Committee on Finance. - Transport Bill, 1949—Report Stage. – Dáil Éireann (13th Dáil) – Tuesday, 7 Mar 1950

Committee on Finance. - Transport Bill, 1949—Report Stage.

Mr. Morrissey

I move amendment No. 1:—

In page 7, to delete Section 6, lines 1 to 13, and substitute the following:—

(1) (a) The board shall consist of such number of members as the Government may from time to time appoint.

(b) The Government shall so exercise their powers under paragraph (a) of this sub-section that the number of members of the board for the time being holding office is not less than three or more than seven.

(2) The chairman of the board shall be that member of the board who at the time of his appointment or subsequently is nominated by the Government as chairman.

This amendment is to secure a minimum, as well as a maximum, number. It is brought in to meet, as far as I can meet, the point made by Deputy Lemass and other Deputies on the Committee Stage. It will be remembered that, as the Bill stood, the proposal was that the board should consist of not more than seven members, that the Government should appoint six and that the board should be free, if they so desired, to appoint the general manager as a director. Exception was taken to that from all sides of the House, such strong exception that I promised to look into that section dealing with the appointment of the general manager and the question of giving that power to the board.

In deference to the wishes of the House, I am withdrawing that section, not insisting on it, and, consequently, I am asking the House to agree that the board shall consist, as originally contemplated, of not more than seven, or not fewer than three.

As the Bill was introduced, there was no minimum. Deputy Lemass had an amendment to the effect that the number should never be allowed to go below four and "not for a greater period than a fortnight", as far as I remember, was in his original suggestion. I think the proposal I am now putting to the House will meet both points of view.

Mr. Lemass

I move an amendment to amendment No. 1:—

To add a new sub-section as follows:—

(3) A person who holds a whole-time executive position in the board's service shall not be eligible, while he continues to hold such position, to be appointed a member of the board.

So far as the Minister's amendment is concerned, it is acceptable to me and represents, in my view, an improvement on the original Section 6. I move this amendment to the Minister's amendment, not for the purpose of pressing on the Minister the acceptance of the limitations which that amendment suggests, but rather for the purpose of getting from him, if I can, an indication now of the type of board that he contemplates. The House will remember that when we were discussing Section 6 of the Bill in Committee the Minister was asked to indicate the type of board he had in mind but found himself unable to do so and our position now is that we do not know whether the new Córas Iompair Éireann Board will be composed of part-time directors remunerated by fee, like directors of a commercial undertaking, or whole-time salaried executives with no activities except those attaching to membership of this board. I had expressed an opinion in favour of a whole-time board. The view which I expressed in favour of a whole-time board was, I think, generally shared by those Deputies who spoke on the section but there was perhaps less unanimity as to whether the whole-time board should consist of persons holding no executive position in the board's organisation or executive officers. The discussion arose upon the amendment by Deputy M. O'Sullivan to delete the sub-section in the original section which enabled the board to appoint the general manager to be a director.

I take it that although that sub-section has disappeared it is still open to the Government to appoint the general manager and other executives of the board to be directors of the undertaking. We could in fact have a type of board composed entirely of the departmental heads of Córas Iompair Éireann. That type of board may have something to recommend it. It exists more or less at present for the direction of the electrical undertaking; the majority of the members of the Electricity Supply Board are departmental heads in the board's organisation. I think, however, that it is not a desirable type of organisation. Inevitably in any large organisation inter-departmental rivalry develops in some degree, and when the spokesmen of the various departments are themselves directors that rivalry takes the form of disagreements on the board. No, departmental head acting as spokesman for his subordinates on the board will like to have the departmental view expressed by him rejected by the board as a whole. These rivalries when expressed through the type of organisation which could be established under this Bill, a board consisting of departmental heads, can lead to great losses of efficiency. Having regard to the nature of the organisation we are setting up, the magnitude of its responsibilities and the difficulties of the task confronting it in the immediate future, I think that if there is to be a whole-time board it should comprise men who have no executive responsibilities at all, who will act as general supervisors of the board's administration and have responsibility only for general questions of policy. The decisions of the board can be communicated to its organisation through the general manager or other departmental heads, and they also will, in my view, find their work facilitated if they have to fulfil these orders without themselves being held responsible for the making of them. I know that opinions as to the best type of organisation in a concern of this kind are many, but I have little doubt that my experience would justify the opinion which I am expressing now: that the administration of the Córas Iompair Éireann undertaking will be far better if the board appointed by the Government are whole-time in the sense that the members of it will be able to give all the time necessary to the proper supervision of the undertaking and that it does not contain a majority, or perhaps members, who are also heads of departments of the organisation.

Mr. Morrissey

I do not wish to interrupt, but would the Deputy mind indicating, just to give us a line on this, what a board of laymen would be doing full-time? What duties would the Deputy say should be allotted to them?

Mr. Lemass

I think that in the immediate future the decisions on policy which will have to be made, the accumulation of information which would permit of those decisions being made, the management of the concern's finance and the supervision of the undertaking, particularly in its public relations aspect, will involve a great deal of work, sufficient to require the full-time services of the board. I know that we in this country have not had much experience of that type of board. In Great Britain various nationalised undertakings, including the transport undertaking, and certainly the air companies and other organisations established by statute as well as a number of private commercial organisations, have boards of that kind.

I certainly do not want to press my view on the Minister. If I were charged with the responsibility of setting up this organisation, I think I would like to have upon the board more than the chairman giving whole-time service; it might not be necessary to have the whole board giving whole-time service. I would adopt the policy enshrined in my amendment of not including on the board departmental heads and, on the whole, I think I would decide in favour of a board consisting entirely of whole-time members, because vis-a-vis such whole-time members, the ordinary type of part-time directors can carry very little weight. I move the amendment merely to get from the Minister, if he can give it now, an indication of the type of board he contemplates. I would say that my experience is against the type of board which includes departmental heads and I am therefore moving the amendment in the form in which it appears upon the paper and which would result, if the Minister adopted it, in the exclusion of departmental heads from the board.

The other type of board that could be contemplated, a whole-time chairman with a number of ordinary directors attending weekly or fortnightly meetings and depending for their information concerning the board's activities on reports from the executive officers, might be quite adequate for this concern at some future date. I think, however, that in the immediate future it would be inadequate. I express that point of view as my own. I have no desire to force the Minister on to any line. I do think, however, that at this stage the House should get from him some picture of the organisation he has in mind and some idea of its composition. It may not be feasible to ask him to particularise on the type of appointments the Government intends to make in a manner which would, perhaps, enable the House to identify individuals, but we should know what type of organisation he intends setting up, because it is entirely upon it that responsibility for the management of the concern will rest.

In my view—and I have expressed it here before—the only real change we are making in the transport situation is the decision to have a new method of appointing the Córas Iompair Éireann Board. That may be desirable, but if it is desirable we should know what type of board is contemplated and how it will function. I hope the Minister will be able to give us some information on this point and I think the Dáil could reasonably press for the information at this stage of the Bill.

Mr. Davin

I assumed that Deputy Lemass, with his intimate knowledge and experience of the past, including past failures, not all associated with his own administration but over a long period of years, would be willing to try, for a period of five years at any rate, some other type of managerial system rather than the system of part-time directors, which is responsible for the failures of the past. Without any disrespect to any of the directors of the railways who have been in control before and since 1924, in my opinion, with my little knowledge of the transport business, the failures of the past were due to interference in the day-to-day managerial control of the railways apart altogether from policy, interference by men with no intimate knowledge of the working of a transport system.

Deputy Lemass, himself, took the decision in 1944 to put one man in charge at that very critical period in the emergency. I supported him in the decision he took then. I think his decision was a clear admission on his part that he had lost all faith in the board that was then in control of our transport system. The chairman then put in was nominated by the Government, and I am sure Deputy Lemass had good reasons for doing that. For good, sound national reasons I supported the Government of the day in that matter. The nomination of the particular individual at the time—it did not matter to me who he was—was, I think, in the interests of the maintenance of the concern. I do not want to go into the reasons why I think Deputy Lemass and his colleagues in the Government took that decision.

