I move amendment No. 1.
In page 5, line 2, before "against" to insert "by or".
This is a drafting amendment designed to insert "by or" before "against". It clarifies the meaning of the section.
Committee on Finance. - Transport (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill, 1971 [Seanad]: Committee Stage.
Sections 1 to 8, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 9.
Amendment agreed to.
Section, as amended, agreed to.
Section 10 agreed to.
SECTION 11.
Question proposed: "That section 11 stand part of the Bill."
Mr. O'Donnell
There is one point in relation to this section that I should like to have clarified. This section makes provision for the transfer of officers and employees of the joint committee to CIE. It appears to be the situation now that all the existing staff will be retained in employment.
That is right.
Mr. O'Donnell
I understand that there are a number of clerical staff who may have to be transferred to other areas and the point I am making is that great hardship can result to staff because of transfers when such transfers involve travelling long distances to and from work. For instance, a person who may be employed now in Letterkenny might have to travel 30 miles if he is transferred. In such cases special travel concessions should be granted. An example I have in mind is that of staff who were employed formerly on the old West Clare railway at Ennis but who were transferred to Limerick. As a result of this there are three people who travel from Ennis to Limerick and back each day. This results in quite substantial travelling costs. Representations were made to the Minister and the matter was taken up with the trade unions but, apparently, nothing could be done. These people were transferred because of the cessation of the particular operation. Where people such as these must avail of public transport, they should be eligible for free travel concessions. Would the Minister bear this in mind in so far as any transfers arising from this measure are concerned?
Certainly, I shall look into the suggestion made by the Deputy. Such transfers as may result from the amalgamation will be governed by the same principle as is applicable to CIE staffs generally who are subject to such transfers in every other part of the country. It is the practice and will be the continuing practice that the fullest consultation takes place between CIE and the trade unions concerned in advance of any such proposed transfer. Certainly I shall bring the Deputy's suggestion to the attention of CIE.
Question put and agreed to.
Sections 12 to 21, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 22.
Question proposed: "That section 22 stand part of the Bill."
Mr. O'Donnell
This particular section relates to level crossings and the question arises as to what is to be the future policy in relation to these level crossings. Is it the intention to have all automatic crossings? My reason for asking this is that it has been drawn to my attention that a tragedy occurred at the level crossing at Oranmore within the past 24 hours. This is the second tragedy to occur at this crossing in 12 months. Are there to be no manned crossings in the future?
This section relates only to level crossings at which the board are not required to provide attendants. It does not apply to level crossings on roads where the board are required to provide attendants. The purpose of the section is to enable CIE to substitute automatic warning devices and controls for gates at public level crossings at which the board are at present obliged to provide and maintain gates but not required to provide attendants.
During the last century when the rail system was established, the obligation was placed on the railway companies to provide attendants at carriageways that were in existence at that time. That obligation is continuing but this refers to roads that were not public roads at that time—small roads such as those going through farms where there are gates which CIE are obliged to attend but not to provide attendants. It is at that sort of gate that this section enables them to provide automatic devices. It is purely an enabling section and each case will be judged on its merits. Similarly, they can, if they wish, do so in the case of the other type of roads but that section under an earlier Transport Act is also an enabling section.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 23.
Question proposed: "That section 23 stand part of the Bill."
Mr. O'Donnell
I would be grateful if the Minister would clarify the situation regarding the liability of local authorities for the maintenance of roads. Subsection (1) reads:
Subject to subsection (4), where an order has been made under section 22 in respect of any level crossing, the appropriate road authority shall recoup to the Board 50 per cent of the costs incurred by the Board in providing and maintaining any works required by the order at the level crossing.
Does this mean that CIE can recoup from the local authority concerned 50 per cent of the costs of this particular maintenance type of work?
That is right.
Mr. O'Donnell
Does it apply only to level crossings?
Yes, it is in respect of any level crossing. The cost of providing an attendant at the automatic controls we were talking about would be shared by the company and the local authority on a fifty-fifty basis.
Question put and agreed to.
Section 24 agreed to.
SECTION 25.
Question proposed: "That section 25 stand part of the Bill."
Mr. O'Donnell
Again, this section relates to level crossings. It appears to be a special regulation in relation to gateways within farm holdings.
That is right.
Mr. O'Donnell
Could the Minister say on whom is the obligation to keep these gateways? Is the obligation on the landowner to keep the gates closed?
It is not the land-owner but the person who is concerned with opening the gate for a vehicle or an animal.
Mr. O'Donnell
Could the Minister say what is the position in the case of a third party utilising a road leading to a farm but leaving the gate open? Would the farmer be liable?
No, there is no question of that. If a person fails to close a gate as soon as he or any animal or vehicle has passed through, he, personally, is liable.
Question put and agreed to.
Sections 26 to 28, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 29.
I move amendment No. 2:
In page 11, to add to subsection (1) the following:
"The Minister shall ensure that such consultation has taken place and shall himself consult with the trade unions representative of such drivers before making any regulations."
