Is that the new Section 26?
Transport Bill, 1958—Committee Stage (Resumed).
Question again proposed: "That Section 26 stand part of the Bill."
No, it is the old section.
There is no amendment to Section 26.
This is the section dealing with illegal haulage and the provision of increased fines for the second and subsequent offences?
Yes.
We should like to avail of this opportunity to stress again, if it needs stressing, the very widespread illegal haulage that has been carried on for a great many years now. It is generally accepted on all sides that the existing arrangements have proved to be quite inadequate to deal with the situation. Like the Minister, I do hope that the provisions of this section will prove to the adequate to discourage in every possible way the illegal haulage that has been carried on.
It will be appreciated that there is little use in increasing fines and introducing more penal terms in this Bill, if, parallel with that, adequate steps are not taken to pursue the illegal hauliers and to make provision for adequate detection of illegal haulage. The position, as I understand it, has been that up to six months ago there were only two Gardaí in the whole country specially detailed to this work in a full-time capacity and that the number has now been increased to four. However, it must be quite obvious to everybody that four full-time officers engaged on this work cannot even touch on the fringes of this widespread abuse.
Those of us who know something of the work on which these officers have been engaged would like to pay tribute to them for the manner in which they have performed it under such a very severe handicap, but I do hope the Minister will seriously consider putting more men on this job throughout the country. It is scarcely fair to expect the local Garda to be sufficiently conversant with what is a difficult Act to interpret to do this job. Certainly in the past they have received no encouragement at all. We found that a Garda, after considerable trouble detecting the crime and bringing the offender into court, got very little encouragement because even when he proved his case, the fine was very low. I am glad to note that in this section the Minister has taken steps to deal with that aspect, and I hope he will take the one necessary step further, that is, to increase the number of full-time inspectors charged with detecting offences against the Road Transport Act as envisaged in this section.
I must again say that there is a new road being opened to the illegal haulier by virtue of the new section brought in here by way of ministerial amendment last week. We must put up with it now, but I would once more urge the Minister to make quite sure that the word "tractor" as it appears in the section will get the interpretation he intends it to get and that interpretation only. The Minister did indicate that he could possibly copperfasten the matter by bringing in an amendment on Report Stage to describe it as an agricultural tractor, but it is my opinion that that would scarcely cover the case because I understand that an agricultural tractor has not been described and the front portions of the vehicles to which I referred on the last day might squeeze in under the term "agricultural tractor".
Perhaps the Minister would indicate at this stage what steps he intends to take to deal with the rather serious illegal haulage being carried on by lorries coming in from Northern Ireland. Over the past three years, at least, you have people coming to fairs and markets with lorries from Northern Ireland, people who, so far as we are concerned, are paying, no licence or road tax and who most of us strongly suspect, are actually drawing illegally.
So far as illegal haulage by Six County lorries is concerned, that would more properly arise on Section 27. The arrangements made by the Garda Síochána for enforcing the law are, of course, a matter for the Commissioner, but discussions have been held with the Garda authorities with a view to considering how the requirements of the Act could be made clear to the Garda throughout the country and to examining the practicability of improving their arrangements.
The enactment of this Bill will get rid of what was regarded as a source of discouragement to the Garda, namely, the inadequate fines imposed by the District Courts when offenders were detected and convicted. However, the need for effective arrangements to enforce the provisions of the Road Transport Act is fully recognised and following the enactment of this Bill, I think they will be very greatly strengthened.
Can the Minister say if this is the first occasion on which the Probation of Offenders Act has been withdrawn?
No. I am told it is not the first occasion. It was recommended by the Beddy Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 27.
I move amendment No. 25:—
After Section 27 to add a new section as follows:—
(1) There shall by virtue of this section be established a transport advisory council which shall consist of five members.
(2) The advisory council shall consist of five members, namely:—
(a) a chairman, who shall be nominated by, and may be removed from office by, the Minister;
(b) four ordinary members who shall be nominated by, and may be removed from office by, the Minister.
(3) Of the four ordinary members of the advisory council to be nominated by the Minister, one shall be a person who is experienced in passenger transport, a second shall be a person who is experienced in road freight transport, a third shall be a person who is experienced in commercial and industrial affairs and a fourth shall be a person who is experienced in labour matters.
(4) Every member of the advisory council shall, unless he sooner dies, resigns or is removed from office, hold office for a period not exceeding three years and shall be eligible for renomination.
Amendments Nos. 25 to 29 could be taken together.
Yes. It is all the one amendment. I do not know how it got divided. This amendment is based on the recommendations of the Beddy report, where the matter was reviewed in paragraph 469 and the two following paragraphs. It stated that there should be a regular overall review of transport policy and workings, by what was described as a transport council, composed of a small number of selected people, chosen for their abilities and knowledge of business and transport, who would have no administrative responsibility or functions and would not be responsible for transport policy.
