REPORT ON THE NATIONAL MUSEUM. - RAILWAYS BILL, 1924—(THIRD STAGE RESUMED). – Seanad Éireann (1922 Seanad) – Friday, 27 Jun 1924

REPORT ON THE NATIONAL MUSEUM. - RAILWAYS BILL, 1924—(THIRD STAGE RESUMED).

Mr. COUNIHAN

The next amendment is contingent on the other being accepted.

Mr. McGILLIGAN

Am I to understand that Amendment 19 "to delete in lines 30 and 31 the words `live stock' " has to do with the same matter as the last? I was not able to understand the drift of it.

SECTION 46

(1) On and after the appointed day the amalgamated company may collect and deliver by road any merchandise which is to be or has been carried by railway and may make reasonable charges therefor in addition to the charges for carriage by railway, and shall publish in the rate book kept at the station where it undertakes the services of collection and delivery the charges in force for the collection and delivery of merchandise ordinarily collected and delivered.

(2) The amalgamated company may, and upon being required to do so and upon payment of the proper charges shall, at any place where the company holds itself out to collect and deliver merchandise, perform the services of collection and delivery in respect of such merchandise as is for the time being ordinarily collected and delivered by the company at that place:

Provided that the company shall not be required to make delivery to any person who is unwilling to enter into an agreement, terminable by him on reasonable notice, for the delivery by the company at the charges included in the rate book of the whole of his traffic, or the whole of his perishable traffic, from the station at which those charges apply.

(3) Where any person does not so agree, the company shall not be required to deliver any of his merchandise, but, if such person fails to take delivery of any merchandise within a reasonable time, the company may deliver such merchandise and make such reasonable charges therefor as it thinks fit.

(4) Any dispute as to whether or not any charge for the services of collection and delivery is reasonable, or whether the length of notice for the termination of an agreement under this section is reasonable, shall be determined by the railway tribunal.

Mr. O'DEA

Senator O'Rourke asked me to move the following amendment, and I therefore move it:

Section 46, sub-section (1). To delete lines 16 and 17 and to substitute therefor the following:—

"46.—(1) On and after the appointed day the amalgamated company shall collect and deliver in all towns of a population of more than 1,500 all merchandise in classes 1 to 5 which is."

It is a simple amendment, and it asks for facilities that we have been looking for for years. I believe I would be correct in saying that these facilities have been in operation on the three Northern railways for the last thirty years, but the Free State railways have not given the facilities for some reasons. They give carting and delivery facilities to English traffic, but we have not been able to get such facilities from them so far as Irish traffic is concerned. It does not mean that it will impair the revenue of the railway companies in any shape or form, nor can it cause any extra inconvenience for the reason that they have already carters employed in the principal stations in the Free State areas for English and foreign traffic. We find that station rates are particularly penalising on small traders. Traders and manufacturers have not got a carting staff, and they should be helped as much as possible. These facilities would be of great assistance to small manufacturers and producers. I do not think that the railways made any great profit out of the carting. In the olden days before the war, the cost was 2s. 6d. per ton. The Great Northern Railway have always fused the cost of carting into the rates, so that the customer got his goods delivered at once. I have supervision over the cost of carting here in Dublin, because I can do it myself or get a carter, but I have no supervision at the other end. I can only allow my customers the cartage at the end of the transit. If the railway company make a good contract with carters like Messrs. Wallis, they ought to make a profit out of the transaction, and it would be an enormous advantage, particularly to the small traders and manufacturers all over the country. I think it is a facility that the Minister may give. They do give it in this clause, but it is not definite. They say "may," but I shall be satisfied if they say "shall."

Mr. McGILLIGAN

This seems to be the old contest between "may" and "shall," as to whether a section is to be permissive or mandatory. The section ought not to be taken by itself. It ought to be read in conjunction with another section which has a definite bearing on the point. The amendment is to make it compulsory on the amalgamated company to collect and deliver in all towns of a population of more than 1,500 all merchandise in classes 1 to 5. Classes 1 to 5 would include the type of traffic known as "bag stuffs," meal, grain, etc. It is almost exceptional to find a trader who wishes to have these things carted and delivered.

Mr. O'DEA

I did not mean that.

Mr. McGILLIGAN

I have to speak on the amendment as it is before me. Supposing we leave out this type of traffic which is not desired to be carted and delivered by the ordinary trader, it means you set up a system of charges which will include these "C" and "D" additions. That will mean, in cases where the facility is not availed of, that there will have to be rebates. It is not a mere "may" in this connection. As far as Section 46 (1) is concerned, it says:—

On and after the appointed day the amalgamated company may collect and deliver by road any merchandise which is to be or has been carried by railway and may make reasonable charges therefor in addition to the charges for carriage by railway, and shall publish in the rate book kept at the station where it undertakes the services of collection and delivery the charges in force for the collection and delivery of merchandise ordinarily collected and delivered.

Section 58 again has "may" in it, but when the two are added together, I think you get almost compulsory cartage and delivery. Section 58 (1) states:—

With a view to securing and promoting the public safety, or the interests of the public, or of trade, or of any particular locality, the railway tribunal may, on the application of any body of persons representing any such interests, by order require the amalgamated company or any other railway company in respect to that portion of its undertaking situate in Saorstát Eireann to afford such reasonable railway services, facilities, and conveniences upon and in connection with its undertaking (including the provision of such minor alterations and extensions and improvements of existing works as will not involve in any one case an expenditure exceeding ten thousand pounds) as may be specified in the order.

