Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 8 Jun 1971

Vol. 254 No. 7

Committee on Finance. - Transport (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill, 1971 [Seanad]: Second Stage.

I move: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

The main purpose of the Bill is to provide for the dissolution of the County Donegal Railways Joint Committee and the Strabane and Letterkenny Railway Company and for the transfer of the assets and liabilities of the undertakings to CIE. An important feature of the Bill and one which I will deal with in more detail later is the provision for payment of compensation by the Exchequer to holders of baronial guaranteed shares in the Strabane Company in consequence of the proposed dissolution of the company.

The Bill also contains a number of provisions dealing with measures to improve safety on the railways, the transfer of responsibility for maintenance of road surfaces on overline bridges to local authorities, toll charges at Fiddown Bridge, County Kilkenny, the handling of claims for redundancy compensation under the Transport Acts and with other miscellaneous matters.

The County Donegal Railways Joint Committee operates road passenger and freight services in the southern part of County Donegal. Prior to 1st January, 1960, when the lines were closed, the joint committee operated rail services on its own lines and on the railway line between Strabane and Letterkenny which was owned by the Strabane Company, in which the joint committee holds a majority interest.

The joint committee is owned in equal shares by the Great Northern Railway Board and the British Railways Board. Since 1964, however, the GNR Board's interest in the undertaking has, for all practical purposes, been represented by CIE. British Railways have for many years been anxious to sever their connection with the joint committee and the Government decided in 1961 that CIE should take over the road transport business of the joint committee and should enter into negotiations with British Railways with a view to arriving at a basis for a financial settlement. These negotiations, which were protracted, culminated in CIE signing an agreement with British Railways on 31st May, 1967, the text of which is scheduled to this Bill, whereby, subject to the enactment of the necessary legislation confirming the agreement and payment of the sum of £57,742 by CIE to British Railways, the rights and obligations of British Railways in the joint committee and in the Strabane Company would be transferred to CIE. Pending enactment of the necessary legislation CIE have taken over British Railways' interest in the joint committee and in the Strabane Company. The board had, in fact, taken over management of the undertaking since 1st January, 1966.

To give full effect to the Government decision that CIE should take over the road transport business of the joint committee, CIE also entered into an agreement with the Northern Ireland Transport Holding Company— successors to the Ulster Transport Authority—under which, subject to payment by CIE of a net sum of £3,449, the assets and liabilities of the GNR Board in respect of the joint committee and the Strabane Company would be transferred to CIE. This agreement, which was made in pursuance of the provisions of the agreement scheduled to the Great Northern Railway Act, 1958, was formally approved by the Northern Ireland Ministry of Development on 21st March, 1969, and by my predecessor on 3rd April, 1969.

The terms of the financial settlements with British Railways and the Northern Ireland Transport Holding Company were based on a valuation of the assets of the joint committee and took account of anticipated continuing annual losses on the operation of the Joint Committee's road transport services. No payment was made in respect of goodwill. Things have turned out better than expected, however, and I am glad to be able to say that the Joint Committee's undertaking is now operating at a profit.

The Bill confirms the financial settlement between CIE and British Railways and provides for the transfer to CIE, with effect from a date which I shall fix by order, of the assets and liabilities of the joint committee and of the Strabane Company, excluding any liabilities of the latter company in respect of its baronial guaranteed shares. CIE will continue to provide the road transport services, both passenger and freight, which are being provided at present by the joint committee.

All staff employed by the joint committee immediately before the transfer date will become CIE staff. There are in all about 100 staff involved, of whom 81 are permanent staff. The Strabane company have no employees. I am taking this opportunity to assure the House that no member of the joint committee's staff will be disemployed as a result of the transfer of the CDR undertaking to CIE. It may be found necessary, however, to transfer some clerical staff to CIE locations outside County Donegal, but transfers of other staff are not at present envisaged; the necessity for such transfers at some future date cannot, however, be ruled out. Transfers of CDR staff will be covered by the same arrangements applicable to CIE staff and there will be full consultation between CIE and the trade unions in advance of any such transfers.

Provision is made in the Bill for the preservation of the pension rights of existing and former salaried employees of the joint committee who are members of the British Railway clearing system superannuation fund. These particular staff are being seconded to CIE pending completion of arrangements which are at present being made by CIE to set up a separate fund, with an appropriate share of the assets of the British fund, to which members of the fund in this part of the country, including CDR staff, will be transferred. This will require legislation both here and in Britain in due course. Until these arrangements have been completed it will be necessary to keep the joint committee nominally in existence.