It is recommended in the Beddy report that this body would be purely consultative, but that it would undertake a continuous review and be entitled to consult any interested body or bodies and make an annual report to the Minister. I am impressed by the arguments used in the Beddy report in favour of this continuous review.
It is true that, as the report points out, there have been three specific inquiries in the last 20 years. All of those inquiries were undertaken when transport arrangements, either financial or otherwise, reached the stage at which the whole problem caused the Government of the day such anxiety that a review was instituted. In 1938; ten years later, in 1948; and, lastly, in 1956—the Beddy Committee—transport conditions and arrangements were reviewed, as they were found on those various dates. In the meantime, on each occasion, decisions had been taken which affected the transport policy as operated during the period between those investigations.
It is suggested in this recommendation of the Beddy Committee that sometimes decisions may be taken by either the transport organisation or the Government where, if the matter were the subject of review by people who had no direct responsibility for administration or policy, it would be possible to correct, if such were necessary, any wrong decisions or lines of policy adopted. On the other hand, in the light of the working of whatever policy was adopted or decisions taken, recommendations could be made, if the circumstances warranted it, which would enable a better decision or a wiser policy to be operated that is the case if no review is undertaken on a continuous basis.
It is recommended, therefore, that this should be a consultative body without administrative responsibility, that it should review the problem annually, that it should furnish an annual report—and, where necessary, interim reports—and that it would have the right to consult the transport organisations or any other organisation, group or body affected by transport policy. I am not wedded to the principles suggested in the amendment, if the Minister or the House considers that a different type of committee would be more suitable. There is another amendment down in the names of Deputy Norton and other Deputies of the Labour Party, suggesting a different type of council. My idea was to secure that the recommendation, which appears to be a sound one and which is based on the experience of the Beddy Committee, would mark a departure from the arrangements which have existed hitherto—that only when transport reached a position when it caused anxiety to the Government, either from the financial viewpoint or because of the working of the transport arrangements, was an inquiry instituted.
It is recommended, therefore, that some form of transport advisory council or consultative council be established which would be enabled to keep transport policy, and the result of such transport policy, under continuous review, that it would be a consultative body without administrative responsibility or responsibility for public policy on these matters, and that it would report periodically, and at least annually, to the Minister. He would be under no obligation to accept the report, but it would enable those interested to have the whole problem kept under constant review, with a view to securing that whatever decisions were taken were taken in the light of the experience gained by reviewing previous policy and reviewing continuously the results of transport policy as it affected the State, on the one hand, and the users, on the other.
I am rather in agreement in principle with the amendment proposed by Deputy Cosgrave, in so far as it seeks to do something in the nature of what our following amendment desires; but I feel ours is much stronger, because it gives definition to the duties of a council. While it makes provision for giving the board of C.I.E. a completely free hand, it still puts a brake on them. I feel that the proposal in our amendment is a much stronger one than that in Deputy Cosgrave's, but it points in the same direction.
There is a desire on his part, obviously, to have a consultative council or advisory council of some sort to advise the board on the whole transport interests of the country, irrespective of what they themselves might think. I think that is very well taken care of in our following amendment and, because of that, we favour the rather larger board with well defined duties, which we have proposed in our amendment.
I confess that I approach these amendments with a certain prejudice, because I dislike the idea of setting up an executive body, giving them a job to do and then establishing another body to discuss and criticise what they are doing, even without any power to interfere. I do not think that makes for efficiency. If we are to have a transport council or committee—call it what you like—I think we should make it the board of directors of C.I.E. That is my approach to the matter. I think we should pick out the people who are best qualified to deal with all these problems of transport policy and to supervise the development of transport services in the country, and put them in charge of the whole business, not in a back room as a group of people, who discuss and talk and publish reports, but as people who will have responsibility for carrying out the ideas which commend themselves to them.
This is not the first time we have had a proposal for a transport advisory council. I confess that I had not always the ideas I have now. These ideas are the fruit of experience. When I brought the Transport Act of 1944 to the Dáil, I provided in it for a transport council which was called an advisory committee. That committee was set up in 1946. So far as I can find out, it never functioned. I ceased to be Minister for Industry and Commerce in 1947 and my successor, Deputy Morrissey, very wisely did not reappoint anybody when the terms of office of the members of the committee expired. Finally, he abolished it altogether in the Transport Act which he introduced in 1950.
I do not know if Deputies have given thought to the function of the bodies they propose. Deputy Cosgrave based his recommendation upon the report of the Beddy Committee. That committee contemplated a council which would deal with broad questions of transport policy and keep under review trends and developments in both public and private transport. It would, they added, have no function in regard to the day-to-day working of transport organisations and would have no responsibility for the policy of these organisations.