It is clear enough what the meaning of it is. It is simply to copperfasten what is already there as regards the medical examination and the regulations to be made by the Minister governing medical examination of locomotive drivers. I understood that the Minister promised in the Seanad to change this.
I did that actually.
I do not notice much change in it.
Yes. If the Deputy reads down to line 4 of subsection (1) he will see that what I added in in the Seanad is "on the application of the Board and after consultation with the trade unions representative of such drivers and persons".
Deputy O'Leary, during my absence a couple of weeks ago, put down this amendment:
The Minister shall ensure that such consultation has taken place and shall himself consult with the trade unions representative of such drivers before making any regulations.
Is that not the same thing? My answer to Deputy O'Leary's amendment is that I have safeguarded that in the Seanad amendment. The Seanad amendment embodies what he suggests, really.
He is really looking for a right of appeal to a medical appeal tribunal.
Not on this.
That is a later, different amendment. Amendment No. 2 is superfluous having regard to what has been done in the Seanad at the instance of the trade unions concerned. I met the trade unions concerned during the passage of the Bill in the Seanad.
Are the trade unions satisfied?
Yes. This is what I assured them I would do. I met the trade unions.
I understood that they were satisfied but in my absence this amendment was put down.
With respect to Deputy O'Leary, I would say the amendment is superfluous having regard to the Seanad amendment I have mentioned, which I indicated to the trade unions when I met them I would introduce in the Seanad. They were perturbed by the fact that these regulations could be made by the board, agreed to by me and that they would be presented with a fait accompli.
It is just possible that Deputy O'Leary may not have known this. I withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 3 in the name of Deputy O'Leary is consequential on amendment No. 5, so amendments Nos. 3 and 5 may be discussed together.
I move amendment No. 3:
In page 11, line 36, after "Officer" to insert "(subject to the provisions of subsection (4))".
The purpose of this is obvious. It is to provide for a medical appeal tribunal. It seems to me that it is reasonable. The real objection of the locomotive drivers was not that new drivers should be made subject to these requirements but, naturally enough, men who already were and are locomotive drivers for some years do not like at a certain stage, so to speak, that their remuneration is put in jeopardy by having a section brought into a Bill, which fundamentally deals with other matters. Therefore, it does seem to me that this proposal by Deputy O'Leary is reasonable. I commend it to the Minister. I commend it to the House.
This amendment is concerned with the matter discussed on the earlier amendment which has been withdrawn. I have discussed it as I have said with the trade unions concerned. Their concern was to ensure that no arbitrary decision by the chief medical officer would deprive a railway driver of his livelihood and prejudice it in some way. For that reason I agreed with them; I recognised that injustice might be caused in this matter; and, therefore, I suggested to the trade unions that the regulations, that are the important aspect—the regulations by which an engine driver for medical reasons might be relieved of his employment as engine driver and transferred to another employment—would be brought in by me under the section only after consultation with the trade unions. It was to meet this point of view that they expressed to me. I feel in the interest of the railway drivers themselves and in the interest of the trade union point of view, it is better to do this by way of regulation rather than by way of section.
I can give the House an assurance here, and I have done so with the trade unions as well, that it will be my intention to incorporate a second opinion procedure in the regulations, in other words, that the chief medical officer of CIE cannot stand down any railway driver arbitrarily but would be obliged under the regulations to seek a second specialist opinion. I feel that type of arrangement is better made by way of regulations.
Whatever regulations we devise may not function properly. The trade unions may have an objection; CIE may have an objection; I may have an objection. It is better that we devise regulations that can be amended from time to time as we see how they operate and that this be done, as incorporated in the earlier Seanad amendment, after consultation by me with the trade unions. This is a better approach in the matter and this approach commended itself to the trade unions when I met them.
There is a snag in this as I see it. The Minister stated that the medical officer who first examined the driver would have to consult and get a second opinion. The Minister may not have meant it that way but, in fact, this is a formal appeal and I think the regulations should incorporate procedure for a formal appeal over the decision of which the original medical officer would have no influence whatever and he should not be allowed to make a special case or anything else about it. This business is all very fine.
The buck has to stop somewhere.
One medico can influence another medico, just as one Minister can influence another Minister, and as one Deputy may influence another Deputy. If the Minister would promise us that what is here would be written by him into the regulations I would be quite prepared to withdraw the amendment. I would want to be quite certain as to what promise I was getting from the Minister.
I appreciate that.
The point here is not simply the point made by Deputy O'Donovan, that the CMO, in fact, must employ a consultant because in, say, a question of eyesight I do not think he would pretend that he himself could give an expert opinion, without any imputation in regard to his skill whatsoever. It is a specialist function. He would in any case have to employ a specialist to tell him about the quality of the eyesight of the driver. So, he must bring in a consultant. This consultant is the employee of the company. That is the way it should be looked at. While I am sure he would give a good professional opinion, it is to some extent a question of justice being seen to be done. In this very serious situation, where for health or sight reasons the possibilities of being disqualified are very wide indeed, there should be a body outside the company, outside the unions, but representative of both, reasonably balanced and likely to give an objective opinion on whether the person is fit to continue in the responsible job of locomotive driver. There is a case for a right of appeal to a board which is seen clearly to be independent and which would satisfy the man if he is faced with the possibility of being retired, with its attendant stress. There should be the right of appeal to a board of the kind suggested by Deputy O'Leary, with reference to the Department of Health, the trade union and the board of the company.