On being transferred to CIE, members of the CDR regular wages grade staff aged between 21 and 50 years will automatically become members of the CIE wages grade pension scheme. The position of employees who are ineligible for membership of this scheme because they are over age will have to be examined by CIE in consultation with the trade unions.

As I have already mentioned, the Bill provides for the dissolution of the Strabane company, in which the joint committee holds all the debenture stock and 87 per cent of the share capital. The remaining shares, which are privately held, include baronial guaranteed shares with a face value of £17,510 and 148 ordinary shares which are not guaranteed. Payment of dividend at the rate of 4 per cent per annum on the baronial guaranteed shares was guaranteed, under statute, by Donegal County Council and by Letterkenny Urban District Council. These guarantees involved the county council and the urban district council in annual payments of £640 and £60 respectively, but following the termination of the joint committee's rail services on 1st January, 1960, the two local authorities discontinued their payments on the grounds that they had been advised that they ceased to be liable for these payments when the railway ceased to operate. The Strabane company, on the other hand, was advised that the liability of the local authorities continued. Apart from 1960, when the Strabane company paid the dividend in anticipation of a settlement of the dispute, no dividend has since been paid to the holders of the baronial guaranteed shares.

I should explain that the guarantees on the baronial guaranteed shares were given to the Strabane company, not to the shareholders, and as such these guarantees would become unenforceable on dissolution of the company. Further, the financial position of the Strabane company is such that there would be no assets available, on a winding up, to make any payments to unsecured shareholders, whether guaranteed as to dividend or not. All the available assets of the company would be claimed by the joint committee, which have priority rights as holder of the company's debenture stock.

In considering this aspect of the matter, the Government were conscious of the fact that in the reorganisation and writing down of the capital of railway companies guaranteed shareholders have generally been treated with some consideration.

In all the circumstances, the Government decided that the holders of the baronial guarantee shares should receive compensation from the Exchequer on the dissolution of the Strabane company. The amount of money involved was relatively small— the total cost to the Exchequer is about £14,500—and the baronial guaranteed shareholders were, after all, the innocent victims of changing circumstances. Section 13 of the Bill provides that CIE shall, within two months of the transfer date, pay to each guaranteed shareholder such amount which, if invested in Government securities, would produce the same amount in interest as he would receive if dividends were being paid on the baronial guaranteed shares. Section 13 also provides for payment of the arrears of dividend on these shares with effect from 1st January, 1961.

The amalgamation of the joint committee's undertaking with CIE is a logical development. The Bill puts a statutory seal on the practical arrangements already made for the transfer of the CDR undertaking to CIE and provides for continuity of the road transport services already operated by the joint committee. It is very satisfactory to be able to record that CIE are taking over an efficient and profitable unit and I hope that this will continue to be the position.

The opportunity is being taken in this Bill to carry out some desirable amendments of transport legislation to improve safety on the railways and to deal with some other miscellaneous matters.

Section 22 of the Bill provides for the substitution of automatic controls for gates at level crossings at which CIE have no statutory obligation to provide attendance, although in some cases attendance is provided. These are level crossings on roads which were not public roads at the time the railway was built but have since been taken in charge by the road authorities concerned. CIE's statutory responsibility is confined to maintaining gates on either side of the railway and it is the responsibility of users to open and close the gates.

There are over 70 such public crossings and some of them carry a considerable volume of traffic. Where no attendance is provided by CIE, the gates are more often than not left open by users of the crossings, thus creating a serious hazard for both road and rail traffic. There has been a number of fatal accidents at these crossings and the question of improving safety arrangements has been under consideration by a working group, comprising representatives of my Department, the Department of Local Government and CIE.

The working group have recommended the installation of automatically controlled flashing lights and bells, without barriers, at seven of the more dangerous crossings, without prejudice to the addition at a later stage of any further protective measures, e.g. barriers, which in the light of experience may be considered necessary. It is expected that the group will recommend similar installations at other crossing as their examination of individual crossings proceeds and that the continuing development of road traffic will create a need for further similar installations in the future.

As the need for these additional safety measures arose out of the growth of road traffic which compelled road authorities to make the roads part of the public road system, section 23 of the Bill provides for the sharing of the cost of providing and maintaining these automatic installations between CIE and the appropriate road authority in each case.