There is room between the two sections for any body of traders interested in the matter to press the tribunal to make an order requiring the railway company to quote "C" and "D" rates, where they are desired in towns. This amendment would make it mandatory on the company to cart and deliver, even though traders in these towns might not desire it. Then you will have the further costly inconvenience of rebates.

Mr. O'DEA

My experience is that the traders in these towns require this. It is the railway companies do not want to do it. When goods are lost or damaged in transit it is quite common for the railway companies to try and shift the responsibility on to the carters. We want these services placed in the one hands. Supposing the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs were to send out notice that owing to trouble with the postmen he could no longer deliver letters or packets, and that people would have to call at the Post Office and collect them for themselves, what would the public think of that? The principle here is identically the same, only that you would have to apply to another body instead of the Post Office. I think that is absurd. We want to make a contract with the railway companies, and to have these services performed by them, so as not to bring three sets of people into it, one throwing the liability on to the others for damages for loss and injury to goods in transit. We never can get paid for any damages in transit except by the Great Northern Railway Company, who settle at once, because they are responsible from one door to another. I think the Minister would be well advised, in the interests of the railway themselves, to make this mandatory. We should appreciate the conditions under which small, struggling manufacturers are working, and give them the best services we can. Even if a man with a horse and cart says he will do his own carting, I do not think he ought to be allowed to do it. There are times at which you must protect men from themselves.

Colonel MOORE

I wish to support the amendment. It seems absurd that a small shopkeeper in the West should have to keep a horse and cart specially to fetch goods, perhaps once a week only, from the railway station. It would be much cheaper for the railway companies to distribute the goods to a great number of people as they could employ their horses and carts for six days of the week. It would be a great help, especially to people in a small way of business in the towns.

The EARL of KERRY

The Minister's argument is that the "may" in this section and the "may" in Section 58 in cumulative effect almost amount to a mandate, but I notice that in sub-section (1) of Section 58, there is a very wide loop-hole, namely, that if the company can make out that there is not capital sufficient for the purpose of doing cartage business, they are absolved from that responsibility. That seems to me to be such a wide opening that it fully justifies the fears which the mover of the amendment has expressed, that the "may" may amount to nothing, and that nothing will be done.

The EARL of MAYO

Might I ask the mover of the amendment how many towns are there in the Free State with a population of more than 1,500?

Mr. O'DEA

I could not answer offhand.

Mr. McLYSAGHT

In or about 80.

Mr. O'DEA

We are not adamant in regard to the 1,500; we are prepared to accept a reasonable limit.

The EARL of MAYO

The mover of the amendment has offered to leave out the cartage of bag stuffs. I do not know what the Minister has to say to that. My knowledge of towns in the Free State is confined to the town of Naas where the railway company deliver into the town. These matters ought to be cleared up, so that our minds may be clear on this. What Senator the Earl of Kerry stated is perfectly true, that Section 58 gives an opening to the railway company to refuse to do this cartage if they find it would not pay. I do not agree with the argument of the Minister that the two sections taken together would meet the views of the mover of the amendment.

Mr. JAMESON

Does not this seem as if the Seanad was again trying to take up the duties of the tribunal? We have no evidence before us that either of the Senators concerned in this amendment have gone into the matter so thoroughly as to know what effect it was going to have, and what the cost would be. Senator the Earl of Kerry says that under Section 58 it is doubtful whether the inhabitants of a town with a population of 1,500 could get what they wanted. That section enables a claim to have this privilege of delivery applied to a town, brought before the tribunal, who will examine both the case for the railway companies and the case put forward for the town. The Seanad ought not to take it for granted that these towns are incapable of looking after their own affairs. We are asked to make it compulsory for every town with a population of 1,500 to have these rates whether they want them or not. I believe the Seanad would be better advised to allow the inhabitants of these towns to take advantage of Section 58 and allow the applications for these special rates to come before the tribunal, which is to be established to deal with all these matters, rather than that the Seanad should deal with a matter about which they practically know nothing. We do not know the length that this amendment will carry us, or the cost that it will entail. We do not know how it will effect the railways, or whether there is any great demand from these towns for it. It would, I think, be rather premature for the Seanad to rush in and do what is the plain duty of the tribunal.

Colonel MOORE

I think what Senator Jameson has said is not quite correct, because throughout this Bill we are laying down certain general propositions for the guidance of the tribunal. This is what I might call a general proposition, that carting could be done by the company more economically than by individuals. A population of 1,500 is only laid down because it would be unreasonable to ask it to be done in villages and at small stations. I do not think it can be maintained that with a town, the population of which is 1,500, it would not pay the railway to employ carters. As to the number of towns covered by the amendment, I do not see that that has much to do with the matter. If there were only three towns concerned it, would be equally necessary for the railways to do the carting. I am sure-there are at least eighty towns concerned and, therefore, it is all the more necessary.