As regards what is before the House, Deputy Lemass seems to think that we have no experience to guide us in the matter of the establishment of a board consisting of executive officers. He thinks it would give rise to inter-departmental rivalry. I take it that the reference he made to a board was to the Electricity Supply Board. I confess that I do not know, and never will know, as much about the administration of the Electricity Supply Board as Deputy Lemass does. In my opinion, inter-departmental rivalry might not be a bad thing. Suppose you had a board consisting of four or five people who were familiar with the work in the different sections of a particular concern, I think it would be a good thing for that concern that people of an independent type of mind should be on the board. Their knowledge would enable them, either at board meetings or in between board meetings, to criticise their colleagues and do so in no unfriendly spirit. If, on the other hand, you have a board consisting of "yes" men it may be that the meetings of the board will be very friendly and harmonious, but then, I think, at the end of a year or two you will be nearer a crash than if you have a board consisting of the type of men that I have indicated.

That is what Deputy Lemass has described as inter-departmental rivalry. I would not be in the least afraid of that. Personally, I would be prepared to advocate the establishment of a board consisting of executive officers, and I would not confine myself to Córas Iompair Éireann. I would select the executive officers for such a board for the five years now before us from the ranks of other transport concerns in the country—road, rail or canal. I am sure that we can find inside our shores men competent to do that job, capable of bringing the transport concern out of the state of chaos in which we find it to-day into a position in which it will be able to pay its way in the future and, at the same time, giving better service to the community and, if possible, better conditions to its own servants.

I have watched very carefully in recent years the working of Córas Iompair Éireann and I respectfully suggest to Deputy Lemass that one thing that must strike any man with a transport mind, a man in close touch with the working of a transport system, is this, that apparently there was nobody strong enough on the revenue earning side to say whether certain traffic should be carried over long distances by road or rail. The revenue-earning side was the vital section. We know that in the past there were conflicts of opinion between district superintendents as to whether certain traffic should go by road or rail. My opinion is that if you had a member of the board, fortified by executive authority, prepared to go to Cork, or Sligo, or Waterford, or wherever there were these conflicts of opinion, in a position to decide in cases of genuine disputes whether traffic should be carried over long distances by road or rail, things would be different from what they are. I have personal knowledge of cases—I am sure Deputy Lemass has, too, and must regard it as regrettable—where traffic was carried on lorries by road from Tralee to Dublin and where there was no load for the return journey.

Surely to goodness that sort of thing had something to do with the state of bankruptcy into which the concern was allowed to get. I suggest that a director, with knowledge and experience of the working of the transport industry on the revenue-earning side, would not have allowed that state of affairs to continue for a week. Deputy Lemass knows that kind of activity had been going on for a period of years, and, apparently, there was no one in the concern prepared to take responsibility for putting an end to it. It led to inefficient service, so far as the community was concerned, and added to the cost of the concern by reason of inefficient working.

Take the spending side. If you had a board properly constituted of executive officers who knew their job, let us see what the position would be. We may take it that the chief engineer would be in charge on the spending side. He would give an indication in pounds, shillings and pence of the sum that he would require and, after due deliberation and consideration, the board would give him an indication of the amount that would be available to him for the maintenance of the permanent way, the reconstruction of rolling stock, and so on. I think it is fair to say that no sensible executive officer on the revenue-earning side would, at a board meeting, attempt to dictate to the chief engineer as to how he should spend that money. There would not be, in my opinion, any inter-departmental rivalry in a case of that kind. One man, an engineer, would be an expert, and would know best how the money should be spent. I could not imagine a man on the revenue-earning side holding up a board meeting and arguing with the chief engineer—an expert—as to the best way of spending the money that had been allocated to him, particularly in view of the fact that the matter had been carefully considered by the board as a whole.

I do not want to see the system enshrined in this Bill being christened as another failure at the end of five years. I want to say, in all seriousness, to the Minister and to Deputy Lemass, that the small amount of money that would be involved should not prevent them from getting inside the shores of this country five, six or seven men, all experts in their own particular sections, on a board such as I suggest. They would be all experienced men, and I think it would pay the country if such a body were got together. I hope it will be for a short period only that the country will have to find a subsidy. I believe that, in the end, it would pay the country to get the most experienced men, men trained in the school of experience in road, rail and canal transport. I suggest it should be a full-time job for them. I would hope that in five or six years' time the Minister could stand up here and say that he had a full-time board consisting of executive officers rather than one consisting of drapers, chemists, doctors or men who knew nothing at all about the industry, and who could be "yes" men only at a board meeting. If the Minister were in a position to do that, he would then be making some attempt to give to the chairman and his colleagues the opportunity of doing the job that I know he wants to get done, namely, to bring the transport industry as a whole out of the chaos in which we find it to-day. I favour that as an experiment which has never before been tried in this country. I think it is one that is well worth trying—the appointment of a board drawn from executive officers engaged in the transport system of the country as a whole.

Mr. Hickey

Will the Minister indicate how the board will be constituted?

Mr. Morrissey

I was glad to hear Deputy Lemass saying that he was not going to press the amendment. There is no desire on my part that this board should consist of or be representative to any degree of heads of departments or executive officers. On the other hand, I think it would be unfair at this stage to impose a greater restriction on the selection and appointment of the board of Córas Iompair Éireann than has been imposed on any other company established by the State. Let me say also that there is no statutory provision in any of the Acts establishing any of the State or semi-State companies which lays it down whether the ordinary members shall be whole-time or part-time members. So far as the statutes are concerned, any of these boards could be either whole-time, part-time, part whole-time, or part part-time, so to speak. I do not think it is reasonable that we should lay down here and now any restrictions on the type of board or the type of person who would be put on that board. I think we are anxious on all sides of the House—I am certainly anxious and the Government are anxious—to get the sort of board, the type of personnel that is going to give this organisation the best chance of succeeding.

I say quite frankly that, like Deputy Lemass, I would be completely opposed to a board composed of departmental heads or executives. It would I think lead to friction and a lot of difficulty. Deputy Davin says: "Let us get an executive man who knows his job and make him a completely full-time member of the board." If he is a completely full-time member of the board, somebody else must take his place as executive officer. You are going to have friction. That is what we want to obviate as much as we can. Equally, I can see no case for a board composed entirely of full-time laymen. Suppose you appoint a chairman and six laymen, what will they be doing? Deputy Lemass talked about general supervision of the board's administration. Again, I can see very great dangers in that. I think it would be almost impossible to find work which could be usefully done in the ordinary day-to-day administration by laymen members of a board.

Mr. Davin

I agree with that, because they would not know what they were doing.

Mr. Morrissey

I think that is so, so far as ordinary administration is concerned. I did not pretend at any time, Deputy Lemass has not pretended, and I do not think anyone has pretended that it is going to be easy to get the sort of board we all wish to get. No two Deputies on any side of the House are in full agreement as to what sort of board they want, whether it is a part-time board, a part part-time, or a part full-time, or whether it is composed partly of laymen and partly of executives, or entirely of executives, or entirely of laymen. As I say, in respect of every other company established here, it was left to be determined by the Government and the tenure, so to speak, of the members of the board was set out in the warrants of appointment. The desire is to get the best possible board that we can—there is no other desire than that.

So far as I can give a clear indication to the House of my point of view, it is that I am not in favour of a board composed of heads of departments and I am not in favour of a board composed entirely of full-time laymen. I do not think either one or the other would be good for the future of the company. I do not think that you can have either one or the other type of board I have mentioned functioning without fear, not merely of friction, but of a certain amount of dislocation and a certain amount of overlapping leading to a very strong conflict of opinion. Deputy Lemass has intimated more than once in our consideration of this matter that we have an example of that type of conflict already. That is so. So far as I am concerned, I am anxious to get a board of such a type that the danger of conflict, the danger of dislocation, or the danger of open or underhand disagreement between the members of the board and the chief executive officers of the company will be obviated.

In regard to the amendment, I think it would be unreasonable to set down in the statute that at no time or in no circumstances should an executive officer of the company be eligible for appointment to the board. It may be found in certain circumstances or at a certain period that the addition of a particular executive officer to the board might be of very great assistance to the company and to the organisation as a whole. I say "it may be." I am not saying that I am in any way anxious to do it, or that the Government are anxious to do it—we are not.

I have responded to the views which were so strongly expressed from all sides of the House about the sub-section with regard to giving the board power to appoint the general manager and have taken that out. I do not know, however, whether the House thinks it is fair or right or reasonable to expect me to say that I shall have five, six or seven persons and what they are going to be representative of. I have probably given more information on this question of the type of board to be appointed than was given in regard to any other company that we have set up in this State. I know that the concern of Deputies is just the same as my own concern, and that is to get a board that will function effectively and that is likely to bring the company out of the very serious difficulties in which undoubtedly it is.