It is proposed in section 25 of the Bill to increase from £2 to £25 the penalty for failure to close gates at unattended level crossings.

Again in the interests of safety, it is proposed in section 29 of the Bill that engine drivers and persons whom CIE wish to train as engine drivers shall be subject to compulsory periodic medical examination, including eyesight tests, in accordance with regulations to be made by me on the application of the board and after consultation with the trade unions representative of the drivers and trainee drivers. CIE have made periodic medical examination a condition of employment since 1968 for new entrants to the grade of locomotive driver and the board are most anxious that such examination should be compulsory for all engine drivers with a view to ensuring the detection at the earliest possible stage of drivers who might be suffering from diseases which would constitute a disability for driving and a public hazard. I am in agreement with the board that this additional safety measure is necessary. It will be a matter for negotiation between CIE and the trade unions as to how men who are found unfit will be dealt with.

Section 36 deals with another railway problem—the misuse of the communication cord on passenger trains. This has been a growing problem in recent years and is particularly prevalent on trains which are being run for sporting occasions. In some cases the cord has been pulled repeatedly with consequent lengthy delays to trains. In the hope that an increased penalty will act as a deterrent in such cases, section 36 of the Bill provides for an increase in the penalty from £5 to £25.

The other provisions of the Bill deal with a variety of matters including the application to level crossings on railway lines in this country owned by the Fishguard and Rosslare Railways and Harbours Company of section 9 of the Transport Act, 1958, which provides for the substitution of automatic controls for gates at level crossings on roads which were public roads at the time the railway was built; the transfer, subject to payment of compensation, of responsibility for maintenance of road surfaces on overline bridges from CIE to road authorities; the transfer from CIE to Westmeath County Council of liability to maintain Float Bridge on the River Inny—this would also be subject to payment of compensation; the reference in future of all disputes in redundancy compensation cases to the circuit court; the fixing of toll charges at Fiddown Bridge, County Kilkenny; and certain provisions relating to two of CIE's subsidiary companies, Aerlód Teoranta and CIE Tours International Incorporated.

The miscellaneous provisions of the Bill can best be dealt with at Committee Stage. I commend the Bill to the House.

Mr. O'Donnell

This Bill for the most part could be described as a tidying up measure. As well as legalising a situation which has been in existence in regard to the County Donegal Railway and the Strabane company, the Minister has availed himself of the opportunity to do some tidying up of existing transport legislation. The Bill was discussed in the Seanad at considerable length and certain amendments were accepted by the Minister. Therefore, I do not intend to go over the ground covered in the Seanad, but I hope CIE will ensure that the degree of efficiency provided by the CDR will be maintained. The Minister says:

CIE will continue to provide the road transport services, both passenger and freight, which are being provided at present by the joint committee.

Concern has been expressed by the people in Donegal and other areas in that part of the country that CIE might discontinue uneconomic sectors of the service previously operated by the joint committee, that they might start utilising antiquated buses and equipment there. I hope CIE will continue to provide the same good service provided by the joint committee, the CDR and the other company hitherto.

I am glad the Minister has given an assurance that no member of the joint committee staff will be disemployed as a result of the transfer of the County Donegal Railway Company undertaking to CIE. This is very satisfactory. The Minister does, however, qualify that statement by pointing out that it may be necessary to transfer some of the existing staff to other areas. He points out that the necessity for such transfers at a future date cannot be ruled out. I may be wrong but there appears to me to be a certain contradiction between the two statements. The first states:

CIE will continue to provide the road transport services, both passenger and freight, which are being provided at present....

At the same time, the Minister does not rule out the possibility of some clerical staff being transferred to locations outside County Donegal and he goes on to say:

...But transfers of other staff are not at present envisaged;

In relation to the question of the pension rights of the staff of the Joint Committee who become employees of CIE the Minister points out that those who are under the age to qualify for the CIE pension scheme will automatically become members of that pension scheme, but ways and means will have to be devised to cover the pension rights of those over the age limit. This is something I feel very strongly about because when the canal company in Limerick was taken over by CIE I had the case of a man who was given employment by CIE in the goods depot at the station. Unfortunately, the man was over the age to qualify for the CIE pension scheme and he came out very badly. I made representations to CIE about the matter and they have offered him an ex gratia payment of a couple of hundred pounds. This unfortunate man spent his whole life in the transport industry, he worked for the canal company up to the time it was taken over by CIE and because he was over the age for admission to the CIE pension scheme he could not qualify. He now finds himself at the age of 65 not qualifying for any pension. The Minister in the course of his speech stated:

The position of employees who are ineligible for membership of this scheme because they are over age will have to be examined by CIE in consultation with the trade unions.