This is the only way it would be reasonably certain that the man concerned would be assured of a fair hearing of his case. We all know the simple truth that doctors differ on many things and, therefore, I should not be inclined to leave this matter simply to medical opinion. Frequently we see an insurance company employing a doctor who gives one opinion and the doctor employed by the other company gives a different opinion— probably bona fide opinions, nevertheless differing opinions. It is desirable that medical people be called in to give opinions but they should be supported by the lay members of the trade union movement, by the board and anyone else the Minister considers should be involved in the decision.
The real trouble about writing in an appeal procedure into the section is that we would then be derogating from the ultimate legal responsibility of CIE, or any such railway company. In British Railways and other companies the same stand has been taken. Under section 7 of the Transport Act, 1958, CIE have an obligation to have due regard to safety of operation. The chief medical officer is the person whose responsibility it is to ensure that the public are safeguarded.
If an appeal procedure is written in and responsibility is taken from the chief medical officer, we would have to start considering what provision there would be in regard to the board's liability in respect of an accident to a member of the public. That is why I do not like the appeal procedure which would be a mandatory business so far as the chief medical officer is concerned. I can see the merit in the amendment and the real hardship that might be caused but I think a better way to deal with this matter is to devise flexible regulations which can be amended from time to time in consultation between the trade unions, myself and CIE. Regulations might be devised whereby the engine driver who considers he has been wronged can ask for a second medical opinion from a panel of specialists. The man can choose the specialist he wants and the chief medical officer would have to take that second opinion into account when making his decision.
This is a broad outline of what I have in mind. I think this would be an appropriate type of regulation to cover this kind of case. I am certain if the specialist of the driver's choice had in a definite opinion favoured the driver it would go a long way towards inducing a responsible chief medical officer to adjust his point of view. I should like to tease out the problem on these lines, with the trade unions and the company. I have obligated myself under the earlier Seanad amendment I spoke about to do this, namely, to bring in such regulations only after consultation with the trade unions. It is a better way to go about it rather than writing in any hard and fast appeal procedure into the section.
I can see how easily a regulation can be made about eyesight being at a certain level and if it is not at that level the man is ruled out. What does the Minister propose to do in relation to health generally? Does the Minister intend to lay down regulations in regard to all health matters?
We cannot do that, as the Deputy is aware. It is impossible to do so in the area of general health. We can do it precisely in regard to eyesight and that is why I put down the next amendment, after consultation with the trade unions, whereby standards for eyesight can be set out specifically in the regulations. It is impossible to regulate precisely for general health matters, such as heart conditions and matters like this.
Is the Minister telling us that he is going to put into the regulations a provision of this kind?
No, not a binding appeal procedure because the ultimate legal responsibility for any accident caused by reason of a defect on the part of the driver resides with the company through the chief medical officer. I cannot embody a binding legal procedure but I can embody a procedure whereby the driver who has been found unfit for a medical reason can choose a specialist from a panel of experts and this opinion must be taken into account by the chief medical officer in making his decision.
I always think that an ounce of experience is worth a ton of theory in a matter like this. Can the Minister tell me if there have been such accidents?
No.
The section states that locomotive drivers and persons whom the board wish to train as locomotive drivers shall be medically examined from time to time. As I understand it, no one objects to the careful selection of people for training as locomotive drivers. Why would the Minister not change this around and simply say that persons who may wish to train as locomotive drivers shall be medically examined and leave it at that. There is considerable concern about this matter among the men involved. I take it that at present if a driver finds that his sight is going or he is not in good health, or something like that, certain action is taken. Some years ago a woman medical officer in England said that once the platemen became drivers and could afford enough beer she never saw them again. They became different men. We will have to tease this out on the Report Stage. Would the Minister agree to that since he is not prepared to accept this amendment? No one has any objection to people who are going to be trained being medically examined, but it is unusual to have periodic medical examinations after they have trained. May I ask the Minister a question: are the CIE bus drivers subject to periodic medical examinations? I am not aware that they are.
This is another hornet's nest. The Deputy does not want to raise that one.
All I want is a volume of evidence.
With regard to bus drivers, I understand that in order to qualify as a driver a man must undergo a medical examination.
At the initial stage.
Yes, and there is no review.
We will leave it over to the Report Stage if the Minister will consider my suggestion.
What about the existing men then?
The Minister will just have to leave them as they are. They have their positions. This would be an imposition on them. They would be damnified under this legislation. This is most unusual. This kind of thing has never been done. The Minister admitted a few moments ago that there is no case.
That is right.