Mr. O'FARRELL

It is true that this amendment proceeds in advance to lay down rules that properly fall to the railway tribunal. As Senator the Earl of Kerry has pointed out, Section 58 gives power to the railway company to go before the railway tribunal, and prove by a host of expert witnesses, that any facility asked for, such as carting, would be a financial loss, and consequently should not be granted. Local traders and others have as much chance of winning against the expert witnesses of the company, with all their experience, as the proverbial camel has of getting through the eye of an needle. That is one of the reasons I think which suggests the necessity for this amendment. We have heard numerous complaints from time to time about the high cost of living in Ireland. One of the reasons of that is the large number of distributors. Their turnover is small, and consequently their profit has to be unusually large in proportion, if they are to exist at all. In every town with a population of 1,500 or 2,000 there are numerous small traders, every one of whom must have his own carting arrangements. The result is that the carting arrangements are uneconomic. The extent to which they are uneconomic has to be borne by the cost of the commodity carried. That is one of the reasons the cost of living is so high. It is obvious to anyone that, if the railway companies could muster up sufficient enterprise and do the carting and the delivery, it could be done far more-economically and on a more businesslike basis. I agree that there is a difficulty with regard to the amendment where it seeks to interfere with the work of the tribunal, but it is certainly one that merits serious consideration. If the company seeks to resist it, and do not desire to go to the trouble or to run any risk, in my opinion no body of traders will be able to establish a case against expert railway witnesses. As a result, Section 58 will be absolutely useless, for practical purposes, in respect to any single proposal that the railway company seek to oppose. We have experience of the railway expert witnesses on other boards, and we know how the truth can be told in different ways. Unless you are an expert you will be misled. There will really be no one to meet these expert witnesses except, perhaps, one member of the tribunal. Of course, he has to deal with the evidence put before him. I feel compelled to vote for the amendment, but I will ask the Minister if he could not consider a compromise in regard to the populations of the towns involved. I think it would be a reasonable proposition to have it in operation in any town of sufficient size where it would have reasonable chance of being made a financial success, leaving the railway tribunal to deal with the smaller towns. In the past, railway companies have not displayed that enterprise which would lead us to hope that they are going to make any advance in this direction. It is desirable, if for no other reason, in order that the cost of living will be brought down.

Sir HUTCHESON POE

I think there would be a good deal in what Senator O'Farrell has said about the difficulty of fighting a case against expert railway witnesses, were it not that the Government has taken care to provide against that, by establishing a special railway tribunal. It includes one railway expert and two others of business capacity. That is with a view to protecting the interests of the public in every direction. Accordingly, I think it is going too far to say that the traders will be fighting the railway experts when you have a special tribunal, composed of the best men the Government can find, to protect the interests of the public. I think they are going a long way to lay down directions. I would be prepared to support the suggestion made by Senator Jameson that we should not go out of our way by taking on work which would be much better discharged by the tribunal.

The EARL of KERRY

What strikes me is that the railway company will find it easy to prove that there is not sufficient capital to undertake this work. We all know that there will not be a great deal of capital floating about, and it is easy to say there is not sufficient for this purpose, unless the Bill is strengthened in some way in favour of the traders. As to the possibility of a compromise suggested by Senator O'Farrell, my feeling is that the Minister, if he does not like this particular amendment, might bring up one on the Report Stage that will strengthen the power of the trader to secure this generally desired concession.

AN CATHAOIRLEACH

It occurs to me that the views of the Seanad would be met if the proviso in Section 58 were slightly altered. At present it reads: "Without prejudicially affecting the interests of the then existing stockholders." If it could be shown that a transaction would result in one penny of loss it would prejudicially affect the interest of the shareholders. I would suggest that the Minister might consider whether the difficulty could not be got over by altering the words "prejudicially affecting" to "materially prejudicing," the interests of the shareholders. In other words, I think as the proviso stands, if the company could show that there was one penny lost on the transaction, they could defeat it, whereas if the words were "materially prejudicing," they would have to show that it would result in a substantial loss. I think that might meet the position. I am only throwing out that suggestion for consideration on the Report Stage.

Mr. O'DEA

As regards cost, I do not think there will be any costs at all, because the railway company can employ outside carters without any capital, so that so far as cost is concerned there is really no case. With regard to the loss, I cannot see how possibly any loss can arise when the tribunal has power to measure the cost of the carting to the parties themselves. Surely a great railway corporation can get cartage service performed cheaper than a small, struggling trader. My difficulty is this, and I am speaking now for my class: We feel it as a grievance that goods are not delivered from door to door no matter how many towns there may be requiring these facilities. It is very simple to find out how many towns there are in Ireland with a population of over 1,500. We could find that out in ten minutes. But I am not insisting that you give this service to every town of 1,500 of a population. If you agree to the principle then you say the rest ought to be left to the tribunal, and in a way I agree. But what in the name of goodness have we being doing here for the last three days if the tribunal is to deal with every subject? If that be so we have no business proposing amendments, and trying to improve the Bill. The whole thing in that case is merely an adaptation of a Bill passed in England in 1921. I have great respect for English institutions, and great respect for the whole of the railway system in Great Britain, and I think that if we could apply that system to Ireland it would be an enormous advantage to our country. But I cannot understand the arguments of Senator Jameson and of Senator Bagwell saying that all these things should be thrown on to the tribunal, and that we should have no say in the matter whatever. I said yesterday, and I repeat it to-day, that the up-keep of the railways and the revenue they get is borne by the agriculturist and traders in this country, and I say that they should get every facility that does not in any way injure the revenue of the railway company. I do not want the railway companies to lose one penny in giving these facilities. No man in this assembly knows half as much about this subject as Senator Bagwell, and no man could speak with more authority upon it than he could. His predecessor also was an authority upon this subject, and I could repeat declarations made by him upon it, but I do not want to.