Imagine a board of directors with that day-to-day responsibility, whose job it is to be aware of all trends and developments affecting public and private transport of the country seeking to devise the best methods of serving the national interest in the light of these trends and developments and taking decisions on the basis of their own judgment; and another body somewhere else composed, according to the Beddy Committee, of people who have no special knowledge of transport and who are to be appointed because of their general knowledge of affairs, not because of any specialised knowledge of transport problems or any acquaintance with transport problems, examining these questions and publishing an annual report on them. It is inconceivable to my mind that that body would not want, at some stage, to interfere in the day-to-day operations of the national transport organisation and get its views known to the executive body in a way which would be likely to influence its decisions.
If that consultative committee or council which is recommended agrees with what is being done by the executive board, there is no value in having it at all. If it disagrees, it will only be an impediment to the successful working of the organisation. Apparently the Beddy Committee thought it undesirable that the transport position of this country should be brought under review in relation to its broad economic aspects and the national situation generally from time to time by ad hoc committees. It is true that we have had a number of inquiries by committees or tribunals set up for the purpose. They believed that, instead of having that periodic examination by separate bodies, we should have a continuous examination by one body.
I disagree with that entirely. It seems to me that one body conducting a continuous review is bound at the end to become set in its opinions and bound to feel that it has to justify, as the years go on, the recommendations it made in earlier years and is less likely to be able to take a new look at the situation as would a new ad hoc body set up for that purpose. I am not contending that it is not desirable to have an examination from time to time of the broad aspects of transport policy and its effect upon national economic development. I do not think the best way to do it is to have a statutory committee in continuous session.
It could he said that it would simplify matters more for me to do as I did in the 1944 Act and provide for an advisory committee or council and leave it at that, knowing it will be ineffective and that it will not be able to function any more than the 1944 Act council and knowing that in due course it will die out as that committee died out. The suggestion for such a council appears to derive from a wrong approach to this whole question.
This is a nationalised undertaking. We are not dealing now with an organisation in which there is a private interest. It is a national undertaking of which the people of this country are the owners. It is an undertaking controlled by legislation passed by this House and managed by people who are appointed by the Minister for Industry and Commerce responsible to this House.
I am a great believer, in a situation of that kind, in picking the best people available and handing the responsibility to them, provided one is prepared to be ruthless in relieving them of that responsibility if they do not measure up to it. It is bad to give them a buffer they can lean back on, an excuse they can offer when they make a mistake, that some council or committee has recommended the course or, alternatively, to put them into the position of having to fight against views they consider to be wrong if they are not prepared to adopt them.
With regard to the amendment moved by Deputy Kyne, the amendment in the names of some members of the Labour Party, it seems to me that they are going altogether in the wrong direction. They propose in effect to bring back the transport tribunal into being and to require that decisions taken by the executive board will be subjected to public inquiries and to review by the consultative council they propose. I would not agree to that at all. That seems to be contrary to the whole spirit of the Bill.
The idea here is to reconstitute C.I.E. with freedom of action, knowing that they have a very difficult transport problem to handle and knowing that if they are to achieve the aim of establishing themselves on an economic basis of working within five years, they must use that freedom of action fairly extensively. You cannot put them in that position if at the same time you put up another body which can hold public inquiries and make critical comments on their work.
The principle of this Bill is that, in respect of the operation of its services, C.I.E. is to be given greater freedom than it had heretofore. I would not be prepared to go back on that by setting up a committee which would have the powers contemplated in the amendment. I do not want to convey the impression that I think it is of very great importance whether there is a consultative committee or not. I do not think it is. I do not think a committee of that kind can matter very much in the future any more than it did in the past. If such a committee is provided for in this Bill, it will have exactly the same history and die exactly the same death as the corresponding committee in the 1944 Act.
Anyone listening to the Minister would think that the consultative council or advisory council would be composed of people who would deliberately set out to obstruct C.I.E. It is intended that the persons appointed would be reasonable, ordinary businessmen who, according to the Labour Party amendment, would represent certain interests. The amendment suggests that three of the persons appointed should be representative of trade unions of workers. The simple reason for that is that the workers' livelihood is concerned. It is not likely that the three workers' representatives would work against C.I.E. or try to find fault with the board of C.I.E. or to obstruct the board. They would be critically watchful of the board in the interests of the persons employed in C.I.E. The other persons that we suggest should be appointed, namely, representatives of agriculture, industry and local authorities, would not be likely to wish to smash up C.I.E. or criticise the actions of the board.
The purpose behind the Labour Party amendment is that such vital questions as, say, the closing of a rail or canal service, which may be of vital national importance, should be considered from the national point of view. When these questions are regarded purely from the point of view of the prosperity of C.I.E., which would be the board's main concern, their national effect might not be clearly seen.
All we ask is that if the proposed advisory council or consultative council, representing legitimate interests, say that, in their opinion C.I.E. are over-stepping in a particular matter, especially when it is a question of closing a rail or a canal service, the board of C.I.E. will be required to reexamine the matter to see if, in their enthusiasm and interest to do what is best for C.I.E., they are cutting across the national interest.