I do not know what busy bee got the Department to put this particular section into this Bill. The Bill is such that it was secreted until an equally busy worker read it through and found out the position. When I first looked through it I missed this section. I do not mind admitting that. We should, I think, leave this over to the Report Stage. I will withdraw the amendment but only on condition that it comes up again on the Report Stage. I do not understand why the Minister wants to legislate in this way.
I am very flexible about this. I might say, in passing, that there were not too many busy bees on the Seanad Labour panel when this Bill was before the Seanad. It was a quite unofficial group of representatives from my own town who happened to read the Bill who first brought this to my notice. After that I met a trade union delegation. It is a sign of public interest in our proceedings that the Bill was read in such detail by people outside the Oireachtas. As a result of the delegation I brought in the provision whereby I cannot regulate without consultation with the trade unions. I believe we can work out the regulations better through consultation with the trade unions rather than by writing something specific into the section.
Then why is the Minister sticking on it? Why not knock out the words "locomotive drivers" and simply start off "Persons whom the Board wishes to train as locomotive drivers shall be medically examined" and "A person shall not be trained to be a locomotive driver if in the opinion..."? This meets the whole case.
It does not cover existing drivers.
Why does the Minister want to cover them? He has made no coercive argument for this.
It is not alone in the interests of public safety but in the interests of the safety of the drivers themselves.
There are eager beavers everywhere and this is an example of an eager beaver who wants to overdo the thing. I see nothing wrong with the careful selection and medical examination of people who are going to be locomotive drivers but I see objection to interference with the rights of existing locomotive drivers. I see serious objection to that.
I can assure the House I will go the whole way short of making a second opinion binding. It would be very unwise from the legal point of view to make an opinion binding. I will go the whole way short of that. The driver concerned can select a specialist of his own choice and that specialist opinion must be taken into account by the chief medical officer before deciding the man's suitability.
It all depends then on who is the more stubborn. Some medics are extremely stubborn people, with all due respect to my colleague behind me.
That is not my opinion of the medical profession.
It is my opinion of them. Everybody knows something about the medical profession. I know something about them. I cannot see what objection the Minister can have to putting down on the Report Stage the amendment I have suggested. Take out the existing people. We are having a very prolonged discussion on what is, to my mind, an extremely minor matter. I am quite prepared to agree that CIE should have the right to examine medically people whom they want to train as locomotive drivers. That would save them some expense as well as ensuring that these people would be up to standard.
That is already the position of course.
It may be the position but it is not written into the law. Frankly, I see no reason why the reasonable requirements of the present locomotive drivers cannot be met and this is the way to meet them.
Would the Deputy accept my assurance that I will go as far as I have said in drafting the regulations? These regulations can only be brought in after consultation with the trade unions. Surely there is enough leeway and protection there.
I will tell the Minister what I will do. I will put down an amendment for the Report Stage on the lines I have indicated. I will withdraw this amendment. I believe this is the correct way of dealing with the matter. It is a simple, straightforward matter; it is not involved. All this business about other opinions and all the rest of it means nothing.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 4:—
In page 11, between lines 40 and 41, to insert the following:
"(b) The standard for eyesight referred to in paragraph (a) may be set out in the regulations under subsection (1)."
This amendment arises out of the meeting I had with the trade unions concerned. They expressed their concern that the regulations to be made under this section of the Bill would incorporate the current standards of vision for locomotive drivers laid down in the existing agreement between CIE and the trade union. I have been advised that I must provide specifically for this in the Bill and this is the purpose of the amendment to ensure that existing vision standards will be the vision standards retained under any regulations made under the section in regard to eyesight.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 5 not moved.
Amendments Nos. 6 and 7 are similar and may be discussed together.
I move amendment No. 6:—
In page 11, to add to the section a new subsection as follows:—
"Where a driver during routine medical examination is found to be unfit to drive for medical reasons but otherwise medically fit for employment with the company he shall continue to be employed with the company on financial considerations at least equal to those under which he was employed as a driver."
Everybody must agree that in a job as responsible as that of locomotive driver the company has not only the right but the responsibility to set very high standards because a locomotive driver is responsible for the lives of, I suppose, several hundred people in a day in an enormous range of situations and circumstances. For that reason the Minister and the company have the right to expect the highest possible standards in this particular job. But, as with bus driving, and even more so with locomotive driving, it is a job which is emotionally and physically very stressful. Even though a man may be passed as fit as a trainee in the ordinary case of an employee of CIE and go through his whole life to retirement without any fear of finding himself, for medical or other reasons, out of a job, that is not so with the locomotive driver in particular. Because the physical standards are so high and, in particular, the standards relating to eyesight with increasing age and as part of the ageing process, eyesight standards are likely to deteriorate if only to the extent that makes the man unsuitable as a driver of a locomotive although otherwise a perfectly healthy person, perfectly able to lead a normal life but simply because of this defect of age not fit for the job of a locomotive driver.