I would urge the Minister to specially look into this matter. When these discussions are going on it might be possible, if a new formula to embrace those who are ineligible for membership is devised, to look into the case of the former employees of the canal company in Limerick as well. There are other cases where companies have been taken over by CIE and their employees were ineligible for membership of the wages grade pension scheme. I am surprised this situation has not been remedied before this legislation was introduced. It cannot be a very great problem because there are only between 80 and 100 employees who do not qualify for the CIE pension scheme.

There is a great deal of technical jargon in the Minister's speech and this is inevitable in this particular case but as far as the taking over of the Donegal and Strabane Railways are concerned this Bill merely legalises what has been an accomplished fact for some time past. The Minister said:

The opportunity is being taken in this Bill to carry out some desirable amendments of transport legislation to improve safety on the railways and to deal with some other miscellaneous matters.

When this Bill was first circulated it appeared to be a totally harmless kind of Bill with no obvious implications with regard to employment or otherwise. However, after the first reading in the Seanad considerable furore arose amongst locomotive drivers because of the implications of section 29. In relation to this section the Minister says:

Again in the interests of safety, it is proposed in section 29 of the Bill that engine drivers and persons whom CIE wish to train as engine drivers shall be subject to compulsory periodic medical examination, including eyesight tests, in accordance with regulations to be made by me on the application of the board and after consultation with the trade unions representative of the drivers and trainee drivers.

When it became know that new and more stringent regulations would be introduced in relation to the fitness of drivers and so forth, I, and I am sure every other Deputy as well, received strong representations from the union representing the locomotive drivers. Between two Stages of the Bill in the Seanad the Minister for Transport and Power received a deputation from the union concerned and he had a meeting with them.

I did, yes.

Mr. O'Donnell

The Minister, on Report Stage, I think, introduced a certain amendment. I am not at all clear on this and much as I would like to facilitate the Minister as I usually do and give him the Bill I shall have to ask for a little time before Committee Stage because the situation is a bit vague. The Minister in the course of his speech stated:

I am in agreement with the board that this additional safety measure is necessary. It will be a matter for negotiation between CIE and the trade unions as to how men who are found unfit will be dealt with.

I have had long and detailed discussions with some of the unions representing the locomotive drivers and I have examined the situation to the extent of taking a trip in an engine myself. As far as I can see, there is a psychological problem here. The ambition of railway workers in CIE is that they will end up driving engines or locomotives. There is a certain status attached to it and there is a sense of achievement in reaching this grade. There is consequently a fear of any type of legislation which might make this occupation more hazardous, so to speak. Undoubtedly, it is vitally important in an age when locomotive engines are highly sophisticated that drivers have a high degree of skill. Training, alertness and peak medical fitness are essential. What I am concerned about and what the drivers themselves are concerned about is the danger of their being thrown on the scrap heap, so to speak. No provision is made in this Bill for compensation or alternative employment for men who fail the medical test.

I do not know what the present attitude of the unions is in this respect but I certainly am very concerned about the position of any driver who would fail this test and who would be found to be no longer medically fit to drive a locomotive. What will happen to such person? Some formula will have to be worked out or some scheme negotiated whereby men who in these circumstances have become disemployed as locomotive drivers can be given alternative employment in the company.

Representatives of the drivers have strongly represented their fears to me in this respect. They are seeking assurances that, in the event of a man being found medically unfit to drive, alternative employment at a similar scale of wages will be provided. It is a difficult problem, one which is causing serious concern to every locomotive driver in the CIE network. We must make every effort to find a solution to this problem. I have had a number of meetings with representatives of the unions concerned and I am still not satisfied with the legislation as it now stands despite the fact that the Minister did amend it somewhat in the Seanad following meetings with the unions. On Committee Stage I hope to be able to put forward some proposals, or that the Minister may be able to introduce amendments, which will safeguard the livelihood of these drivers and give them more security of employment and allay the fears they now have of being found below medical standard and being out of a job.