Surely that is not unreasonable? If the consultative council or advisory council served only that purpose, it would be well worth the Minister's while setting it up. If, as the Minister says, they will be in complete agreement with the board in all the various actions carried out, as they should be if the board acts in a reasonable way, in the interests of the nation and in the interests of C.I.E., there will be no disagreement. In that case, any report they may make will be an echo of the board's recommendations. The only occasion on which there would be disagreement would be when the hardheaded businessmen comprising the council would feel that there was need for consideration and discussion. Our proposal is not in any way obstructive. If the amendment is accepted, C.I.E. can still function effectively, but the national interest will be safeguarded.
Both the amendments suggest practically the same thing. One suggests the setting up of an advisory council; the other suggests the establishment of a consultative council. Inasmuch as such councils would have some control over C.I.E., they are very desirable, but I do not think the amendments go far enough. My fears in regard to this Bill have been that too much authority is being given to C.I.E. I say that on account of the large sums involved.
Although the amendments suggest bringing into consultation persons who have a general outlook and a national outlook, I cannot see how they can prevent C.I.E. from doing anything they want to do. I should like to see the amendments go a little farther. I suggest that there could be embodied in either of the amendments a provision that the company should not take any definite action, such as closing a line or a waterway, until such time as the Minister had reviewed the facts put before him by the council.
The Minister says that this is a national transport organisation. In that case, the nation should have some say in the matter one way or the other. Unless the Bill is considerably amended and unless the amendments go farther than the amendments now under discussion go, we are simply setting up a national transport organisation to do what they like, without any say on the part of the nation. That is the point I want to put to the Minister.
It would be a very good thing if the Minister were to accept either of the amendments or to bring in an amendment on Report Stage on the same general lines as the amendments, if he does not wish to accept them in their present form. I would ask him to go further, to ensure that, when the Bill leaves the House, we are not completely handing over the internal transport, as I feel we will be unless there is some safeguard against action that may be taken by the company concerned.
I have read the Beddy Report. As far as I can understand, it did not envisage a state of affairs in which the company should be absolutely free to do just what they please. I would ask the Minister to take that into consideration and perhaps bring in some more stringent control so that this Bill will not go through the House without some guarantee of safeguards in the future.
I was somewhat disappointed to hear the Minister, in reply to Deputy Cosgrave, indicating that his one-time faith in consultative machinery had disappeared and that he was opposing the amendment submitted by Deputy Cosgrave and the amendment submitted by the Labour Party because he thought the consultative type of machinery proposed in both amendments would no longer, in principle, be satisfactory. I wonder if the Minister has carefully read the amendment in the names of Deputy Norton and others? It is quite clear that the amendment seeks to ensure, if at all possible, that a representative council will be set up whose function would be to review all aspects of internal transport—internal transport is not confined to C.I.E.—and to examine the developments that take place from time to time in internal transport from the point of view of the groups of which the council is representative. The amendment refers to fairly wide groups—representatives of agriculture, representatives of industry, representatives of trade unions of workers, representatives of local authorities.
The Minister indicated that he thought that a board or council or committee charged with the executive functions of operating a service was the only type of board that could see the transport problems, evaluate changes that may have to be made and put them into operation. The very fact that a board is dealing with day to day affairs and has to make decisions day after day, week after week, of a major or major nature, makes it more difficult for that board to examine objectively the developments taking place in internal transport. The Minister informed the House that the Transport Advisory Committee set up in 1944 never functioned. I do not think we have to remind the Minister or remind ourselves that we have had a number of Transport Acts and a number of discussions in this House on the functioning of C.I.E. over the years and up to the present day I do not think anybody has found a perfect solution to the problem. I doubt that even the Minister's Bill before us to-day will prove a perfect solution. We hope it will be an improvement on the present situation.
I agree with the Minister when he says there would be no point in setting up a consultative or advisory council that can never meet or never function and consequently, I would ask that he would at least have a look at these amendments between now and the Report Stage and see if the adoption of the amendments as they are, or even if they were changed in some respect, would be of value to his Bill.
One portion of the amendment to which the Minister referred proposes that, prior to the board of C.I.E. deciding as a result of the powers given to it in general under the Bill to close a railway station or a branch line, such a decision should be examined by the consultative council which should be able to recommend that the decision be reconsidered. I think the aim of that portion of the amendment is reasonable, seeing that even in this Parliament there is another Chamber where Bills like this are considered. Whether everybody agrees with that or not is beside the point; that is the system which operates here, and the purpose of that part of the amendment to which I am referring is to provide a breathing space during which a hasty decision, or the effects of such a decision may be reconsidered, if it can be shown that there is good and sufficient reason for such, reconsideration.
This is in no way a suggestion of a return to the Transport Tribunal. I think the Minister will agree that under the Bill C.I.E. will have power to do certain things and that circumstances may arise in which it might be to the benefit of C.I.E., as well as to the benefit of the citizens, if the operation of that power were not taken away from them, but delayed a little, so that the proposal could be examined. If a very material and substantial reason could be advanced against it to the board of C.I.E. for not taking the action contemplated, this part of the amendment would provide the necessary machinery for reconsideration.