I should like to know what the Minister's proposals are for a driver of this kind when it is found in the first instance by the chief medical officer that the man, due to reasons of sight, is unsuitable to be retained as a driver and even if there is an appeal and that decision is upheld by the specialist to whom the driver appeals and the driver is faced with the inevitability of having to discontinue his job as driver. No responsible man driving a train would care to be kept on in this particular job if it was established to his satisfaction that he could thereby jeopardise the lives of people in the train he was driving, including his own life. So I have put down this amendment and I support Deputy O'Donnell's amendment in order to find out if the Minister could incorporate in legislation the power to ensure that a driver who is displaced shall be offered alternative, suitable, acceptable employment for which he is found to be medically fit with the company or, if it is found that he has deteriorated either in health or in eyesight so that he is not suitable to continue in the employment of the company, that he be compensated for loss of employment to the extent of some figure such as two-thirds of his then salary, conditions certainly as generous as possible, because a man who is disabled and must retire will clearly find himself at that stage unlikely to get employment to which he could readily adapt.
Because this job is one in which there is such a high stress factor and quite a risk that a man either because of these emotional stress factors or for some other reason develops one or other of these psychosomatic diseases, heart disease or gastric trouble, or because of the deterioration in his eyesight to a standard which, though normal for another person is not of a sufficient standard to permit him to continue as a locomotive driver, we should ensure that he is treated with the greatest possible generosity by the company. Is it permissible for a driver with CIE, if spectacles would make it possible for him to continue to drive a train, to do so under those circumstances? Is that acceptable to the company?
Yes, and rightly so.
Mr. O'Donnell
Amendments Nos. 6 and 7, except for very minor differences, relate to the same thing. Section 29 of the Bill has been a cause of considerable worry and anxiety to locomotive drivers all over the country. Not merely has the Minister received representations and had meetings with the union representing the drivers but strong representations have also been made to every Deputy on the drivers' behalf. The introduction of more stringent medical tests has frightened many of these drivers, some of whom have given long and efficient service to the company. Suddenly these men are faced with the prospect of being shot down in a medical examination with no real provisions made for their future livelihood except vague talk of alternative employment. The Minister should seriously consider the suggestion put forward in amendment No. 6 by Deputy Dr. Browne and amendment No. 7 by Deputy Cooney and myself.
Where a driver is found to be unfit to drive a train on medical grounds definite provisions should be incorporated in the Bill safeguarding the future livelihood of these men, many of whom are married men with young families. The logical suggestion is that alternative employment be provided for these men within the company at the same rate of remuneration as they received as drivers and at the same depot to which they have been attached as drivers. If a driver based at the Limerick depot is offered alternative employment in Athlone, Cork or elsewhere it could impose the serious domestic hardship of moving to another area or else commute daily to his new place of work.
Taking everything into account, there is a very strong case in favour of writing into this Bill some basic safeguards in relation to the livelihood of drivers who may be found unfit to drive but who would be medically fit for other employment in the company. Amendment No. 7 suggests that they should not only be employed at the same rate of remuneration but at not less favourable conditions and at the same depot.
The drivers are not satisfied with the Bill as it stands at the moment. They feel the suggestion that the company would try to secure alternative employment for them is far too vague. I would urge on the Minister the importance of allaying the fears of the drivers by doing something tangible and practical in this Bill along the lines suggested in amendments Nos. 6 and 7.
I should like to support these two amendments. It appears to me that the logic of the situation demands that rather exacting medical standards would have to be set because the basis of setting them at all is one of safety. There is no point in setting them unless a standard which is going to ensure public safety is reached. Consequently, as the standard may be rather exacting, it will be exacting in relation to the job of locomotive driver only. They might be too exacting for many other categories of employment in CIE. It is important it be written into the Bill that a person who might not meet these exacting standards so as to be able to continue as a locomotive driver would be assured of continued employment with CIE at a rate and at a place similar to that which he held as a locomotive driver.
With regard to a remark Deputy O'Donovan made I would not have any apprehension about the attitude of the medical staff of CIE in relation to the locomotive drivers. I have had experience professionally on both sides of the fence and my experience is that the medical people in CIE have no bias in favour of the company and, in fact, the opposite has been my experience. They have been inclined to lean over backwards in favour of the employees so I would not have any apprehension there. Nevertheless, the regulations will have to provide exacting standards.
The Minister lives in the same town as I live in and he will be aware that locomotive drivers represent a very long and honourable railway tradition. There is a considerable esprit de corps among locomotive drivers. Their contribution to the well-being and morale of CIE is of the utmost importance. It is very important that this morale be preserved by writing into the Bill safeguards for them.
I should like to emphasise the point Deputy O'Donnell made that while one could provide employment of equivalent financial benefit it is equally important, if not more so, that it be provided at the same place. If a man does not come up to these new medical standards he is almost certain to be a man in his mid-40s with a family in their teens and it would be an exceedingly serious hardship to ask him to move home.