Senator Sir Hutcheson Poë is in a peculiar position in this matter. He was a very distinguished member of the Railway Commission—a Royal Commission, I think—of 1910, which recommended these facilities. I cannot understand his attitude on the subject now. He was in favour of it as a member of that Commission, but now he comes in here and says he does not want it. I do not want to put the railway companies to one penny extra of expense. They will possibly get a profit out of it, and I believe if we could get Senator Bagwell's real opinion he would admit to us that his company make a profit out of this system. His predecessor, Colonel Plews, admitted they did not get much profit out of it but at that time only 2/6 was charged. Now it is something like 7/6, and any man can tell that a small, struggling manufacturer could not possibly get his cartage done as cheaply as the railway companies could get it done for him. Business with the traders is in a bad way. The railways themselves, we are told, are in a bad way, and this is a real effort to try and make railway transit more popular than it is. No one wants to see it worse. Even the Post Office, which is maligned by everybody, is more popular than the railways to-day, and my object in this matter is really to help them.

Mr. BAGWELL

A new point has been raised in this discussion, that no expense would be involved if this amendment was carried. That is completely illusory. This amendment lays down that cartage facilities shall be provided in case of every town of 1,500 inhabitants, which involves many small places. It may be that in some places people do not receive goods by rail at all and do not require cartage and delivery rates. There may be others who prefer to take delivery themselves. It costs less to have the goods consigned at station to station rates. The railway companies would be forced to set up machinery for delivery if this amendment were accepted, and few people might avail themselves of it, and consequently the thing would be worked at a loss, and the fact that the railway company can contract with somebody else to do it on their behalf does not make it any better, because in such a case as I describe the contract figures would have to be paid. If this were embodied in legislation, whether there are any goods to go by this special delivery service or not, it has got to be provided, which I submit, would be unreasonable.

Amendment put and, on a show of hands, declared lost.

Question—"That Section 46 stand part of the Bill"—put and agreed to.

Sections 47, 48, 49, 50, 51 and 52 were agreed to, and added to the Bill.

Section 53 (Adjustment of charges to Revenue).

Section 54 (Periodical review of standard charges and exceptional charges).

Mr. JAMESON

I have three amendments on the paper, and they really all hang together, though some of them deal with clause 54. The first is amendment number 20, Section 53, sub-section (1), page 25, line 4. To delete the words "thirty-three and one-third" and to substitute therefor the word "fifty." Amendment 22, in Section 54, sub-section (3), page 25, line 65, to delete the word "eighty" and to substitute therefor the words "sixty-six and two-thirds," and amendment 24, Section 54, sub-section (5), line 23, to delete the word "twenty" and to substitute therefor the words "thirty-three and one-third."

There are certain proportions laid down in the Bill as to what amount of the savings and economies effected are to be left in the hands of the company, and what amounts are to be used in the reduction of rates and giving protection for the public benefit. Sub-section (1) of Clause 53 of the Bill states that such amount shall not exceed thirty-three and one-third per cent. of such economies, and my amendment is that that figure of thirty-three and one-third should be raised to fifty. In Section 54 the same point is raised in sub-section (3), and only 20 per cent. of the saving is left to the company, and 80 per cent is taken for the general cheapening of charges. I propose that there ought to be thirty-three and one-third per cent. left to the company instead of twenty per cent. Again, in sub-section (5) of clause 54, I propose that the twenty per cent. there should be altered to thirty-three and one-third. With the permission of An Cathaoirleach, I am going ahead, as will be seen, with this amendment to Section 54, because the alteration is for one and the same purpose.

AN CATHAOIRLEACH

That would apply also to amendment 26.

Mr. JAMESON

All these amendments have the same object. When we look at this Bill there are various interests to be considered. We hear a great deal about the interests of the trader, and the necessity for the reduction of charges. We heard that exceedingly well put by many Senators. But we have also to consider that which is of vital importance to the State, namely, that these railways should not be in an impoverished condition, and that they should not be short of capital to carry out the various alterations and improvements which are necessary from time to time to meet the demands of the public. The companies do not make these extensions entirely for themselves. If they make any extensions not demanded by the public they are pretty sure to be failures. But for demands made upon them by the public they need capital. We hear a good deal here about the iniquities of the various capitalists, but I think we will admit that in a huge railway system, such as we are now dealing with, and which covers the whole of the State, if we are to close the whole of the capital account we close every avenue of improvement, every demand made upon the railway companies which requires expenditure of new capital, and we veto at once the steady advance and improvement of the railways to meet the demands of the public. Now, my view is that this Bill, as I read it, does not leave the railway companies sufficient means to receive fresh capital through their earning revenue to put before the ordinary investor to induce him to put money into the railway companies which will enable them to make these improvements. I think if Senators will look through the Bill they will see a fixed revenue is allowed upon the existing capital, and as far as I can read it there is no other source of revenue open to the amalgamated company than is dealt with in these two clauses—the amount to be gained by savings which had been effected and which are to be effected. According to the Bill, in one case, taking the first, page 25, sub-section (1) they are only to get thirty-three and one-third per cent. of such economies. When we come to think how capital is to be raised, nowadays to raise capital needs a far better effort of the capitalist than formerly, just as to get a labourer to work for you now you must give him a far higher wage to-day than before the war. Nowadays to get anybody to put money in investments you have to offer him far better terms now than pre-war. If you look at the railway companies that are dealt with in this way you ask yourself what are they earning at the present. As far as I can see, it is about four per cent. I think that is the total rate on all the money invested in these railways, taking debenture, preference and ordinary stock. It is a condition of the issue of capital by railway companies that they have to issue stock in certain proportions, and if they cannot issue their ordinary stock they cannot issue debentures and preference, and there is a limit put upon them.