Section 36 deals with another problem which is becoming quite common, namely, the misuse of the communication cord on passenger trains. The Minister made a comment in the Seanad debate: I suppose it is a reflection of the society in which we live that we have this kind of vandalism and hooliganism recurring at frequent intervals. In this Bill the Minister proposes, as a deterrent, to increase the fine from £5 to £25. I do not know whether or not this will have the desired effect. If this type of misuse occurs on occasions when special groups charter trains for sporting events, it is a sad situation. If the people responsible for organising the groups would accept more responsibility in the matter, that might help. There might be an effort made to educate young people at school level as to the gravity of this offence, that it should not happen, that pulling a communication cord 10 or 15 times in the course of a journey is a bad thing. The increase in the penalty from £5 to £25 may serve as a deterrent. I sincerely hope that it will although I have my doubts.

The Minister said:

The other provision in the Bill deals with a variety of matters including the application to level crossings on railway lines in this country owned by the Fishguard and Rosslare Railways and Harbours Company of section 9 of the Transport Act, 1958 which provides for the substitution of automatic controls for gates at level crossings on roads which were public roads at the time the railway was built....

Am I not right in saying that there are some automatic controls at present in operation?

That is right.

Mr. O'Donnell

I just want to be clear on that. In South Tipperary, in Emly, there is an automatic level crossing that has been in operation for a good number of years and that appears to be working out very satisfactorily. With the growth in vehicular traffic it is inevitable that there should be some degree of automation on railway crossings. Fears have been expressed about the safety factor in this respect. I understand that in other countries there have been a big number of accidents resulting from automatic railway crossings. The Minister may be able to enlighten us in regard to this matter on Committee Stage.

The Minister said that the Bill makes certain provisions relating to two CIE's subsidiary companies, Aerlód Teoranta and CIE Tours International Incorporated. This is interesting because CIE Tours International Incorporated, if I remember correctly, were set up by legislation in July, 1970. They were a subsidiary company to CIE set up for the purpose of organising and generating coach tour traffic to this country from North America and, as far as I can gather, it is the North American subsidiary of Córas Iompair Éireann.

That is right.

Mr. O'Donnell

The Minister introduced the Bill to set up this subsidiary company in 1970. I do not know what makes it necessary to add new provisions by this Bill. I read somewhere— perhaps in the report of the Seanad debate, that certain provisions are now being made in relation to this North American subsidiary of CIE in relation to staff. I am rather puzzled. The Minister said today that the Bill contained certain provisions relating to both Aerlód Teoranta and CIE Tours International Incorporated—that is the North American subsidiary?

That is right.

Mr. O'Donnell

He did not say what the provisions are. I am prepared to wait until the Committee Stage.

That subsidiary was set up by way of order. We could not do a great deal in the order beyond setting them up, as we were entitled to do under the transport legislation. This now makes legal the provision in regard to the submission of accounts to CIE as the parent organisation—to amplify the order made—section 35.

Mr. O'Donnell

The Minister may have pointed it out in the Seanad debate. I should like to have another look at section 29. The other parts of the Bill seem not to contain anything controversial. Certainly I have no objection to the other provisions. I am worried about section 29 and may have to table amendments for Committee Stage. We can discuss that further on Committee Stage.

I wish to restrict myself to those features of the Bill which have some significance for locomotive drivers, about whom Deputy O'Donnell was talking. Section 29 is that section which, in the interests of safety, provides that locomotive drivers and persons whom the board wish to train as locomotive drivers shall be medically examined from time to time in accordance with regulations made by the Minister on the application of the Board and after consultation with the trade union representative of such drivers and persons.

(2) A person shall not be trained to drive a locomotive nor retrained in the employment of the Board as a locomotive driver if, in the opinion of the Chief Medical Officer, the results of a medical examination carried out pursuant to regulations made by the Minister under this section show that the health or eyesight of the person is below the standard considered from time to time by the Chief Medical Officer to be requisite for a locomotive driver.

I shall be tabling certain amendments which will seek to change this sub-section to ensure that the chief medical officer would not have the last word in this matter; that, as in so many other cases governing conditions of employment and so on, there should be an appeal to a medical appeals tribunal within 14 days of the receipt of the chief medical officer's decision. I would ask the Minister to consider having a medical appeals tribunal appointed by the Minister, after consultation with the Minister for Health, the board and such trade unions representing the board's locomotive drivers.