I think the same thing applies to the amendment of Deputy Cosgrave, as both amendments have been put in with a view to assisting and not just to have committees set up to hamper or handcuff C.I.E. Outside that proposal, the remainder of the arguments submitted by members of the Labour group are mainly concerned to ensure that a consultative council would at all times keep an eye on what is happening in internal transport, issue reports on the matter and deal also with any matters which the Minister for the time being decided to refer back for examination and report. It would have no power to interfere with the executive functions of C.I.E., but it would give somebody apart from the Minister—who will always have to take some responsibility in the matter —machinery by which a group representing a wide section of the community could view the development of internal transport in an objective manner and from the point of view of the community as a whole and not merely from C.I.E.'s limited and subjective approach.
I am not very much impressed by Deputy Larkin's argument that, because we have a bicameral system here, we should have a bicameral system of administration for C.I.E. This is a business organisation, and if we are to take any example, it would be that of a successful commercial organisation we should follow. In an ordinary business concern, there is a board of directors responsible to the body of shareholders and each year it has to report on the outturn of the year's business. That board of directors will meet the shareholders to justify its administration of the company's affairs. In the case of a national organisation, this House represents the shareholders and the law stipulates that the board of C.I.E. must submit to this House every year a full report of all its activities, setting out the financial results of its operations, the problems it has encountered, the matters it dealt with during the year. That report can be discussed and views expressed upon it.
It is true that the practice has developed here of appointing as directors of these State organisations people chosen for that purpose upon warrants which secure them in their positions for a stated period of years, usually five years, and of course that is a very necessary provision, if one is to attract into the boards of these concerns people who have the competence to act upon them and the enthusiasm and desire to make them successful. But there is always provision by which rectifying steps can be taken if matters are going fundamentally wrong and if that appears to be attributable to misdirection of the undertaking by the board concerned. That is the situation as I visualise it.
Deputies have suggested that there should be this executive body composed of the best people whom we can pick for the job and another body, presumably composed of second-best people, to criticise what the best people are doing. There would be some sense in that, perhaps, if every now and again we provided for a changeover by which the critics would take responsibility for running C.I.E. and those who had been running the show would have the privilege of criticising them for a period. I do not know that it would lead to efficient management.
I think it is quite wrong for Deputy Dr. Esmonde to suggest that there can be no discussion or criticism of C.I.E., except by some body of persons nominated for that purpose by the Minister who has already appointed the Board of C.I.E. That is what his argument contemplates. I would not be averse from the idea of having a committee or body of people set up as the need arose to carry out a broad review of the transport situation covering developments in private transport as well as public transport, as the Beddy Report contemplated, when it was obvious that something had taken place to create the need—some new technical development, some change in the economic circumstances, some failure of the system as devised by legislation to produce the result required. However, we do not need a statutory provision to enable such a body to be brought into existence. It has been done before by resolution of the House. It has even been done by ministerial request, without any resolution of the House. We do not need and I think it would be dangerous to have a statutory body with this obligation to find faults-because that is how I see it would regard itself as being compelled to work—if fault is to be found.
I could not agree at all with the proposal in the Labour Party amendment which involves this body in having a part in the administration of the system, because that is what their proposal contemplates. Deputy Dr. Esmonde says there is no difference between the amendments but, in fact, there is a fundamental difference between them. To some extent, if not entirely, Deputy Cosgrave is following the recommendation of the Beddy Committee while the Labour Party amendment got away from it altogether. They contemplate this committee taking over the work of the old tribunal, having the power to conduct an inquiry and to require C.I.E. to delay taking any action they thought justified until the committee had examined it. What competence would they have to examine it?
Think of what the Beddy Commission itself faced. They set out to consider what curtailment of the railway system would be practicable. However, they had not, and could not get for themselves, the information which would enable them to assess the economic justification for discontinuing any section of line. That was a job for experts and it could only be undertaken by those who knew all aspects of the problem. In the end, the Beddy Committee produced a map in regard to which they said it was only an illustration of what they had in mind. The job of deciding what form the future railway system will take is one for persons who are thoroughly trained in all aspects of that matter. How could an advisory committee be a better judge of these matters than men who, from day to day, must make and justify their decisions and carry the full responsibility for them? It would be unwise to release them from full responsibility for these decisions.
This is not a new idea. It was tried before. I do not know why, in 1948 or 1949, Deputy Morrissey decided to let the committee set up under the 1944 Act die by not reappointing its members when their term of office was up. I did not disagree with his proposal in 1950 to abolish it altogether. It seemed to me there was no need to keep that type of body in existence. Then he set up a tribunal which was given the power of deciding whether or not a service should be curtailed or withdrawn or whether any alteration in the railway system should be implemented. It was in relation to our knowledge of the operation of that tribunal that we came to the conclusion that it was not necessary at all.