Therefore, if you are going to limit the amount of the savings which the railway companies can put on one side to offer to future investors of fresh capital in their undertakings at four per cent. they will get no more money at all. As far as we can judge, the best of the English railway companies at present pay seven or eight per cent. If this Bill, with the amount it enables the companies to hold back out of the savings effected, does not allow the companies sufficient further revenue to offer to future investors and to people who would supply fresh capital, then I say we are putting an end to the prosperity of our railways in this country, or, at least, to the advancement of these railways. Those of us who have been living in this country for a long time know the one thing we have seen is the steady advance of the railways to meet the demands of the public, every one of which has needed fresh capital. If this Bill is passed in its present form, and if I am right that these proposals in these two clauses allow too small a sum to the companies, then we are undoubtedly doing a thing that we ought not to do. How can the railways meet the demands put forward by Senator O'Dea and meet the wants of the ports for further extension if we stop the chances which the railways have of doing these things? This Bill also proposes that the amalgamated company is to carry on, and take over by absorption a lot of the little baronially guaranteed railways which we know are in a very bad state. It is one of the best things in this Bill that these railways, which we know, if the Bill is not passed will have to stop, are being taken over. It is essential they should be kept on, but, as far as we can judge, they will not be a paying proposition at all for the amalgamated company. Of course, what we do hope for is that with better management, more centralised management, and more modern ideas, savings will be effected on a huge system instead of having a number of small one-horsed things. The savings may not be as great as one might have thought at one time, still, they will, at the same time, be very considerable. I do seriously hope that the Seanad will consider the amendments I have put down and that the amounts that the Bill allows the railway companies to get out of the savings effected will be sufficient to enable them to bring in fresh capital and make the necessary improvements which, if this country is to go ahead, are necessary to be made in the railways. If there have been feelings expressed against the railway companies as to their popularity, still, that they are a vital part in the progress of this country there can be no doubt. We are now going to give them probably as good a set of men as can be got in the Free State to manage them. The management will be the pick of all our railway boards, and I think even Senator O'Dea will admit that there are some brains amongst our railway managers. I think that we may certainly expect to get excellent management in this amalgamated company.

I think that it is not right that this Bill should so cripple the Board in their chances of putting up enough money out of the savings which they could effect to enable the appeal to the public to get the capital which they must get if they are to go on extending their railways in the way which will be absolutely necessary if the Free State is to go ahead at all. Therefore, I would ask the Seanad to make that thirty-three and one-third per cent. fifty per cent. Probably it would be better not to go beyond the paragraph in the amendment now——

AN CATHAOIRLEACH

Yes, it is better to confine yourself to it.

Mr. JAMESON

Very well. What I am asking the Seanad to do now is to make that fifty per cent. instead of thirty-three and a third per cent, and that is the amount the tribunal will allow the railways to hold out of the savings which are effected. I think that this is a matter with which the Seanad is peculiarly well qualified to deal. Because we are balancing now the demands of the different parts of the community; that is, the demands made on the amalgamated company. On the one hand there is one matter that all of us traders are intimately concerned in, that is to say, the reduction of freights on goods and passengers. Everyone of us here in the Seanad who has anything to do with trade knows how vital that is. We have also to consider the demands that will be made on the railway company for facilities. There are others that come in, and if we give the savings, or the main portion of the savings merely to bring down freight charges and passenger fares, and things of that sort, we may absolutely neglect the demands of different parts or different districts, and we may be starving the services in a way that we do not know. I believe we will be far safer if we adopt the fifty per cent. to be left to the railway company for the improvement and advancement of the country. I think we are, many of us, inclined to look upon a railway board as if they were a set of avaricious people requiring huge amounts of money for themselves and for their company. Now, in this amalgamated company every penny, after a few years, and every matter will be examined by the tribunal, and the whole public will know every single thing about it. Therefore, there is no question of the directors damaging the public interests for their own gain or for the gain of the amalgamated company. If we have done anything good at all in this Bill it is that nothing of that sort, let us hope, can take place in the future; that the tribunal watching the whole of the savings of the company and everything of that sort, nothing can be done, as far as I can see, that will militate against the interests of the public. But it will militate against the interests of the whole State if by this Bill we render it impossible for the railway company from time to time to get investors to put fresh capital into the company to meet the increasing demands of the public for facilities and advantages. Therefore I would ask the Seanad to raise the thirty-three and a third to fifty per cent.

Sir JOHN KEANE

I have a number of amendments running parallel to this amendment in the name of Senator Jameson which deal with this very important question—that is this question of the inducement of private enterprise to supply the capital necessary for railway development. I do not think I need press the point that development of the railway service will entail fresh capital, at any rate nominal capital. I feel bound to say that if capital were available experts might recommend the electrification of the suburban lines. That certainly cannot be done at present, I imagine, owing to the shortage of capital. Now in this question we are up against economic verity. You cannot get capital to come from motives of patriotism or through anything of that kind. You will get capital only because there is an inducement to capital. I would, therefore, very much like to know what is really in the recesses of the Government's mind. Are they genuinely anxious that the railways should continue under private enterprise, or have they any lurking desire for nationalisation? If there is any ulterior desire for nationalisation they will certainly get it, if this Bill is allowed to remain as at present, because I venture to say that fresh capital will not come in, and the alternative is clear. I know that there is a very responsible and prominent section of the community who want nationalisation. Others of us say that way disaster lies, and there we are at the parting of the ways.