Again speaking from experience, although my experience does not take in a locomotive driver, but a driver in another capacity who sustained an accident was extremely apprehensive that if he returned to work an excuse would be found to transfer him from driving to another category and eventually he would find himself out of employment altogether. I know this is a real apprehension and how serious it is is something I cannot express an opinion on. My experience of dealing with semi-State bodies, who should be inclined to lean over backwards towards employees, is that in matters of dismissing workers who may be slightly disabled, or not quite up to scratch that they are inclined to be harsher than the private employer. I know employees are conscious of this and feel it. If this section is enacted without having the safeguards suggested in these amendments it will be a serious blow to the morale of the workers in CIE.
It is accepted that locomotive drivers have very important duties to perform and must be exceptionally fit men. The railways have been with us now for more than 100 years and, fortunately, accidents have been few and far between. Up to the present time I have not heard of any accident attributable to the unsuitability of a locomotive driver or attributable to his medical condition. Deputy Dr. Browne said that a locomotive driver is responsible for more than 100 lives when he is driving a train but all of us are responsible for a number of lives on the roads. As far as I know the demand for this did not come from anybody apart from the Government.
One would think that when a CIE driver or a driver with any private company because of failing eyesight or something was unfit for his job the thing to do would be to transfer him to alternative employment within the company without loss of remuneration if a suitable job could be found for him. I am sure that will happen in most cases. A man may not be fit to drive a train but he will possibly be fit to do other work. I have read these amendments. I know we must plan ahead but this type of legislation is not built on experience. This is leading the way. When this is passed it can be used as a precedent for subjecting truck drivers, motor drivers, anyone who drives on the public highway to this test. We are travelling too fast here. I do not know how it came about that in a Bill dealing with County Donegal Railways these few sections were injected.
Miscellaneous. That is the umbrella.
We should be very thankful that in this country we have not had any serious accidents involving locomotive drivers. There may have been accidents due to shunting at stations and so on but we have no fears. The men employed on this work must measure up to a very high standard on their first day when they are examined for personal fitness and suitability. I do not know that it is necessary to have a man called for examination every now and then. Our locomotive drivers are an intelligent body of men and I am sure that if one of them felt he was not fit for his job he would apply for examination himself. While I accept that it is a very important task, I do not like the idea of the State interfering and saying that you must submit yourself to medical tests of one kind or another. I am not in favour of the State intervening in the private lives of people. If locomotive drivers are to be tested, lorry and motor drivers will have to be tested and where does this all lead?
There is much more urgent legislation to put on the Statute Book than this. I am not taking from its importance and I am not taking from the apprehension that seems to be about the House and in the Department of Transport and Power but I should like to keep this kind of thing at a minimum, this interfering with people and subjecting them to tests. The same could apply to any driver on the road today. The locomotive driver may have 100, 80 or 70 lives and the other man possibly would have four or five but the principle is the same.
Deputy Murphy's remarks are relevant to what we have been discussing on the previous amendments that have been withdrawn subject to Deputy O'Donovan's expressed wish to put down another amendment on Report Stage on the lines of what Deputy Murphy has been discussing.
What we are more concerned about here are the amendments in the names of Deputies Dr. Browne, Cooney and O'Donnell, concerning the pay provisions in regard to remuneration of the driver found medically unfit who subsequently has to be re-employed by CIE and the point in the amendments that the remuneration should be at least on a basis equal to that under which he was employed as a driver. There is the further point that he should be attached to the depot from which he operated as a driver.
I am in sympathy with these amendments but I do not think they are appropriate amendments for legislation. The main concern of the trade unions when they came to me last March was to ensure that there was nothing in this section to prejudice, hinder or impede in any way the trade unions' right to negotiate to the fullest extent possible within their power and resources to achieve the sort of objective embodied here in the amendments. Once they were assured from a reading of the relevant sections and received my assurance to them that there would be no regulation that would prejudice them in any way in this respect they were quite happy. The trade unions were totally happy and content to rely on their own power and resources of negotiations to achieve what the House by these amendments is seeking to incorporate in the legislation. These negotiations are in progress at the moment between CIE and the trade unions concerned. The whole matter is just now in the melting pot. I think it should be left at that level rather than written into legislation.
Mr. O'Donnell
The Minister says the trade unions are quite happy. I want to put on record that I have had the strongest possible representations made to me even within the past week regarding the subject matter of these amendments. As late as a week ago I received a deputation of the drivers in this House. They expressed serious concern about the possibility of this Bill getting through the House without some safeguards being written into the Bill in relation to drivers who might fail the test and become unfit to drive. I want to get this matter clarified and to put on record that individual drivers, a group of drivers, came here to the House to me and I have had correspondence from them, too, from different parts of the country. There appears to be a clash here. What I am amazed at is, and it seems to be an extraordinary situation, that the Minister met the unions and had prolonged discussions with them and despite all this no acceptable formula appears to have been hammered out. Is the Minister now saying that the unions representing the drivers are perfectly happy with the Bill as it is and that they are not looking for the safeguards in the amendments tabled by Deputy Dr. Browne, Deputy Cooney and myself?
What I said was that they are perfectly satisfied with their own muscle in this respect. They feel they are able to negotiate themselves.