This particular problem we are now facing has to be solved by giving the power and the freedom to solve it to those who have the job of doing so and you cannot get from them the results we are seeking if they are circumscribed by investigations, inquiries and committees at every stage. I do not think that is a good system. If there are any general strong feelings about having a sort of harmless committee of inquiry I would feel reluctant to withhold it but if such committee has any real power attached to it then we shall have to oppose it.
The best thing to do is to leave the matter as it stands, recognising that there will be ample opportunity to all the interests mentioned in the amendment to make their views known at any time they think something is happening in relation to transport that is undesirable. The Deputy cannot talk about a committee which will compose three representatives of trade unions. Does he contemplate that these three persons would be accepted as the representatives of the trade unions in all matters of transport policy? Surely not. They would not even be accepted by the trade unions representing them.
There are three different interests in the workers' groups within the trade union movement.
You have on the present board of C.I.E. some members who are not trade union representatives but whose experience in life was gained in the trade union movement. You have the desire of the trade unions for a more effective machinery for regular consultation on matters affecting the organisation and management of C.I.E. I cannot see how you can serve their interest by interposing between them a body of this kind who are there as representatives of the trade unions—not three people chosen because of experience in trade unions, and so on, but three people chosen as representatives of that particular interest.
The Beddy Committee did not contemplate any such body. They were specific that the people who were to be appointed were not to be representative of anyone. They contemplated that the council should consist of persons of eminence in spheres of activity not connected directly with transport and selected for their outstanding personal ability and wide general experience. I hope we shall be able to get people for the board of C.I.E. who will fulfil all these qualifications. It will be an achievement if we do.
I cannot see that it would be in any way effective to set up a statutory committee in the way contemplated here. If other circumstances arise, as they have arisen in the past, where some new examination of the transport position is required, it is better to do it, as we did it in the past, by ad hoc committees or tribunals. I do not think, however haphazard that system appears to be, it has worked badly. We have had these committees at each crucial stage—before the war, after the war and this Beddy Committee set up in 1956. Anyone who wants to know what has happened in transport and why it happened can get in the reports of these committees a far more accurate picture than they could get, I think, from a committee which was in continuous session. Inevitably, that committee in continuous session would formalise its approach to the problems and its viewpoints on them. In no time, it would quickly use up whatever utility it might conceivably have unless its personnel were changed regularly.
We should thank the Minister for Industry and Commerce for prefacing his remarks by saying he approached this amendment with a biassed mind. That saves us the trouble of going to extremes to endeavour to convince him of the merits of the advisory council, as envisaged in this amendment. It is not quite fair of the Minister to compare the C.I.E. organisation with an ordinary commercial firm and to regard the board of C.I.E. as one might regard, in the ordinary way, the board of an outside firm. This C.I.E. organisation is a different organisation altogether. We cannot forget that they are there charged with providing in this country a public, economic, integrated system of transport by rail, road and canal for freight and passengers.
Every section of the community has a vital interest in ensuring that the board of C.I.E., as set up, will carry out that job. As far as a commercial undertaking outside C.I.E. is concerned, with the exception of shareholders and those with a direct interest in it, nobody gives two hoots whether it does its job or not; but all of us here, and the people outside the House, are vitally interested and must be vitally interested in the C.I.E. organisation.
Because of that, we feel it is not the most desirable way of handling the situation simply to set up a board, a body of individuals whom the Minister regards as the most suitable people, and then for the next five years let them carry on in their own merry way, perhaps with the best will in the world, but with no responsibility to anybody, without being answerable to the Minister on the day-to-day workings of the organisation, without being responsible to this House and gradually becoming immune, if not highly opposed, to any kind of criticism at all. I think that most of us in this House, from our experience, can say that up to now, at any rate, C.I.E. has shown it dislikes criticism. It dislikes criticism even when that criticism is made in a constructive and helpful manner, and it apparently rejects off-hand any advice that any body would seek to give them, even when that advice comes from the best intentioned sources, and from sources well qualified to give it.
They appear to adopt the attitude that it is absolutely inconceivable the board of C.I.E. would have neglected any particular aspect of transport policy, that it is absolutely inconceivable they could have made an error in any way, and absolutely unthinkable that in many aspects of the organisation there should be defects. There have been defects in connection with the relationship between the board of C.I.E. and the trade unions, and they seem to have got into the frame of mind that they can do no wrong and no ill.
There are no references in either amendment to advising the board of C.I.E.
In amendment No. 26, the duties envisaged for the council as set out are: to keep the position of internal transport under review, to initiate discussions with those engaged in the transport industry, to consider and report on any matters affecting transport policy referred to it by the Minister, to consider proposals by the board for the termination of train services and to publish an annual report. That, quite obviously, is designed to give this suggested council wide powers of advice and wide powers of consultation. I am simply making the point that it would appear to me to be a much more desirable set-up than the one I have already outlined.