Another thing I should like to stress —I think Deputy Lemass will agree with this—is that it is not easy, either in a part-time or in a full-time position, to get five, six or seven men of the type that we would all really like to get. You simply cannot pick them off the trees. I think that is recognised and admitted. All I can say to the House is that I shall endeavour to see that the board that is appointed by the Government will be a board of the type that is most likely to lead to the successful working of this organisation. I am not trying to hide anything. I am not trying to stall on any of my responsibilities in the matter, but I think it would be unreasonable to ask me at this stage to be more specific than I have been.

Mr. C. Lehane

I suppose it was inevitable, because of the way in which the Committee Stage of this Bill was dealt with, that on the Report Stage of the Bill we would have to a certain extent——

An Ceann Comhairle

Was the Minister not concluding on this?

Mr. C. Lehane

I was not aware that he was.

An Ceann Comhairle

We are not in Committee now. However, I will hear the Deputy.

Mr. C. Lehane

I can put the matter to the Minister by way of question. Would the Minister indicate a little more clearly than the double negative which he put before us what type of board he envisages at this stage? I know the Minister does not want to be pressed unduly on this point. All he has told us is the two types of board he does not want. Could he be a little bit more positive and tell us more clearly what type of board he does envisage?

Mr. Morrissey

I think I have given the Deputy a fair indication.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment to amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Morrissey

I move amendment No. 2:—

In page 7, Section 7 (1) (a), line 15, to delete "by the Government".

Amendments Nos. 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 are consequential upon amendment No. 2.

Amendment No. 2 agreed to.

The following consequential amendments in the name of the Minister were agreed to:—

In page 7, Section 7 (1) (b), lines 20 and 21, to delete "appointed by the Government".

In page 7, Section 7 (2), line 23, to delete "appointed by the Government".

In page 7, Section 7 (3), line 30, to delete "appointed by the Government".

In page 7, Section 7 (4), (a), line 32, to delete "appointed by them".

In page 7, Section 7 (4) (b), line 41, to delete "appointed by them".

In page 7, to delete Section 7 (5), lines 48 to 51.

In page 7, Section 7 (6), line 52, to delete "appointed by the Government".

Mr. Morrissey

I move amendment No. 10:—

In page 8, to delete Section 7 (8), lines 30 to 32, and substitute the following sub-section:—

(8) (a) Where a person who is a member of the board becomes a member of either House of the Oireachtas, he shall, upon his becoming entitled, under the Standing Orders of that House, to sit therein, cease to be a member of the board.

(b) A person, who is for the time being entitled under the Standing Orders of either House of the Oireachtas to sit therein, shall be disqualified from being a member of the board.

This amendment has been brought in to meet the points raised by Deputies on both sides of the House regarding eligibility for the Oireachtas. I think Deputies will agree that the proposed amendment meets the points which were raised.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Morrissey

I move amendment No. 11:—

In page 8, Section 9 (1) (b), line 48, to delete "appointed by the Government."

This amendment is consequential on No. 2.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Morrissey

I move amendment No. 12:—

In page 9, before Section 10, line 9, to insert a new section as follows:—

The Public Authorities Protection Act, 1893, shall not apply to any action, prosecution or proceeding against the board or in respect of any act, neglect or default by a servant or agent of the board in his capacity as a servant or agent of the board.

This amendment is to provide that the board shall not be covered by the Public Authorities Protection Act. As Deputies are aware, there are certain advantages to public authorities proceeded against; a public authority is limited to six months and so on. A person who takes action against such authority leaves himself open to very heavy costs. It is not considered desirable that these provisions should apply to the board and I think that is a reasonable provision to make in this Bill.

Mr. Lemass

I quite agree. The board will not be a public authority and, therefore, should not be subject to the protection of the Act of 1893. I might, perhaps, at this stage refer to a matter that came to my attention which, while not entirely relevant to the amendment, has nevertheless sufficient relationship to it to justify my referring to it. As the Minister knows, a person in receipt of a military service pension has that pension abated if he takes employment with a public authority. If he is not employed by a public authority there is, of course, no such abatement. There are a number of persons employed by Córas Iompair Éireann who are in receipt of military service pensions and who are mistakenly under the impression that the effect of this Bill will be to make Córas Iompair Éireann a public authority and, therefore, render their pensions subject to abatement. I have assured those who spoke to me in the matter that their fears were unfounded and that Córas Iompair Éireann, under this Bill, will be in no different position from the Electricity Supply Board, and that their pensions will not, therefore, be subject to abatement. I think it might be no harm if the Minister confirmed that in order to allay these groundless fears which are circulating amongst a limited number of the Córas Iompair Éireann staff.

Mr. Morrissey

I think I can confirm what the Deputy has said. I have no doubts about it myself but, in order to be absolutely certain, I shall have the matter looked into as soon as possible.

Mr. Lemass

Personally, I have no doubt.

Mr. Morrissey

Neither have I. If I am able to reaffirm it on further examination it may, perhaps, carry more conviction to the people concerned.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Morrissey

I move amendment No. 13:—

In page 9, to delete Section 12 (1), lines 19 to 52, and in page 10, to delete Section 12 (2), lines 1 to 53, and substitute the following:—

(1) Subject to the provisions of this Act, the board shall, within or without the State, have, in addition to any other powers vested in, or conferred on, it by any other provision of this Act, power—

(a) to operate transport services,

(b) to consign merchandise,

(c) to enter into and carry out agreements or arrangements with any person carrying on business as a carrier of passengers or merchandise, providing for the carriage of passengers or merchandise by or on behalf of the board and that other person under one contract or at a through charge or in the same vehicles or containers, whether belonging to the board or not,

(d) to store merchandise, whether or not that merchandise has been or is to be carried by the board,

(e) to carry on any hotel, place of refreshment or refreshment service which was carried on by either dissolved undertaker or by any other transport undertaker whose or part of whose transport undertaking is acquired by the board under this Act and to provide both for its passengers and for other persons, living accommodation, places of refreshment (including hotels and restaurants) and refreshment services,

(f) to provide such amenities and facilities for passengers and other persons as it may appear to the board requisite or expedient to provide,

(g) to carry on any activities (whether mentioned in any previous paragraph of this sub-section or not) which have been carried on by either dissolved undertaker or by any other transport undertaker whose or part of whose transport undertaking is acquired by the board under this Act,

(h) to construct, manufacture, purchase, hire, let, maintain and repair anything required for the purpose of carrying passengers or merchandise by rail, road, sea or inland waterway or otherwise for the purpose of a transport undertaking,

(i) to provide and equip stations, depots, garages, quays, wharves, jetties, harbours, workshops, offices and other buildings and port facilities, and carry out other works in connection with or for the purposes of its undertaking,

(j) to provide, own, hire, let or use railway rolling stock, road vehicles, ships, barges, lighters, tugs, ferry boats and other vehicles or craft moved, propelled or drawn by mechanical, electrical, animal or other motive power and run and operate the same,

(k) to buy land, or take land on lease or under any form of tenancy.

(l) to make working agreements or arrangements for the provision by any person of transport services which the board is required or authorised to provide, or for the provision by the board of any transport services which any other person has power to provide.

(m) to do anything for the purpose of advancing the skill of persons employed or to be employed by the board or the efficiency of the equipment of the board or of the manner in which that equipment is operated including the provision by the board and the assistance towards the provision by others of facilities for training, education and research,

(n) to establish and support, or aid in the establishment and support of, associations, clubs, institutions, funds, trusts and conveniences calculated to promote the welfare of its employees or ex-employees and the dependents or relatives of such employees or ex-employees,

(o) to make payment towards insurance for the benefit of all or any of its employees or ex-employees or the dependents or relatives of such employees or ex-employees,

(p) to subscribe or guarantee money for charitable or benevolent objects or for any institution or any public, general or useful object,

(q) to do all such other things which in the opinion of the board are calculated to facilitate the proper carrying on of the business of the board.

This amendment arises because the Deputy wanted to know why they were subdivided. We are putting them right now.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Morrissey

I move amendment No. 14:—

In page 10, Section 12 (3), lines 54 and 55, to delete "sub-sections (1) and (2) of this section relate" and substitute "sub-section (1) of this section relates".

