Company and now the canal company is being brought in. This new board is starting off with an equipment which is very largely obsolete and which is so completely unstandardised that, I think I am correct in saying, there are over 500 types of railway engines in use.
I move to report progress.
Progress reported; Committee to sit again.
The Dáil adjourned at 10.30 p.m. until Tuesday, 21st February, at 3 p.m.