Now I charge the Government with a lack of imagination in this matter, and with not having really looked at the financial question from the standpoint of our newly-gained political status. I do not want to say anything that is going to embarrass the Government from the point of view of their public finance. But it is common knowledge that they cannot borrow. The Government cannot borrow. Capital is not attracted as readily at the present moment to the Free State as it is to Britain, and there is no use blinking facts. The facts are there. Any Stock Exchange list will demonstrate that. Yet the Government, when free and unfettered in their financial arrangements, have gone with scissors and paste and taken the ipsissima verba practically of the English Act. That seems to be an inconsistency, if the fundamentals, as indicated by me, are true, that we cannot borrow as easily or our private enterprises cannot attract capital in the Free State as easily as it is attracted in England. I do not like to say it; but we are here as responsible men, and we have got to face facts. The time may come when we can do better.

Well, then, the question arises whether we are offering sufficient inducement in this Bill to fresh capital, and I boldly say we are not. In some matters we are only allowing the company twenty per cent., in some thirty-three and a third. I state it in general terms that we are allowing them an inadequate percentage of the economies they will effect; and moreover, the power of effecting any economies at all and any savings is largely in the hands of the railway tribunal. The railway tribunal by the fixation of rates may prevent any excess in savings, and even assuming that the rates are such that the amalgamated companies do effect savings, which is a big assumption, even then the percentage allowed to stockholders as an increase of the standard revenue is inadequate. I do hope that the Seanad realises the great importance of this question, because it really is an issue between private enterprise and nationalisation; and believing as I do that nationalisation is disastrous, and is stagnation, as has been proved in every country in the world that has tried it, that it is lacking in resourcefulness, in imagination, in fertility of invention and in every one of those qualities——

Mr. O'FARRELL

Is this a Second Reading Debate or are we sitting now in Committee? Is the Senator speaking to the amendment?

AN CATHAOIRLEACH

I think the Senator is quite in order.

Sir JOHN KEANE

I am nearly finished.

AN CATHAOIRLEACH

I understand that the Senator has stated that this question now debated raises an issue whether the railways are to be conducted as private enterprise or whether they are to be State managed.

Mr. O'FARRELL

Yes, but he is discussing the merits of nationalisation, and we have a right to traverse the same ground with him, and if we do start arguing that question we will never get finished.

Sir JOHN KEANE

I will simply finish by saying that if this section is allowed to stand as drafted, and if the amendment is rejected—it will involve other amendments that come on later on—then nationalisation seems clear.

It may be allowed. It is put in in a very definite way, that "such allowance (if any) as appears to the railway tribunal necessary." Of course the railway tribunal is to be the judge of the necessity. If they say that there is no necessity for this remuneration there is no allowance required. Senator Jameson's point boils down to this, that there will have to be an expenditure of capital, and no allowance will be made by fixation of rates until a year afterwards. That is what it comes down to. Let us look at the danger from the other point of view. It is sought to increase the amount of excess which would go to the amalgamated company from 20 per cent to 33? per cent. There is no obligation; that is to say, year after year, if there is a surplus, the railway company shall collect 33? per cent. of the excess, instead of 20 per cent., and that is necessary, we are told, in case they may have to incur fresh capital expenditure for certain purposes. But there is no obligation on them to expend or to modify in any way. There is a certain obligation in Section 58, to which I have already referred. They may have to provide minor alterations, extensions and improvements, but there is a limitation that it will not involve in any one case an expenditure exceeding £10,000. And there is a further proviso which has already been discussed here, that if it cannot be provided or expended without prejudicially affecting the interests of the stockholders the order shall not be made, and we have Senator O'Farrell's fears that a body of railway experts might roll up to the tribunal and be able to prove anything to it, certainly that this expenditure ought not be incurred. There are all these limitations, and in a case where the modification is necessary under Section 54 an allowance can be made under sub-section (4). Where the expenditure is voluntarily incurred an allowance may be made under sub-section (4). The danger, on the other hand, is that you allow the railway company to increase their takings of the excess from 20 to 33? per cent. in the hope that they will voluntarily expend. We know that sum of money was paid over to the companies at the end of the war control, sum amounting to £3,000,000. That money was supposed to be a payment to make up for arrears of maintenance. It was not expended in that way. It was expended mainly in dividends, and there is no obligation, and there is no power in the railway tribunal to compel extensions except under Section 58, and under Section 54 the remuneration of the capital drawn upon for the purpose of Section 58 is allowed. Now, I simply make this as a statement that is not made at all as a threat, or anything of that sort.

We are asked if the Government had any lurking idea with regard to nationalisation. The Government, as far as the Dáil is concerned, has already rejected a Bill brought forward for nationalisation, but it has rejected it while saying very definitely that this is the last trial before nationalisation, and if this amendment is carried this Bill certainly will not go through, because seeing the struggle I have had in the Dáil to get this section carried as it stands, allowing the railway company to retain 20 per cent. of any surplus in a year, I have no hope whatever of getting through the section as it is proposed to be amended by Senator Jameson. It would mean that the Bill would be held up; the Bill would not become law before the Recess, and it would mean that the Government would have to approach the matter from the point of view of the Labour Party Bill, which is nationalisation.

Mr. GUINNESS

Does the Minister refute the statement regarding the English railways, that the proportion should be 50 per cent. instead of 33? per cent.?