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Morrissey

I move amendment No. 15:—

In page 10, Section 12 (3), lines 56 and 57, to delete "those sub-sections" and substitute "that sub-section".

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Lemass

I move amendment No. 16:—

In page 11, Section 13, to insert before sub-section (2), two new sub-sections as follows:—

(2) The Minister may by Order require the board to establish and maintain a service or services, specified in such Order, for the conveyance of traffic by rail, road or water, or to increase, vary or alter an existing service, and may attach conditions as to frequency, routes, facilities to be provided and other matters.

(3) Whenever the Minister makes an Order under sub-section (2) of this section, it shall be an obligation of the board to provide the service or services specified in such Order.

An Ceann Comhairle

It is a similar amendment.

Mr. Lemass

I think it is a slightly different point. At any rate I am proposing to put the same idea into a different section. As the Bill emerged in Committee Córas Iompair Éireann will operate under these conditions. It will be subject to no control exercisable by the Minister or by any other authority in the matter of the fares charged for transport services. In the matter of railway services it will be obliged to maintain existing services unless they are released from the obligation to do so, following an application to the tribunal to be established by the Bill. There is no power given either to the Minister or to the tribunal to require Córas Iompair Éireann to provide a service where such service is considered necessary and where there is not an existing railway service. Deputies will have noted from time to time representatives from various constituencies urging upon the Minister the extension of bus services, the provision of new omnibus services, and the improvement of other transport services in accordance with the requirements of areas in their constituency as made known to them by residents in them. The transport needs of the country as a whole change from time to time with shifting population, the development of new housing areas, the opening of new factories and for other causes. It is necessary for the transport organisation then to alter their schedules and running arrangements in order to meet the requirements resulting from these shifts of population. We have no reason to assume that the Córas Iompair Éireann Board will not be concerned to provide transport services where they think them necessary. Opinions, however, may differ as to what constitutes necessity, particularly in the matter of omnibus services in outlying areas to meet the requirements of people who are not living along the regular scheduled routes.

It seems to me desirable that there should be somebody with power to request or to require the company to provide services. We could, in certain circumstances, find ourselves in the situation that the company, for reasons of economy or otherwise, was seriously curtailing the transport services of the country—particularly the omnibus services because, of course, the curtailment of rail services would bring the tribunal into operation—and we could do nothing about it. If Deputies have demands from localities in their constituencies for the extension or the provision of new omnibus services, I think they should be able to express them here and that the Minister should have power to do something about them if he thinks them reasonable. Ordinarily I know these things are done informally. The Deputy will approach the board and, if they can be persuaded that there is a case for the extension of services, they may meet it. If the Deputy cannot get satisfaction from the board he may get the Minister to add his voice in support of the request. But if, having come to the limits of possibility of action in that informal way, there is still a reasonable demand unsatisfied, then I think the Minister should have power to require the company to do it by Order.

I am moving to insert these two subsections—which will enable the Minister to require the board to provide a service for the conveyance of traffic by rail, road or water or to increase an existing service and to make an Order compelling the board to do it if they do not meet his request—into Section 13. The effect of putting these two sub-sections into Section 13 is to create a situation in which the Minister cannot, in fact, exercise that power by Order unless the Order is confirmed by resolution here.

That is a very slight addition to the provisions of the Bill, but it seems to me to meet a gap in the Bill. I think most of us will regard it as an unsatisfactory measure if it is passed with that gap in it.

We are setting up this transport board. We are entrusting to it the public transport of the country by rail, road and canal. We are giving the board substantial power. We have been committed by the present Government to provide subsidies against losses and I think we should have here some power to ensure that they give reasonable services and to require them to give these services if the opinion of the whole House is that they are not being provided in any particular case. That is the purpose of this amendment. It closes what I think is an undesirable gap in the Bill. Incidentally, it would have the effect of making it in order for a Deputy to express here any discontent existing in his constituency regarding the inadequacy of omnibus services which have been, I think, the main subject of various Dáil Questions and other similar references here in the past.

Captain Cowan

I should like to support Deputy Lemass on this amendment which, as he says, closes a gap that is in the Bill as drafted. Undoubtedly Córas Iompair Éireann, as established under this Bill, will be subsidised for a considerable period by the taxpayer. It may be that in some particular part of the country a transport service is required. The Minister may be of opinion that the demand for that particular service is not unreasonable. It would be well, therefore, for the Minister to have in the Bill and it would be wise for the House to give to the Minister the power which it is sought to give the Minister in this particular amendment. It is a power which will not, of course, or cannot be lightly used and it is a power which, as Deputy Lemass has stated, is subject to approval under the section. It is subject to confirmation, not only by one House, but by both Houses. I think the Minister himself ought to accept the very strong case that has been made for this amendment and ought to agree to its incorporation in the Bill.

Mr. C. Lehane

Superficial consideration of the amendment would lead one to the view that there was nothing in it to which exception could be taken and with the apparent general underlying principle of the amendment I am in agreement. However, I can see its acceptance in its present form creating difficulties for the Minister and difficulties for this House. It is all very well to talk about the Minister taking this necessary power to himself but I would urge Deputies to read the amendment in its entirety and to consider all its implications. I think that the amendment goes too far and into much too much detail and that if the Minister took the power sought to be thrust on him he would find that, as a concomitant of that power, this House would be open to have its time wasted in intervention by this House in what it was agreed from both sides of the House should be left alone, namely, the day to day administration of the company. I think the amendment seeks to give the Minister power to intervene and interfere in the minutiæ of the company's administration. Therefore, I do not think the amendment should be accepted.

Mr. Morrissey

Mr. Lemass

May I say that I do not want to force the amendment on the Minister if he does not want to accept it? I think what the amendment proposes is quite clear. As the Bill will pass the House, there will be no power in this House or in any officer of the House to require this company to provide reasonable transport services, if they are not doing it. We are entitled to assume that they will be concerned with providing the best service they can. If, however, they run into difficult times or if the Minister for Finance cuts the subsidy, they may decide to solve the resulting problem by withdrawing services from outlying districts which are not highly remunerative and we can do nothing about it. I think we should have power to do something about it.

The Minister says that a similar power in the 1944 Act was never used but that is beside the point. The fact that the Minister had that power meant that a Deputy could come in here, voice the grievances of his constituents and ask the Minister to use the power. As the Bill now stands if power is not given to the Minister, any Deputy seeking to raise such a question will be told that the Minister has no responsibility and no power to intervene. I think it is most unlikely that the power will ever be used because not merely would the mere existence of the section in the Bill give Deputies a certain right to query the Minister but it would also give the Minister certain influence with the board which would make it unnecessary to have recourse to the making of an Order when in the Minister's opinion there was a reasonable and legitimate grievance in some parts of the country. However, I am less concerned with the Minister's refusal to accept this power by reason of the fact he will have always effective power over the minutiæ of the company's administration so long as the Minister for Finance has to provide a subsidy and, secondly, because I hope he will accept a slightly weaker amendment which appears later in my name.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Morrissey

I move amendment No. 17:—

In page 11, Section 14 (1), line 27, to insert ", the encouragement of national economic development and the maintenance of reasonable conditions of employment for its employees" after "operation".

This is to meet a point made on an amendment put down by Deputy Lemass.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Morrissey

I move amendment No. 18:—

In page 13, before Section 18, line 15, to insert a new section as follows:—

The board may adopt such classification of merchandise for the purpose of the application thereto of rates of charges to be made in respect of the carriage of merchandise as the board thinks fit.

This is in substitution for the deleted Section 51.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Morrissey

I move amendment No. 19:—

In page 13, before Section 18, line 15, to insert a new section as follows:—

(1) In this section—

the word "charges" includes fares, rates or tolls;

the word "services" means any of the following:—

(a) the conveyance of passengers and their luggage,

(b) the receiving, forwarding, carrying and delivering of merchandise,

the expression "the railway classification of merchandise" means the classification of merchandise for the time being in force adopted by the board for the purposes of the application of rates of charges to be made by the board for the carriage of merchandise by rail;

the expression "the canal classification of merchandise" means the classification of merchandise for the time being in force adopted by the board for the purposes of the application of rates of charges to be made by the board in respect of the carriage of merchandise by inland waterway.