I think the Minister is in a dilemma. A new provision has been written into this Bill for a not very clear reason, this whole business of the definition of the conditions under which a man will be discharged from his job, removed from his employment as locomotive driver.
I am not particularly concerned with the beginner who is found to be unfit. If he is unfit, he is unfit. He is beginning his life and he has not got used to a pattern of life over a number of years. He can start at something else and he is young enough to be well able to do that. I am talking about the person who has been working for many years with CIE and who finds himself, through no fault of his own, in the position that it is decided on his behalf by the CMO, with the help of an arbitration board, if you like, that he is not fit to carry on as a locomotive driver.
Because the Minister introduced this provision into the Bill it seems to me that in logic he must now go on and say what happens to this person about whom he has asked us to take a decision by accepting this section. He is asking us to take a decision which we have a right to take. We share the Minister's belief that the standards of the company cannot be too high, that they must be kept at a very high level indeed. Train accidents are happening from time to time all over Europe and when they happen they really make the headlines. They are very grim and very terrible in their consequences. Therefore, anything that is designed to reduce the incidence of accidents on the railways must be supported by this House, and has got the support of the House. The consequence of the accidents is one reason why we support the Minister in his desire to try to establish certain standards.
We must pursue the matter to the consequences to the individual driver. The individual driver has trained and has become very highly skilled. His responsibilities are on a par with those of an airline pilot. A person of that kind can now find that he is no longer acceptable as a locomotive driver and that we have decided in this House that he must be removed from that post. This House then has the right and the responsibility to go on and say that in these circumstances this man shall be treated in this way. When asked why this section was in the Bill, the Minister said that it is a miscellaneous provisions Bill. It is an umbrella Bill in which strange provisions which would not normally be in a Transport Bill can be included. There is no reason in the world why some provision for the drivers should not be included.
There is no doubt that men now driving trains, and young men who are about to go into training as locomotive drivers, will be disturbed by the realisation that they may be in a job, or may be going into a job in which, added to the anxieties of driving a locomotive, the very tight timetables they have to keep to, the night driving, the knowledge that there are a number of people, men, women and children sitting behind them completely uncaring about what is going on because they know they are safe and they trust the drivers, they are now faced with the prospects of finding that for one reason or another—quite often because of the demands of the job itself which lead to heart conditions or gastric conditions—they may be considered to be unfit to continue as locomotive drivers. These conditions arise from the emotional stresses of driving a locomotive.
In addition, there is the completely-impossible-to-predict deterioration in eyesight which can happen at any time. Therefore, the drivers must be very concerned, indeed, at the fact that this provision is being included in this Bill and that we have stopped there and left it there. The Minister says he can arrive at a decision, presumably based on the merits of each case, in consultation with the trade union movement. While the drivers have a reasonable degree of faith in the trade union movement, in the responsibility of their leaders, and the likelihood of their defending them or fighting their case as well as they can, the general impression I get is that this House having interfered, if you like—perfectly legitimately; we have a perfect right to do so—and having laid down a law in this House for the chief medical officer—must now make it possible for men to become locomotive drivers knowing that if the accident which nobody can predict of ill health or prematurely failing eyesight happens to them, they will be protected by the company and that this is incorporated in law. Just as we have incorporated subsection (2) which directs the chief medical officer as to what he is to do with the driver in certain circumstances, we should include a subsection telling the company what they should do with the driver if the chief medical officer decides that he should be removed from his post. The Minister should reconsider this in the interests of the peace of mind of these men who are doing a very demanding job and who, when this Bill becomes law, will simply know one thing, that is, that if they are found to be medically unfit they will lose their jobs, without knowing what else we wanted to happen to them after they had lost their jobs.
I suspect that this is the kind of provision which will lead to men becoming so apprehensive, so anxious, so concerned and worried about symptoms, or signs, or physical conditions, that they will tend to conceal them rather than admit to them lest they find themselves deprived of their jobs because the medical officer decides their condition is such that it would render them dangerous as locomotive drivers. Therefore, they will not come forward for medical tests to see whether they are well enough to carry on in their jobs, which is all very well in theory but is asking rather a lot of a man with four, five or six children who has no other training. If he knows that if he is found to be medically unfit he will be offered an alternative job at the same rate of remuneration, or if the medical officer decides that he is so badly disabled that he cannot be kept on in the company he will be compensated in a reasonably generous way, he will be more inclined to come forward for a medical test. The Minister should make some such provision in this Bill. There is no reason in the world why that should not be done in this miscellaneous provisions Bill. We should show that we in this House are not concerned for the safety of the public only and that we are not prepared to sacrifice a man's peace of mind or to sacrifice his livelihood and then do nothing about it. The Minister has indicated that it is the wish of everybody here to protect the interests of those who may be displaced in their employment.