Mr. McGILLIGAN

I simply have the Senator's statement. I know that this clause is taken pretty well from the English Railways Act, and I would like to hear, at least, what the Senator's calculations are.

Mr. GUINNESS

I will supply them.

Mr. McGILLIGAN

I would like the Seanad not to take any vote on the 50 per cent. without having such information before them. My advice is that it is not so; it is exactly the percentage that is allowed here. There may be a more abstruse calculation, and I would like to refute it in detail, but I cannot go into it when it is made in such a vague way.

Mr. FARREN

In view of the Minister's statement I am half-inclined to vote for the amendment. I originally intended to vote against it, but in view of his statement that this is the last trial before nationalisation, I would be inclined to support it. Senator Sir John Keane stated that the Bill was largely scissors and paste, and that this portion was exactly similar to the English Act of 1921. He gave us a reason why we should not follow that Act in this particular respect, because of the fact that this country could not get capital as easily as it could be got in England. I want to say that we never could get money in this country as easily as they could in England. The banks, in accommodating either a trader or a private individual, always charge at least one per cent. more for money than they would have to pay in England. Therefore it is no new phase in the situation to say that we cannot get money as easily in this country as it can be got in England.

Senator Sir John Keane has an awful terror of what nationalisation would mean—that it would bring about disaster. I want to say that in other countries where nationalisation of the railways has been tried it has not brought about disaster. On the contrary, one of the greatest railways in the world, the Grand Trunk Railway of Canada, under private management got into a very deplorable state, and they had to ask the Government to take it over, with the result that a great deal of the big deficit that had accumulated under private management is now being wiped out under a nationalisation system. Further, in Queensland, Australia, where the railways are nationalised, the percentage of increase over pre-war charges for freight and passenger traffic is only 12½ per cent. and I do not think that in any privately owned railway in any part of the world you could show the same result as is shown there.

Mr. O'FARRELL

I wish to point out with regard to Senator Jameson's statement that the Bill in respect of these savings as it stands now is exactly the same as the British Railways Act. The same percentage is allowed.

Mr. McGILLIGAN

Yes, that is quite so.

EARL of MAYO

I should like to say a few words on this point. I was very much struck by what the Minister said—that it did not follow that these savings, which Senator Jameson's amendment would increase from 33? per cent. to fifty per cent, will be used for improving and ameliorating the position of passengers, etc. Senator Jameson said that he was not a shareholder. I am a shareholder in two big railways in this country, not of Ordinary shares, but of what are called Trustee shares, but after the Minister's statement I shall vote against the amendment, because if they are going to spend that money in dividends they are not going to improve the railways. That is perfectly certain. We had an example of it when the money that was paid by the English Government for the use of the railways during the war was spent on dividends.

Colonel MOORE

I would like to say a word in reference to what Senator Farren has said. In connection with the Grand Trunk Railway the way they paid off all the expenses and all the capital was to confiscate it, not only the ordinary but the preference shares.

Mr. O'FARRELL

No.

Colonel MOORE

I know it because I have had experience of it. The shareholders were wiped out, and they got nothing for their money. The railway was taken over practically free of all charges.

Mr. McGILLIGAN

Perhaps I might be allowed one more word in order to bind more closely to my side Senator the Earl of Mayo, who is beginning to show signs of coming towards me. On Senator Jameson's hypothesis the money would be almost necessarily spent on dividends, because it is by giving bigger dividends that Senator Jameson would hope to get further capital more easily.

At my request the Minister confined his case entirely to this first matter, the question of thirty-three one-third per cent. and fifty per cent.

Mr. McGILLIGAN

Yes. My remarks about the difficulty with the Dáil would apply rather to coming amendments and not so much to this. With regard to coming amendments, it will not be possible to get the Bill through on them. I do not want members to think that they have to give in to the other House, but if they think it wise to have the Bill through so that the small lines will be saved to the community this year there is a necessity for speed in the matter.

Mr. JAMESON

I am very glad that the Minister has given us this information, as it is extremely valuable and must weigh with us in coming to a decision on this matter. I am also glad to hear the information that if the Government would be unable to get clause 54 through we will have to look at that matter from that point of view. We are told that this case is not governed by that consideration, and, therefore, it is quite open for the Seanad to express its opinion as to whether they will not give the railway company the right to appear before the tribunal for a maximum of fifty per cent. instead of thirty-three and one-third per cent. It is quite clear that the Bill deals only with capital which has been raised. I am trying in all I have said to make a case for capital which must be raised in the future, and I hoped that the railway company should be given a chance of making a case that they need further capital, and that they must get fifty instead of thirty-three and one-third per cent. and leave it to the tribunal to decide what they ought to get.

Amendment put and declared carried on a show of hands.

Mr. O'FARRELL

As this is a very important question, and probably involves the fate of the Bill, I would ask for a division.

The Committee divided: Tá, 16 16; Níl, 16.

Tá

John Bagwell.
William Barrington.
John C. Counihan.
Dowager Countess of Desart.
Sir Nugent Everard.
James Perry Goodbody.
Mrs. Stopford Green.
Sir J. Purser Griffith.
H. Seymour Guinness.
Andrew Jameson.
Sir John Keane.
Earl of Kerry.
Colonel Moore.
George Nesbitt.
Col. Sir Hutcheson Poë.
Earl of Wicklow.

Níl

T. Westropp Bennett.
R. A. Butler.
Mrs. Costello.
Thomas Farren.
Martin Fitzgerald.
Thomas Linehan.
J. Clayton Love.
Edward McEvoy.
John MacLoughlin.
Edward MacLysaght.
Earl of Mayo.
Michael O'Dea.
J. T. O'Farrell.
Dr. W. O'Sullivan.
J. J. Parkinson.
Mrs. Wyse Power.