We do not contest the general validity of having safety in the actual operation of the engine. It is important, for safety all round, that the human agents concerned in operating our railways should be equally as reliable as any mechanical devices referred to in this Bill. It is precisely because there are human agents concerned that we ask for a human way of dealing with this problem. The human way we suggest is that there should be a further appeal from the chief medical officer to a board that would be constituted of the three elements involved in this the unions, the Minister and again medical opinion.

I am sure the Minister will see that there is no desire on the trade union side, nor indeed on the locomotive drivers side, to hold up any improvement in safety standards in the operations of CIE. There is a feeling that this could be done in a way more satisfactory to the human beings concerned, if there was this further appeal. There are examples in the public service where we have this appeal from one man's decision. As it is here, there is full control over the future employment prospects of a locomotive driver where there is a question of, say, eyesight, and this lies with the chief medical officer. There should be a further review of the chief medical officer's decision. There should be review by a body called an appeals tribunal composed of medical, trade union and ministerial representatives. I hope the Minister will accept such a suggestion. I will be interested in any remarks he might make on this matter.

I shall table some amendments to insert a provision regarding this appeals tribunal. The Minister could look on this as a noncontentious addition to his Bill because it does not seek in any way to deny the inherent principle of safety in the Bill. An amendment of this type would make the Bill more acceptable to the employees concerned.

The Minister refers to the fact that consultations have taken place with the trade unions in regard to people who are seen to be unfit by virtue of standards of sight and so on. He should consider compensation to be the remedy here because if employees find themselves redundant as a result of very high safety standards being imposed, they should be compensated for any deficiencies they are now seen to have which makes them unfit to continue in their present jobs. Compensation should be paid even where they must continue in the employment of the board. Deputy O'Donnell remarked that there is a certain status attached to the job of locomotive driver so those people should be compensated for being removed from their jobs because of higher safety standards. I should like the Minister to make some remark on this point which is of interest to the trade unions. My remarks and the amendments I shall put down are in line with the thinking of the trade unions on this particular point. It would be a pity, in a Bill which brings in certain welcome features, and seeing that the changes requested by the unions do not cut across the principles of the Bill, not to meet the legitimate requests of the unions in this matter.

I wish to thank the House for the welcome given to the general principles outlined in the Bill and the matters contained in it. The Bill primarily is concerned with rationalising or legalising a situation which already exists in that financial arrangements have already been made with British Railways in regard to the take-over by CIE of the transport undertakings formerly administered by the County Donegal Railways Joint Committee and the Strabane-LetterKenny Railway Company in which British Railways had their investment. The Bill legitimises that situation which has been in operation now for a few years and makes legal the commercial operations of CIE in that area of operation formerly exercised by the two organisations I have mentioned.

Deputy O'Donnell raised the point about diminution of service. There will be no diminution. In fact there will be a continuation and one hopes an expansion of the service as operated by CIE on their own lines since the take-over was effected. The legal details, the compensation provisions outlined in the agreement, are now legitimised under this legislation. There will be no staff redundancy. I can assure the House in that respect, that as far as the staff are concerned there may, as obtains in regard to any CIE staff, transfers from one area to another but they will be treated in this regard as any member of CIE would be treated. The only such transfers envisaged might be some transfers in regard to clerical staff because of routine office rationalisation or matters of that kind. It is not envisaged that there will be any redundancy in any other staff of former organisations taken over by CIE.

The employees who would qualify for CIE superannuation will automatically have the CIE superannuation rights attached to them. We are seeking to work out pension arrangements for the employees who, as it now stands, would not qualify if they were CIE employees, for CIE pension rights. This is under negotiation by the trade unions and the companies at the moment. I wish to emphasise that as the position operated they would not be entitled to any pension rights whatever. There is an improvement in the situation in that they are now being negotiated on their behalf by the trade unions with CIE. Those people who would not otherwise be entitled to any pension whatever will get some pension and the formula is being negotiated at present.

Some people have recently left the employment. Will an effort be made to try to cover them?

People who have recently left employment?

The Minister can see the hardship which is involved.

Has this point been raised by the Deputies?

I will make inquiries. I doubt if there are a large number of such people.

There are only a small number. It might be possible to fit them in.

I will make a note of that. If there are only a few cases it should be possible to fit them in. That is all I have to say on the superannuation aspect. There are some aspects of the Bill which I have not mentioned. There are some matters which might be brought into the Bill at a later stage. This started as a Bill to deal with the acquisition of the assets and liabilities of these companies, their staff and superannuation rights and, the continuation of services, but it grew into a Bill taking into account other miscellaneous matters such as automatic devices at level crossings and increases in penalties for communication cord offences. These matters arose after the Bill was drafted. It was mentioned by CIE that there were matters needing legislation. I asked for a list of such matters so that we could incorporate them in a measure of this kind.