(2) The board may fix, demand, take and recover such charges as the board thinks fit for services provided by it.

(3) Where the board agrees with a trader for the carriage of his merchandise at charges which represent a reasonable commutation of the charges otherwise applicable to the merchandise of that trader carried by the board the board may, notwithstanding anything contained in any enactment, make as regards the carrying of that trader's merchandise the charges so agreed.

(4) (a) The board shall keep for sale copies of the following—

(i) the railway classification of merchandise,

(ii) the canal classification of merchandise,

(iii) scales of charges made, in conjunction with the railway and canal classifications of merchandise, by the board in respect of the carriage of merchandise by rail and inland waterway.

(b) The board shall keep for public inspection at its principal office copies of the following—

(i) the railway classification of merchandise,

(ii) the canal classification of merchandise,

(iii) scales of charges made, in conjunction with the railway and canal classifications of merchandise, by the board in respect of the carriage of merchandise by rail and inland waterway.

(c) The board shall keep for public inspection at each depot owned by it at which merchandise is received for carriage by rail a copy of each of the following—

(i) the railway classification of merchandise,

(ii) scales of charges made, in conjunction with the railway classification of merchandise, by the board for the carriage of merchandise by rail from that depot.

(d) The board shall keep for public inspection at each depot owned by it at which merchandise is received for carriage by inland waterway, a copy of each of the following—

(i) the canal classification of merchandise,

(ii) scales of charges made, in conjunction with the canal classification of merchandise, by the board in respect of the carriage of merchandise by inland waterway from that depot.

(5) (a) The board may attach to the services afforded by it such terms and conditions as the board thinks fit.

(b) Any carriage of merchandise by rail by the board which is in accordance with the terms and conditions contained in Statutory Rule and Order No. 13 of 1930 shall be deemed to be carriage of that merchandise under terms and conditions which are just and reasonable.

(c) Unless otherwise specified in writing by the board, all merchandise carried by the board by rail shall be deemed to be carried subject to the terms and conditions contained in Statutory Rule and Order No. 13 of 1930.

Captain Cowan

I should like to raise one point in connection with this amendment. Sub-section (5) of the proposed new section says: "The board may attach to the services afforded by it such terms and conditions as the board thinks fit." That, of course, continues a practice that exists at the moment but I can see some difficulties that may arise. Probably I should have put an amendment down to that sub-section. It is the practice now and again, in respect of certain types of tickets issued by Córas Iompair Éireann, to exempt themselves from liabilities to which they would otherwise be subject. I do not know what I can do with regard to that except to draw attention to the point. I feel that the issue of excursion tickets, or tickets of that kind, by Córas Iompair Éireann, should not be permitted. Certainly they should not be allowed to exempt themselves from legal liabilities for carelessness or negligence to which they would otherwise be subject. I merely mention that so that the Minister may consider whether the matter could be dealt with elsewhere before the Bill is passed.

Mr. C. Lehane

I would like to endorse what Deputy Cowan has said and make this additional point for the Minister's attention. In the normal course of events it is almost impossible to purchase a ticket for the existing services that is not an excursion ticket. Many Deputies are aware that the ticket bought normally by a passenger going on business is issued at some reduced rate which brings it within the category of an excursion ticket. I merely add that to what Deputy Cowan has said. It means, in effect, that more than 90 per cent. of the passengers carried by the railway services have no right of action in the event of an accident.

Mr. Lemass

If the company ever tries to evade liability, the Deputies will have a grand time in the Supreme Court.

Mr. Morrissey

I have already indicated in reply to a question that I will ask the new board to look into that matter.

Mr. J. Flynn

I would like to point out in regard to tickets that they are for one day only. For instance, as regards the tickets Deputies obtain from the railway company, portion is available for the day of issue only and that is inconvenient for us on certain occasions where we may have to break journeys to attend meetings. I would like to bring that matter to the Minister's attention and perhaps he will get the board to consider it and so arrange that the same conditions will apply for the outward and return portions.

Mr. Lemass

Perhaps Deputy Flynn's intervention is not quite so helpful as it sounds. The Minister might consider directing the attention of the board to the desirability of re-examining a number of changes in the ordinary practice of the company, changes that were introduced during the emergency. During the war a ticket could be issued only for the one day because the company could not guarantee transport facilities for the following day. Deputy Davin referred to the through rate arrangement for passengers. That was also a consequence of the emergency because the company could not allow a ticket to be sold in London which would guarantee a train service in Ireland when that train might not run or might be crowded.

A number of changes introduced during the emergency may no longer be desirable. Possibly the company may wish to hang on to them because they are more convenient from their point of view, but it is desirable that these things should be re-examined.

Mr. Morrissey

I think Deputies ought to give the board the credit of having some interest in the running of this organisation. May I inform Deputies that most of the points they are now raising for the first time have already been engaging the attention of the company?

Mr. Davin

Including the through rate arrangement?

Mr. Morrissey

Yes.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Morrissey

I move amendment No. 20:—

In page 13, Section 18 (2) (a) (ii), line 35, to insert "services of" before "trains".

Mr. M. O'Sullivan

I wish to direct attention to the fact that on the Committee Stage reference was made to the peculiar, the almost exceptional position that obtains on the Timoleague-Courtmacsherry branch line and the Minister undertook to look into that matter. I regret it was not brought to the Minister's notice until a very late stage. The details with reference to the working of that line and the necessity for some change could better be related by Deputy Desmond, who is in possession of the facts.

Mr. Desmond

That is what it comes to. The position of the law at the moment is that Córas Iompair Éireann got a guarantee of their debenture interest. If they failed to meet it, the amount was advanced from the Exchequer to Córas Iompair Éireann under the general authority of the 1944 Act. Córas Iompair Éireann having failed to repay the money within 12 months, the Minister had to come to the Dáil to get the Dáil to vote the recoupment of the Exchequer in the amount Córas Iompair Éireann had failed to repay; but the 1944 Act says:

"The provision of moneys by the Oireachtas under sub-section (7) of this section shall not exempt the company from the liability to repay to the Central Fund, with interest thereon at the rate appointed by the Minister for Finance, the full amount of any advance made under sub-section (3) of this section, but such repayment shall be made by the company at such times and in such instalments as the Minister for Finance may appoint."

So far as Córas Iompair Éireann are concerned, the mere fact that the Dáil voted the money has not released them from the liability. It still remains for them, under sub-section (8) of Section 18 of the 1944 Act. The effect of this sub-section may be to release them from that liability. If that is not intended, it seems to me it could be held to have that effect.

The financial position of the new board will have to be cleared up somehow, but I am anxious to have it quite clearly stated that the liability under the 1944 Act of the present Córas Iompair Éireann undertaking to the Exchequer is transferred to the new board. If it is to be released from that liability, it must be done by an Act of the Oireachtas and I certainly will not assent to the theory that we release them from the liability by a footnote in an Estimate. The law was clearly stated in an Act of the Oireachtas and can only be removed by an amendment of that Act. If we want to amend that Act, this is the occasion for doing it.

Mr. Morrissey

I have no desire to have this slip through in any way whatever. We are satisfied that the position is quite clear, but if there is any doubt about it, we can very easily have it remedied. However, I think the position is clear enough and I am so advised.

Mr. Lemass

In view of the explanation the Minister has given me, I should like the Minister to look into it, and, if the Final Stage is taken to-morrow, he could let us know what the position is then.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Amendments Nos. 22 and 23 might be discussed together.

Mr. Lemass

We are both seeking to achieve the same object.

Mr. M. O'Sullivan

I move amendment No. 22:—

In page 21, Section 23, 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 or of the Irish Railway Clearing House 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 23 provides for the voluntary acquisition by the board of transport undertakings, either wholly or partly within the State. Apart altogether from the question of the Great Northern Railway, which was specially referred to in the earlier stages of the debate, I should like to point out to the Minister that there are other transport undertakings which could be affected by the section, namely, the Sligo, Leitrim and Northern Counties Railway, the County Donegal Railways and the Londonderry and Lough Swilly Railways. The staff of the clearing house, numbering about 100, are apprehensive lest any changes that might be made by the operation of this section should affect their employment and they seek an assurance that they will be kept covered, so far as compensation or the worsening of conditions is concerned. There has been a deterioration in their position as a result of the setting up of the Ulster Transport Authority, to some extent at any rate, and they fear that there will be an intensification of that position if the cross-Border services to which I have referred are acquired. I should like to know if, since the Railway Clearing House is not specifically referred to in the Bill, except by way of reference to the 1924 Act, the Minister would be prepared to see that they are mentioned in the special way we set out here.

Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Industry and Commerce (Mr. Cosgrave)

While I have a good deal of sympathy with what the Deputy has in mind, I think it is undesirable to anticipate legislation. As I understand the position, this can apply only to one or two of the smaller companies here and to a cross-Border company. In the case of acquired transport undertakings such as lorry or haulage contractors, these are covered by the Road Transport Act. In the absence of any specific proposal at the moment to acquire any further undertakers, I think it is undesirable to include provisions in this Bill in anticipation of legislation.

On the point the Deputy raised about the railway clearing house, I will have that matter examined; but until we have a particular case I think it would be undesirable to include provisions in the Bill.

Mr. M. O'Sullivan

With your permission, may I point out to the Parliamentary Secretary that we are not referring to anticipating legislation at all, that this Bill is the legislation referred to and in particular Section 23, which gives the right to the new board, as I have pointed out, to acquire voluntarily certain cross-Border companies? That, in fact, may take place without any special legislation, and if the Parliamentary Secretary would be prepared, as the previous Minister was, on an occassion of this character, to give an assurance that in the event of any changes of that kind likely to affect the employment at the Irish Railway Clearing House, they would in fact be subject to the same terms of compensation as other services, that assurance would satisfy our people here.

Mr. Cosgrave

I think I can give that assurance. As I understand it, the cross-Border company interchanged some of the staffs between the Six Counties and the Twenty-Six and for that reason, if the section as contained here were put in, it would deal specifically with that situation and difficulties would arise in the working out of it, because of transfers either on promotion or otherwise. I understand they endeavour to keep the staff in the Six Counties and the staff in the Twenty-Six Counties working in their particular areas; but if this section were included and if for any reason they had to transfer them, it might be difficult to administer. In regard to the assurance for which the Deputy asks, I think that can be given.

Mr. Lemass

I am not quite clear that that covers the point. Deputy O'Sullivan was concerned with the staff of the Irish Railway Clearing House, but there is perhaps more involved in this section than that staff. If Córas Iompair Éireann acquires another transport undertaking, we are anxious to be assured that the staff of the acquired undertaking will be transferred to Córas Iompair Éireann with the same rights to compensation in the event of subsequent dismissal for redundancy as the staffs now being transferred are given. It may be argued, and could be argued, that as the acquisition Order under sub-section (1) would have to be confirmed by the Dáil anyhow, we could then ensure that the necessary arrangements to protect the staff are made.

Mr. Cosgrave

I move amendment No. 25:—

In page 28, Section 34, line 19, to delete "and 36" and substitute ", 36 and 37".

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Cosgrave

I move amendment No. 26:—

In page 28, Section 34 (a), line 20, to delete "a person who becomes by virtue of Section 33".

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Cosgrave

I move amendment No. 27:—

In page 28, Section 34 (b)—

(a) in line 35, to delete "a person who becomes by virtue of Section 33" and

(b) in line 36, to delete "and".

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Cosgrave

I move amendment No. 28:—

In page 29, Section 36, line 25, to delete "four" and substitute "three."

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Cosgrave

I move amendment No. 29:—

In page 29, before Section 37, line 38, to insert the following new section:—

Whenever the board ceases to provide or permanently reduces any services for the carriage of merchandise by inland waterway, and as a consequence thereof the retention of any officer or servant of the board (being an officer or servant who was employed in a permanent capacity at the date of cesser or reduction or who had served continuously with the board or either dissolved undertaker for a period of not less than three years ending on that date) in the position which he held before such cesser or reduction becomes unnecessary, the following provisions shall have effect:—

(1) if the board dispenses with his services, he shall be paid by the board compensation calculated in the manner set out in the Fourth Schedule to this Act,

(2) if—

(a) the board transfers him to another position in its service, and

(b) he thereby suffers a worsening of his conditions of service as an officer or servant of the board,

he shall be paid by the board compensation consisting of a lump sum of such amount as is reasonable.

This meets the case made by Deputy Larkin on the Committee Stage, about employees of the Grand Canal Company.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Cosgrave

I move amendment No. 30:—

In page 29, Section 37, line 40, to delete "or 36" and substitute ", 36 or 37."

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Cosgrave

I move amendment No. 31:—

In page 29, Section 38, line 48, to delete "or 36" and substitute ", 36 or 37."

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Cosgrave

I move amendment No. 32:—

In page 34, Section 49, to delete—

(a) lines 29 to 34, and

(b) lines 51 and 52.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Lemass

I move amendment No. 33:—

In page 34, line 47, to delete the word "means" and substitute the word "includes."

I am not quite clear whether the intention is to define "interested party" for the purpose of Section 49 as meaning only a body of persons. If the company proposes to suspend a service of trains, an "interested party" may——

Mr. Cosgrave

It means a body, not individuals.

Mr. Lemass

Why should not it mean an individual? Why should not an individual, as an interested party, have the right to go to the tribunal as well? As it stands, it seems to me that he is excluded, that he has to organise himself into an association of some sort before he has the right to go to the tribunal, whereas in many cases of branch lines which may be closed up the only person with an interest in keeping it open may be a manufacturer or trader in the locality. He might as well come along in his own person as disguised as an association of traders.

Mr. Cosgrave

There is no precedent for it here because the Railway Tribunal or the Transport Advisory Committee did not deal with the closing of branch lines. The Northern Ireland Transport Act, 1948, provides that objections to the closing of a branch line may be taken by a body or association. I will have the point the Deputy mentions examined. I do not suppose there is any great objection.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Cosgrave

I move amendment No. 34:—

In page 35, Section 49, to delete lines 1 to 3.

This amendment is consequential on amendment No. 19.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Lemass

I move amendment No. 35:—

In page 35, to insert before Section 50, a new section as follows:—

The Emergency Powers (Córas Iompair Éireann) (Reduction of Railway Services) Order, 1944 (S.R. and O., No. 354 of 1944), shall cease to have effect after the expiration of 12 months from the establishment date.

I hope that all the Deputies who are concerned about the branch line services will support me on this.

Mr. Davin

Ring for some of them who are absent.

Mr. Lemass

If necessary. I hope-it will not be necessary. When the Emergency Powers (Córas Iompair Éireann) (Reduction of Railway Services) Order, 1944, was made, I was subjected to a great deal of interrogation in the Dáil concerning the intention behind the Order. The Order which authorised Córas Iompair Éireann to suspend services over a number of branch lines was justified then on the ground of scarcity of coal and of railway equipment. Some Deputies, however, suspected that in making the Order, even though it was temporarily justified on emergency conditions, I had in mind some long-term transport policy and they feared that the services on these branch lines, even though they ceased because of emergency conditions, would never reappear because of that long-term transport policy. Consequently, as Minister for Industry and Commerce, speaking for the Government then in office, I gave to the House an undertaking that wherever a service of trains on a branch line was temporarily suspended under the authority of the Emergency Powers Order, that service would be restored when supply conditions permitted and that there would be no attempt to carry out any long-term modification of railway services under the authority of the Emergency Powers Order.

The closing of a branch line or the termination of a service of trains over a branch line, was, of course, possible under the permanent railway legislation but only if the procedure prescribed in that legislation was followed. I had intimated to the Dáil when the legislation was being enacted that it was my intention that where there was opposition to the permanent closing of a branch line or withdrawal of railway services there would be an investigation of the circumstances through an inquiry conducted by the tribunal established under the 1944 Act and that the closing Order would be made only if the tribunal recommended it. The effect, therefore, of the undertaking I gave to the Dáil, as Minister, on behalf of the Government, in relation to the Emergency Powers Order was that, inevitably, the services would be restored and could only be withdrawn again if the procedure laid down in permanent legislation was followed. In fulfilment of that undertaking given in 1944, these branch lines were restored temporarily in 1946.

Mr. Davin

Some of them.

Mr. Lemass

A very large number of them.

Mr. Davin

Not all.