The Minister's case for not accepting this amendment is made on the ground that what is sought by the amendment can be obtained equally effectively by the trade unions. He mentions that the trade unions have muscle enough to obtain what they believe their members should have. There is no doubt about that but very often the exercise of that muscle can lead to serious industrial conflict. I imagine that the position up to now with regard to the fitness of a locomotive driver to continue his work is a matter for negotiation between the union and the driver, between the driver and the board and, perhaps, between the union and the board on behalf of the driver, and that something must have been found lacking in that arrangement which caused the board to request statutory authority for these medical tests.
If statutory authority for medical tests is brought into operation, it is only fair and proper that on the other side of the coin there should be statutory authority to safeguard the people subjected to these tests. It is not enough to say that the trade unions will look after these men because, as I have already said, there is within that situation seeds of industrial conflict. Particularly in regard to a semi-State body which so oftern sets the pattern, anything which contains such seed should be discouraged. It would be preferable that a clear and unequivocal position should result from legislation. This would also be very important towards ensuring that the morale of the men involved would be left undamaged as a result of this legislation. I would go so far as to say that CIE could be described as sick. One of the reasons why they are sick and one of the results of their being sick is the rather poor morale that exists among many grades of workers. It would be a pity if the locomotive drivers should be affected in the same way but that is very likely to happen unless this amendment is accepted and a driver who might be affected should be guaranteed the same financial position.
It would be unrealistic to leave this entirely between the unions and the board. One could imagine a situation where a driver might be found, medically, to be inadequate. The union would then make representations on his behalf so that he would be given some other job, at the same wage, in the same depot. However, for a wide number of reasons this might not suit CIE. There might not be a vacancy or this might entail transferring somebody else. It could lead to a precedent that CIE would wish to avoid. In certain cases they could possibly say to the union: "We cannot go that far with this man. We believe that his present state of health was contributed to by his own negligence." I do not intend specifying what that should be. Deputy Browne has mentioned that that particular job is one of a very high stress factor. Some people, when burdened with such a job, take refuge in undesirable means of alleviating that stress and this could affect a man's health. If for some such reason, a driver damaged his health and this was used against him in argument with the union as a reason why the board would not give him equivalent employment, there could arise a very difficult and unfair situation. Therefore, the two principal reasons I have mentioned why the Minister should accept the amendment are, first, the danger of industrial conflict and, secondly, the danger to the morale of these men who are very important to CIE.
I have listened carefully to the point of view put by Deputies. I assure the House that between now and Report Stage I will have this matter examined to see if it is possible to meet the points of view expressed. If, when we take Report Stage, we are still of the same points of view, we can continue the argument but I shall see if there is any way in which points of view expressed can be met.
The amendment is being withdrawn on the assurance of the Minister that he will consider the matter between now and Report Stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 7 not moved.
Mr. O'Donnell
I move amendment No. 8:
In page 11, to add to the section a new subsection as follows: —
"In the case of a driver found to be unfit to drive or unfit for any other duty for medical reasons, or where no suitable alternative employment is available in the company compensation shall be paid by the Board in accordance with the provisions of the 4th Schedule to the Transport Act, 1950"
Among the questions I have been asked by various drivers was a very logical one: what would happen if they should fail the medical test and if the company could not provide suitable alternative employment for them. If, on the other hand, the result of a medical test indicates that not only is a man unfit to drive but he is also unfit for any other employment within the company, what happens? Such person may have given 20 or 30 years driving service to the company. From discussions I have had and from reading the Transport Acts, it appears to me that a means of meeting this type of situation would be by compensation. There may be a better way but that is the way I would suggest.
In such cases the amount of compensation might be determined in accordance with the lines of the Fourth Schedule to the Transport Act of 1950. Under that Act a person would receive approximately two-thirds of his wages. I would ask the Minister to consider this. I am informed that the number of drivers who, during the past decade, have fallen into ill-health has been relatively small. Therefore, I do not think that the acceptance of this amendment would impose any great financial burden on CIE. In the unlikely event of a driver failing the medical test and being found unfit also for any other employment, safeguards should be provided for him.
I should like to support Deputy O'Donnell's amendment and to support in particular the point he made that cases of this type must happen only relatively rarely. Another point that has always struck me in this House is that on any occasion when there has been amalgamation of different authorities—health authorities or hospital authorities or any others— there was unanimity here in so far as we would not wish anyone to suffer as a result of any legislation that we should enact for the purpose of making an organisation more efficient or increasing safety standards. This principle is, in fact, included in this Bill. There are clearly defined compensatory terms laid down for shareholders and others. We could regard these people in much the same light—people who would require compensation either by way of another job or in money terms—and they should be treated sympathetically.
There is a difficulty here because under the provisions of the 1958 Act, this related purely to redundancy and not to any losses on medical grounds as such. However, it is linked up in principle with the previous ones that we have discussed very fully. I will have all these examined between now and Report Stage and if I can come up with anything between now and Report Stage, we can discuss it then and go through it. All of these matters that we have been discussing are related.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 29, as amended, agreed to.
Sections 30 to 36, inclusive, agreed to.
First and Second Schedules agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported with amendments.
Report Stage ordered for Wednesday, 30th June, 1971.