We are advocating in this amendment that the people constituting this advisory council should be people who have a very live and very vital interest in the transport industry—the people who are dependent upon that industry for their livelihood, and people representative of the commercial, agricultural and industrial life of the country and of the local authorities. In other words, it is suggested that there should be available for the benefit of C.I.E., and as an assistance to the Minister, to this House and to the country generally, a body composed of people who, for one reason or another, have a vital stake in the transport industry, who are deeply concerned with ensuring that the policy being pursued is leading towards success. Such a body would be composed of people who are dependent for their livelihood on transport, people from whom C.I.E. expects support in the commercial and industrial life of the country, and people representative of a cross-section of the general public who use public transport, as represented by people from the local authorities.
The Minister has indicated that he had preconceived ideas about this, so there is no use in pursuing it ad nauseam, but, personally, I feel that such a body would be very much more advantageous than the policy we have adopted up to now, under which commissions and committees of inquiry are set up to inquire into public transport only at a stage when practically everything has gone wrong. That has been the policy up to now. We have allowed the board of C.I.E. to carry on in its own merry way and then we come to a stage when the Minister in power at the time has to say: “We cannot allow this to go on.”
There would not be much point in carrying out an inquiry when everything is going all right. It is only at a time when things are wrong that you want a committee of inquiry.
I am suggesting that if we had a permanent body, such as is envisaged in this amendment, things could be investigated and remedies suggested before matters got into the mess they usually get into before we set up commissions to inquire into problems as they then exist. It must have struck several people on reading the Beddy report that some of the recommendations in that report could have been made down through the years by such a body as we envisage here.
The Minister quite rightly fears any attempt which might be construed as setting up a body to replace the Transport Tribunal, a body which might be as cumbersome as the old Transport Tribunal was in dealing with the closure of branch lines. I can say that no such thing is envisaged in this amendment and, as pointed out by Deputy Kyne and Deputy Larkin, the most the suggested body would be able to do would be to compel C.I.E. to reconsider a closure proposal, the council having got the views of the various interests concerned. The fact is that, in the absence of a body such as this advisory council, the position henceforth under this Bill will be that C.I.E. can close a branch line without consulting anybody.
They are charged under this Bill only with stating that a branch line is uneconomic in its operation and there appears to be no prospect of its continued operation being economic within a reasonable period. They need only state that and they need not prove it. Nobody can challenge them. They have only to make a bald statement that a branch line is uneconomic and is not likely to pay its way within a reasonable time. Nobody is likely to challenge them on such a statement, or challenge whatever statistics they may have in support of it. Nobody is entitled to get such statistics and nobody is entitled to challenge them. Under this Bill C.I.E. is at liberty to close a line simply by making a false statement that it is uneconomic.
For what use it is, I ask the Minister again to have another look at the amendments to see if between now and Report Stage he would consider setting up some type of body such as we have suggested to avoid the dangers that we feel are in the Bill as it stands.
I do not know whether it is a human attribute or failing, but it is certainly a human characteristic to resent criticism, and I suppose C.I.E. are no different from anybody else in that regard. Any individual or group that is criticised is following a well-known characteristic of people everywhere in fighting against it. There is a difference in appointing an executive body and giving them freedom to operate an organisation without a periodic or annual review and superimposing, as the Minister described it, another body which necessarily had to be second best, if it is accepted that the first body is the best that is available— that is where the body, company or organisation concerned does not make an annual demand on the Exchequer.
At this stage we need not go into the whole background of C.I.E. C.I.E. is probably charged with performing a most difficult task in taking over a number of organisations amalgamated into one company and being expected to run it at a profit when, at the same time, the conditions under which the whole basis on which that organisation was initially established, and certainly the manner in which the railway end of it was established, have altered radically. There is here, I believe, a case for a continued review in order to see how policy is working.
On the previous section, when we were considering the amendment introduced by the Minister to permit agricultural tractors to draw, for reward, cattle to live-stock marts, we had an example of how a clash of interests may occur between what is regarded as sound national policy in present conditions of transport, and present conditions of marketing, present trends by which farmers sell cattle in these marts or, for that matter, sales conducted under the auspices of the farmers' organisations. We had a case where C.I.E. were themselves violently opposed to it, and it is obvious that any group charged with responsibility for making this body pay must oppose anything which, in their view, would result in any drop in business or in the likely supply of goods or live stock available for carriage by the company. On the other hand, it is equally obvious to those who are not charged directly with the day-to-day administration of that body, and who have to consider wider national considerations, that it is in the public interest to allow farmers to carry their own live stock and their neighbours' live stock to marts within a certain radius. It is quite natural that C.I.E. should resist proposals of that sort.