Mr. Lemass

It is true that they lost money for the company but they were restored wherever the lines were in working order. A fuel emergency developed again in 1947. In the winter of 1946-47 there was the period of prolonged snow and ice which stopped the output of coal in Great Britain and stopped the import of coal to this country. We were again thrown into a transport crisis and again these branch line services were terminated. Again I gave an undertaking to the Dáil, as Minister, that the termination of these services under the authority of the Emergency Powers Order would be temporary only and that there would be no permanent closing of these lines or no permanent stopping of these services except under the authority of railways legislation.

I think it is a pity that anybody who has so able a tongue as Deputy Lemass should, on any occasion, have to put it in his cheek and I think that Deputy Lemass's tongue was in his cheek when he put down this amendment. This, to my mind, is a whitewashing amendment and the speech which Deputy Lemass made in introducing it was a whitewashing speech. Deputy Lemass may feel that by tabling this amendment he creates what he would describe as an embarrassing situation for the Deputies who were vocal on the question of the reopening of the branch lines. Let me assure Deputy Lemass without more ado, through you, Sir, that there is no degree of embarrassment on our part. I described the case he made on his amendment as whitewashing. That does not alter the inherent merit or demerit of the amendment proposed and I think that the weight of the argument is in favour of the amendment tabled by Deputy Lemass. Unless the Minister has some very coercive arguments to put before the House I would certainly feel myself bound to support it, but there is a qualifying circumstance in my mind that on this side of the House we have confidence in the Minister's approach to the question of branch lines and of rail versus road transport in a general sense. Rightly or wrongly, many of us believed that there was in the mind of Deputy Lemass when he was Minister for Industry and Commerce an undue bias in favour of road transport. I do not want to multiply instances or cover the ground which Deputy Davin has covered already, but there is hardly a Deputy in this House who does not know of instances when, during Deputy Lemass's period of office as Minister for Industry and Commerce, alterations were made in freight charges, passenger charges, time schedules and frequencies and every one of them was made—it may have been purely incidental or coincidental—to militate against the rail system in favour of road transport. There is hardly a Deputy in this House who, if he expressed his mind honestly, would not agree that that is so.

Mr. Allen

Ask Deputy Davin.

Mr. C. Lehane

Deputy Davin has already expressed exactly the same point of view here in this House.

Mr. Lemass

Do not embarrass him too much.

Mr. C. Lehane

Believing that there is not that undue bias against rail transport in the mind of the present Minister, some of us might perhaps be inclined to let that affect our approach to the suggested amendment. However, I think the strongest argument in favour of the amendment was that an undertaking had been given by the Minister's predecessor, and that that undertaking should be honoured. I am prepared to use that as the touchstone whereby I will decide my attitude on this matter. If Deputy Lemass is correct in his statement that he gave an undertaking which he intended to honour in respect of branch lines closed down under an Emergency Powers Order, then I think that undertaking should be honoured. On the general principle, inasmuch as lines were closed down due to emergency conditions, I think it is a fair argument, and one that can be urged with some force on the Minister, that, when those conditions no longer operate, the Emergency Powers Order closing branch lines should not be allowed to continue to operate, and that if there is a case for closing branch lines then the other appropriate method should be adopted.

Mr. Cogan

I am inclined to agree with Deputy C. Lehane that there is a case for going into this matter thoroughly and deciding, on the merits of the case, whether those branch lines are to be closed or not. I happen to represent a constituency in which two very long stretches of branch lines have been closed. The Woodenbridge-Shillelagh branch line was referred to. I understand, in regard to it, that under the old Act steps were initiated to have it permanently closed. As far as I know, it was only in the position of being temporarily closed, but the fact is that for a long time the rails have been completely removed. The grass is now growing where the track used to be, and the property has deteriorated to a great extent.

With regard to the Sallins-Tullow branch line, a service is not being operated there except the running of a goods train on fair days. There, again, the track is deteriorating rapidly. With regard to that branch line, I think the old company did definitely indicate that they contemplated closing it permanently. It could not, however, have been closed without an inquiry. I think it would be desirable to have the machinery of an inquiry put into operation at the earliest possible date. It is rather undesirable to continue the present emergency closing. In present conditions it is hardly justifiable.

I think that the position of branch lines must be judged in the light of the transport policy of the new nationalised company. If the plans of the new company are progressive, and if the policy is to co-ordinate rail and road transport by maintaining the maximum mileage on the railways, then we can look forward to those branch lines being reopened. I think the situation has changed in many ways. We have, of course, increased supplies of fuel for rail transport.

Another matter which has arisen in recent years is the growing feeling of alarm in regard to the weight of traffic that has been put on the county roads. I think it is appalling to see heavy lorries with heavy trailers being put on roads which were never constructed for that purpose. It would be desirable if a time limit could be put to the emergency and so have the whole matter fully investigated in the light of present circumstances: in the light of the interests of the people in the districts served by these branch lines, and in the light of the interests of the ratepayers who, in the main, contribute to the upkeep of the roads.

Mr. Allen

I support the amendment and I suggest that the Minister should accept it. I think that the new tribunal should be given the opportunity of deciding in the light of railway policy in the future, whether these branch lines should remain closed permanently or be reopened. Local authorities throughout the country are seriously perturbed by the amount of heavy traffic which ordinarily would be carried by the railways but which is now carried on the roads. I and many other Deputies said here before that millions of pounds must be spent in making roads to carry the traffic that is being put on them, whether passenger traffic or heavy goods traffic. If the railways are to get a new start under Government auspices in the future there should be a determination by some tribunal with regard to the continued existence or otherwise of the railways.

It was understood generally in the country that the Emergency Powers Order was made to cover the period of the emergency only. I am quite certain that Deputy Davin, as a railway man and with a railways bias, understands that well, and that he would like to see an examination by a tribunal as to whether they should be reopened or not. It is of the utmost importance that such a determination should be made by a tribunal which would examine all aspects of the question from the national point of view.

Mr. S. Collins

I make a slightly different appeal to the Minister. The branch lines are a problem. We know now that the whole railway system is a sorry problem. The appeal I make to the Minister is to get down to the question of the branch lines and to let us have the full significant facts relevant to each branch line. Where the situation is that it is impracticable, uneconomical and practically insane to run a branch line, let us tell the people of the area what the real facts are and get rid of this queer kind of cancer once and for all, because there may be a very legitimate case to be made for the complete cessation of any work on certain branch lines. I appeal to the Minister to get the thing clear once and for all. I think that this House, even the most loquacious of us on branch lines, will be reasonable in the circumstances where it can be satisfactorily argued and established that it would be reasonable to close down a branch line. Do not play with the problem. There is no good holding forth the opening of any branch line in any area unless it is practicable and feasible and part of a necessary national plan. I appeal to the Minister to get the thing settled once and for all.

Mr. Colley

Mr. Lemass

Not at all.

Mr. Desmond

I am thankful to the Minister for the information which he has given. However, I still am not clear about the particular branch line of which I was speaking—the Timoleague-Courtmacsherry line—in view of the following letter dated 28ú Mean Fomhair, 1949, which I received from the Minister's Department:—

"I am desired by the Minister for Industry and Commerce to refer to your recent representations regarding the Timoleague-Courtmacsherry branch railway line. An Act of the Oireachtas would appear to be necessary to empower Córas Iompair Éireann to operate any engine, carriage and vehicle on this branch railway line with a greater axle load than 8 tons or at a speed in excess of 25 miles per hour. Furthermore, the Minister has been informed by the company that a heavier axle load would involve full investigation into the strength of the track, bridges and other structures and would probably necessitate expenditure on track improvements and on strengthening or renewing bridges.

In existing circumstances, the Minister would not feel warranted in asking the company to make any change in the present position."

My difficulty is that I am not yet clear whether, under the present Bill, this matter can be finally dealt with or whether the position is that this Bill will not cover the case.

Mr. Morrissey

I do not want the Deputy to be under any illusions. The matter which the Deputy talks about now is not covered in this Bill. Let me say, however, that if this amendment were accepted it would not affect the position of the line in which the Deputy is interested.

Mr. Desmond

Is it not possible that, as in the case of other branch lines, an inquiry can be made? The difficulty would seem to be the question of the axle load. We are told that they are confining the axle load to eight tons but I understand that the line is carrying 20 tons. I consider that we are entitled to some further information.

Mr. Lemass

Question put.

The Dáil divided: Tá, 49; Níl, 67.