Deputy O'Donnell and Deputy O'Leary have mentioned section 29 of the Bill requiring a compulsory medical test from time to time in respect of locomotive drivers and persons trained to be locomotive drivers. There was mention of the fact that such tests should be in accordance with regulations made by the Minister on application by the board. I saw the trade unions concerned with this matter when this Bill was being discussed in the Seanad, between the Committee and Report Stages. I brought in the addendum to section 29 (1) to include after "board" on the second last line "and after consultation with the trade unions representative of such drivers and persons". In other words the regulations could be made by me on the application of the board only after consultation with the trade unions concerned.

Does that allow for what Deputy O'Leary suggests? If the trade unions can produce another doctor who says that the evidence given originally is not correct, as often happens——

I would like to deal first with the problem as elaborated by Deputy O'Leary. Section 29 (2) reads:

A person shall not be trained to drive a locomotive nor retained in the employment of the Board as a locomotive driver if, in the opinion of the Chief Medical Officer, the results of a medical examination carried out pursuant to regulations made by the Minister under this section show that the health or eyesight of the person is below the standard considered from time to time by the Chief Medical Officer to be requisite for a locomotive driver.

This is a matter which can be incorporated in the regulations which can only be made by me after application by the board in consultation with the trade unions. The regulations could incorporate some appeal procedure or it could be written into the form of a statute.

If a definite decision is made in the Bill itself——

The Bill leaves this open. The addendum precludes me from making such regulations unless I consult the trade unions concerned. I cannot make the regulations providing for these periodic eyesight and medical tests unless I consult with the trade unions concerned. I thought this would circumscribe me sufficiently to meet the point put forward by the trade unions. I suggested at the conference that I would bring in an amendment to meet the union point of view.

Under subsection (2) there is difficulty. It is specified that it is solely the chief medical officer——

I appreciate that, but if the chief medical officer is of the opinion, as a result of a medical examination carried out pursuant to regulations made by me under the section, as set out in subsection (1)—this examination can only be made after consultation with the unions——

But would the Minister have any idea about a tribunal? As I see it, this does not take away from what we are trying to get at under this section.

Yes, but it might be a more flexible type of procedure to have it incorporated by regulation rather than in a section of the Act. If we put it into a section it narrows the scope for improvement. When it is left as a regulation which can be drafted or prepared after consultation with the trade unions, the scope is wider for having an effective form of appeal procedure.

If the Minister gives an undertaking that he will be willing to incorporate it in regulations——

I told the trade unions that I would be willing to discuss the type of procedure that we would have with the unions concerned and I told them I would bind myself by statute not to bring in any such regulations without consulting them. The way is open for myself and trade unions to sit around a table and devise an appropriate procedure.

We will put forward amendments and the Minister can look at them.

I have recently come across a case where a medical officer declared that a man was unable to drive because of heart trouble. A specialist decided that there was nothing wrong with the man. One doctor said he could drive but the other doctor said he could not drive. The man suffered because of the difference of opinion. The man could not do anything about his position because there was no provision by which the decision could be reversed.

I would like to meet the point made by the Deputies. My purpose in putting forward the addendum to the subsection in the Seanad was that the trade unions and myself could sit down and try to work out appropriate procedure. If the Deputies wish to try to devise a subsection that might meet the situation I would have no objection to that. I will also apply my mind to this problem.

Mr. O'Donnell

On 19th March the Minister met the unions. Has any progress been made in devising a formula since that date?

The Deputy is talking about regulations which we made subsequent to that date. The immediate interest of the trade unions was not to let any section or subsection through the Oireachtas which would in any way prevent such a regulation being made.

Mr. O'Donnell

Have the trade unions put forward any formula?

No. Their objective in meeting me was to ensure that some formula would be included in the section which would enable them to be consulted before the regulations were implemented. I met them by incorporating this addendum to the subsection which makes it mandatory on me to consult them before such regulations can be implemented by me. They were happy so long as that was added. The Deputies have said that they would prefer to have this incorporated in the form of a section or subsection. I will have that examined.

Question put and agreed to.
Committee Stage ordered for Tuesday, 22nd June, 1971.
Top
Share