It is of course true that we can, at any time, either by ministerial decision, or by decision of the Government, or failing that, by resolution of either or both Houses of the Oireachtas, establish a committee of inquiry. One immediate criticism of an ad hoc committee which is generally made is that it is either set up to get whatever Government are in office out of a difficulty, or to give them an alibi for whatever policy they are going to adopt. That is one criticism expressed here of any of these ad hoc committees when they are set up—that they are set up either for the purpose of buying time, until circumstances change, or of giving the Government who may already have an idea of what they want to do, the backing of a report from such a committee.
In this case, the Beddy Tribunal, which was generally accepted as having furnished a very useful report, a report which avoided a great many of the drawbacks by which some of these reports are characterised, dealt with matters expeditiously and furnished a practical report as quickly as possible. At the same time, it said that it was not possible—with rapid changes in transport undertakings, in equipment and marketing, changes in population in different parts of the country and with transport generally in a state of change—to forecast what the ultimate transport arrangements, or the ultimate suitable transport requirements, might be.
In that set of circumstances, they recommended that there should be a consultative committee or council set up. It was not to be for the purpose of criticising C.I.E., nor of finding fault with any policy they might have adopted, nor for the purpose of advocating transport policy, but to keep the operation of the transport policy and undertakings under review and to make recommendations as to what changes might be desirable, or what decisions already taken might be continued, on the one hand, or altered, on the other. It is in the light of that recommendation that I put down this amendment, and I believe it will enable careful review to be made, without at the same time operating as a superimposed committee or executive body interfering with the already established statutory undertaking which has the responsibility of running the nationalised transport concerns.
I should like to say that I gave a lot of thought to this recommendation in the Beddy Report and I found difficulty in contemplating a useful committee that would not be just the recipient of complaints about C.I.E.—and there are bound to be some complaints by individuals or organisations who think they are not getting the particular service they require. I could not contemplate a committee entitled to receive complaints and not entitled to investigate them. You could not have machinery for investigating which would be adequate because it would cause such interference with the whole C.I.E. organisation that it would risk disrupting it.
I would not be completely averse from having a committee of the character which the Beddy Commission recommended, that is, composed of persons of general experience, not representative of any body, and unpaid, who would be entitled to review and to report to the Minister upon broad aspects of transport policy and the trend and developments in relation to public and private transport and with no other function. I could not contemplate having complainants and disgruntled traders and organisations having access to that committee to get their grievances off their chests. It would be a bad arrangement. My reluctance to set up the committee is because I honestly believe it will not prove any more useful in the whole scheme of things than the committee of 1944.
While it is true that the Beddy Committee contemplated that this committee should exist only for five years, during this reorganisation period, I am not even sure it would last so long, because the 1944 committee did not last so long. I shall give some thought to that but I could not agree under any circumstances to go any further. I could not contemplate a committee with any executive functions whatever. To give such a committee executive functions would be to cut at the very roots of the whole reorganisation scheme represented by this Bill.
Will the Minister consider an amendment for Report Stage?
With considerable hesitation as to its value.
Any idea of a committee that would be the recipient of complaints would be a farce.
My reason for considering it is because I have a feeling that in not accepting that particular recommendation of the Beddy Committee Report I might be misunderstood by the Board of C.I.E. as well as by other people.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendments Nos. 26 to 29, inclusive, not moved.
Section 27 agreed to.
First Schedule agreed to.
SECOND SCHEDULE.
Amendments Nos. 30, 31 and 32 have been ruled out of order as they tend to impose a charge on public revenue.
I have a statement to make in that regard. On the Second Schedule, I want to say that we have had discussions with the trade union representing the salaried staffs of C.I.E. and have received their proposals for an amendment of the Second Schedule. They are acceptable to me and I shall be producing an amendment to that Schedule to give effect to their proposals on the Report Stage. It is satisfactory that we got this agreed outcome after rather protracted discussions.
I should like to express the appreciation of the union to which the Minister refers. The discussions were protracted, difficult and technical. We are very pleased that the Minister has seen his way to meet the views of the trade union.
I move amendment No. 33:—
In paragraph 5, to add at the end of the paragraph the following:—
In the event of such person ceasing to hold such office or employment he shall be paid the full amount of the annual sum.
It seems to me that this is superfluous because it is already covered in the Bill.
The only reason it was put down was to make sure that such a case would be provided for in the section.
It is specifically expressed the other way around—only during the duration of such employment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Second Schedule agreed to.
I have another statement to make before we finish the Committee Stage. In Section 20 of the Bill the draftsman wants to insert commas after "of trains" in line 44 and after "applies" in line 46, for the purpose of clarification. The Dáil Office are willing to insert these commas without formal amendment, but it was thought right I should mention it here.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported with amendments.
Report Stage?
I do not think it would be possible to take it next week. I am anxious, however, to get the Bill on its way before the Great Northern Railway Bill. I do not want one to catch up on the other. Perhaps if we order it for Thursday next week I could have the amendments I have undertaken to produce by then.
Report Stage ordered for Thursday, 19th June, 1958.