Tá

Allen, Denis.
Beegan, Patrick.
Blaney, Neal T.
Boland, Gerald.
Bourke, Dan.
Brady, Seán.
Brennan, Thomas.
Breslin, Cormac.
Briscoe, Robert.
Buckley, Seán.
Burke, Patrick.
Butler, Bernard.
Childers, Erskine H.
Colley, Harry.
Collins, James J.
Corry, Martin J.
Cowan, Peadar.
Crowley, Honor Mary.
De Valera, Vivion.
Flynn, Stephen.
O'Rourke, Daniel.
Rice, Bridget M.
Ruttledge, Patrick J.
Ryan, James.
Ryan, Mary B.
Gilbride, Eugene.
Gorry, Patrick J.
Harris, Thomas.
Hilliard, Michael.
Kennedy, Michael J.
Killilea, Mark.
Kissane, Eamon.
Kitt, Michael F.
Lahiffe, Robert.
Lemass, Seán F.
Little, Patrick J.
Lydon, Michael F.
Lynch, John.
McEllistrim, Thomas.
MacEntee, Seán.
Moylan, Seán.
O Briain, Donnchadh.
O'Grady, Seán.
O'Reilly, Matthew.
Ormonde, John.
Sheridan, Michael.
Smith, Patrick.
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.
Connolly, Roderick J.
Corish, Brendan.
Cosgrave, Liam.
Costello, John A.
Crotty, Patrick J.
Davin, William.
Desmond, Daniel.
Dillon, James M.
Dockrell, Maurice E.
Donnellan, Michael.
Doyle, Peadar S.
Dunne, Seán.
Esmonde, Sir John L.
Everett, James.
Fagan, Charles.
Fitzpatrick, Michael.
Flynn, John.
Giles, Patrick.
Halliden, Patrick.
Hickey, James.
Hogan, Patrick.
Keyes, Michael.
Kinane, Patrick.
Kyne, Thomas A.
Larkin, James.
Lehane, Con.
Lehane, Patrick D.
McAuliffe, Patrick.
MacBride, Seán.
MacEoin, Seán.
McFadden, Michael Og.
McGilligan, Patrick.
McMenamin, Daniel.
McQuillan, John.
Madden, David J.
Mongan, Joseph W.
Morrissey, Daniel.
Mulcahy, Richard.
Norton, William.
O'Gorman, Patrick J.
O'Higgins, Michael J.
O'Higgins, Thomas F.
O'Higgins, Thomas F. (Jun.).
O'Sullivan, Martin.
Palmer, Patrick W.
Pattison, James P.
Redmond, Bridget M.
Reidy, James.
Reynolds, Mary.
Roddy, Joseph.
Rooney, Eamonn.
Sheldon, William A.W.
Spring, Daniel.
Sweetman, Gerard.
Timoney, John J.
Tully, John.

Tellers:—Tá: Deputies Kissane and Kennedy; Níl: Deputies P.S. Doyle and Kyne.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. Lemass

I move amendment No. 36:—

In page 35, line 18, to add after "request" the words "including in relation to any particular locality specified in such request, the adequacy of the facilities provided by the board to meet the reasonable needs of the public, agriculture, commerce, and industry."

The Minister proposes that the tribunal which is to be established by this Bill shall in addition to the functions conferred upon it in Part 8—that is to say, the functions relating to the closing of branch lines—will also, when requested by the Minister, advise him on matters relating to transport services specified in his request. It seems to me that the sub-section is incomplete, that if the tribunal is going to have any sort of general supervisory powers over transport services, or any obligation to advise the Minister concerning transport services, there should be either a reference to the obligations of the company under Section 14 or some particularisation of the matters upon which the tribunal should advise the Minister.

In any case, I think the Minister would be well advised to give to this tribunal the obligation of dealing with complaints that services provided by the company are inadequate. If the Minister gets that type of complaint, as the Bill stands, he can do nothing about it except refer it to the board and the board may or may not pay attention to it. Assuming that the complaint is bona fide, that it represents a genuine demand in the locality concerned, and that that demand is backed by an agitation to ensure the exercise of political pressure upon somebody to get the desired service provided, is it not in the Minister's interest as well as in the general interest that he should have power to do something more about it than merely pass it on to the board?

I suggest that as this tribunal is going to have advisory functions it should have a particular advisory function in relation to requests from the Minister to report upon the adequacy of the service provided, whether by road, rail or canal, to meet the reasonable needs of the public in any locality. If the Minister does not like that phraseology, I would be quite satisfied if he inserts additional words to give him power to request the tribunal to report on the manner in which the board was meeting its obligations under Section 14.

If it is not intended that the tribunal should deal with specific matters of that kind, the adequacy of the facilities provided and the suitability of the arrangements made to meet the convenience of trade or industry in a locality, I am not clear as to what it should report on. It seems to me that is the only matter that the Minister will, as a public representative, be directly concerned in. Any other matters that may possibly be referred to the tribunal would relate more definitely to the administration of the company and should be exclusively the concern of the board.

Mr. Morrissey

This amendment is not necessary. The sub-section says that the Minister may refer any matter concerning transport services to the tribunal. That obviously will include adequate facilities, so therefore this matter is really covered and there is no necessity for the amendment. I think the Deputy will admit that. Any matter regarding transport services may be referred by the Minister.

Mr. Lemass

In which case it will be open to a Deputy to ask the Minister to refer to the tribunal some specific matter? I ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

An Ceann Comhairle

Amendments Nos. 37 to 41, inclusive, follow from amendment No. 19—they are consequential on that amendment.

The following amendments were agreed to:—

37. In page 35, to delete Section 51, lines 19 to 22.—(Aire Tionscail agus Tráchtála.)

38. In pages 35 and 36, to delete Section 52, lines 24 to 58 in page 35 and lines 1 to 4 in page 36.—(Aire Tionscail agus Tráchtála.)

39. In page 36, to delete Section 53, lines 5 to 57.—(Aire Tionscail agus Tráchtála.)

40. In page 37, to delete Section 54, lines 1 to 7.—(Aire Tionscail agus Tráchtála.)

41. In page 37, to delete Section 55, lines 8 to 12.—(Aire Tionscail agus Tráchtála.)

Mr. Morrissey

I move amendment No. 42:—

In page 42, Section 68 (2), line 27, to delete "or 38" and substitute ", 37 or 38".

This also is consequential.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Morrissey

I move amendment No. 43:—

In page 44, Second Schedule, paragraph 1 (1) (a), line 5, to delete "appointed by the Government".

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Cogan

I move amendment No. 44:—

In page 47, Third Schedule, column (3), opposite Ref. No. 3, to delete the figures "1975-85" and substitute "1955-60".

I feel that the House should give favourable consideration to the claim of common stockholders to be put more or less on an equal footing with owners of other stock. It does seem unjust to write down their stock to 80 and I venture to rectify this apparent injustice. I think the Minister will be sympathetic to this proposal, although I have not very great hopes in view of his statement on the Committee Stage. The Minister then stated that he had given this matter very careful consideration.

I think it necessary to remark that holders of common stock, particularly those who have held that stock over a long period, had their property written down to 10 per cent. in 1933 and under this measure it is being further reduced. Many of the people who hold those investments are comparatively poor; in some cases they are very poor people. There would seem to be a reasonable case for the Minister giving them the small concession asked for in the amendment.

Mr. Morrissey

I am sorry I cannot accept this amendment. I do not think the stockholders have any complaint to make.

Mr. Cogan

They are making it.

Mr. Morrissey

I know they are, but I do not think there is any good ground for it. Under the terms of the Bill, the stockholders are being guaranteed practically 2½ per cent. with the eventual redemption of their stock within a reasonable period. Having regard to the position in which we found this company and to what was likely to happen to the stockholders and their stock, if there is one section of the community who ought to be extremely thankful that this company is being taken over and that this Bill is going through Dáil Éireann, it is these stockholders. It is admitted by most of the stockholders—the trouble is that there is always a small minority who are vocal, although they are not so vocal this year as last year—that the terms set down here are not merely just but border almost on being generous.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Morrissey

I move amendment No. 45:—

In page 52, Sixth Schedule, paragraph 5, lines 32 and 33, to delete "appointed by the Government".

Amendment agreed to.

Bill, as amended, received for final consideration.

Final Stage ordered for Wednesday, 8th March.

Dáil Éireann debate - Tuesday, 7 Mar 1950

Committee on Finance. - Transport Bill, 1949—Report Stage.

Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 7 Mar 1950