Amendment declared carried.

AN CATHAOIRLEACH

I am sorry to see that the Seanad is equally divided in this matter, and in view of the fact that the amendment only authorises the amalgamated company to apply to the railway tribunal, and only seeks to enlarge the maximum the railway tribunal may fix, I think this amendment ought to be carried, and I vote in favour of it.

Colonel MOORE

I move:—

Section 53. Immediately before sub-section (3) to insert a new sub-section (3) as follows:—

I have no desire to abolish it. If the Minister wishes I will withdraw it and bring in a better form of words later.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

AN CATHAOIRLEACH

I have a public engagement which will prevent my being back before 3.30. I suggest that the House should meet at 2.30. I have asked Senator Bennett to take my place.

Agreed.

Sitting suspended until 2.30.

Sitting resumed at 2.30,Mr. T. WESTROPP BENNETT in the Chair.

Question—"That Section 53, as amended, stand part of the Bill"— put and agreed to.

SECTION 54.

(1) The railway tribunal shall review the standard charges and exceptional charges of the amalgamated company at the end of the first complete financial year after the appointed day, or, if the appointed day is the 1st day of January in any year, at the end of that year, and unless directions are given by the Minister to the contrary in manner hereinafter appearing, at the end of each succeeding year, and the review shall be made on the experience of the operation of those charges for the period during which the standard charges have been in operation, or, if that period is more than three years, then on the experience of the operation of those charges during the preceding three years.

(2) The Minister may direct as respects any year after the second annual review that a review shall not be held provided that no such directions shall be given as respects any year for which the amalgamated company or any representative body of traders has applied to the Minister for a review.

(3) If on any such review the railway tribunal finds that the net revenue or the average annual net revenue obtained, or which could, with efficient and economical management, have been obtained by the company during the period on the experience of which the review is based is substantially in excess of the standard revenue of the company with such allowance (if any) as appears to the railway tribunal necessary to remunerate adequately any additional capital which may have been raised or provided in respect of expenditure on capital account incurred since the date upon which the standard charges were fixed in the first instance, the railway tribunal shall, unless it is of opinion that owing to change in circumstances the excess is not likely to continue, modify all or any of the standard charges and make a corresponding general modification of the exceptional charges of the company so as to effect a reduction of the net revenue of the company in subsequent years to an extent equivalent to eighty per cent. of such excess.

(4) If on any such review the railway tribunal finds that the net revenue or the average annual net revenue obtained by the company during the period on the experience of which the review is based is less than the standard revenue of the company, with such allowance (if any) as appears to the railway tribunal necessary to remunerate adequately any additional capital which may have been raised or provided in respect of expenditure on capital account incurred since the date upon which the standard charges were fixed in the first instance, and that the deficiency is not due to lack of efficiency or economy in the management, the railway tribunal shall, unless in its opinion owing to change of circumstances the deficiency is not likely to continue, make such modifications in all or any of the standard charges and such a corresponding general modification of the exceptional charges of the company as it may think necessary to enable the company to earn the standard revenue with such allowances (if any) as aforesaid.

(5) Whenever on any such review such an excess as aforesaid is found, then, for the purpose of subsequent reviews, sub-section (3) of this section shall have effect as if for the standard revenue there were substituted a sum (hereinafter referred to as the "increased standard") equal to the standard revenue with the addition of twenty per cent. of such excess, and whenever on any such subsequent review an excess is found above the increased standard together with the allowance (if any) for additional capital, then, for the purpose of subsequent reviews, the increased standard shall be increased by a sum equal to twenty per cent. of such excess, and so on:

Provided that, if at any time after such an excess has been found, the standard charges and exceptional charges are modified in pursuance of sub-section (4) of this section on account of a deficiency, no such substitution shall be made until an excess above the standard revenue together with the allowance (if any) for additional capital is again found.

(6) The railway tribunal, when modifying charges on any such review, shall have regard to the like considerations as when fixing charges in the first instance:

Provided that the tribunal shall have regard to the financial results obtained from the operation of any ancillary or subsidiary business carried on by the company, and if satisfied that the net revenue resulting therefrom is, having regard to all the circumstances, unduly low, may, for the purpose of such review, make such deductions from the charges which would otherwise have been fixed as they think proper.

(7) The modifications of standard charges and exceptional charges made in pursuance of this section shall take effect as from the 1st day of July in the year following the last year under review or such other date as the railway tribunal may fix.

The following amendment stood in the name of Mr. Jameson:—

Section 54, sub-section (3). Page 25, line 65. To delete the word "eighty" and to substitute therefor the words "sixty-six and two-thirds."

Mr. JAMESON

Senators will remember what the Minister told us when we were debating Section 53. What we were debating then was only mandatory in so far as the maximum was concerned. On Section 54 it is mandatory so far as the allowances to be given to the company are concerned. We can see, therefore, that there is a very distinct difference between the two sections. The Seanád, I believe, and especially the Chairman, when he gave his casting vote, was influenced by the fact that in Section 53 all we did was to give the company liberty to fight for 50 per cent. before the tribunal instead of 33? per cent. The amendments which I have down to Section 54, if passed by the Seanád and the Dáil, will be mandatory on the tribunal. Therefore there is a distinct difference between the two classes. The Minister has warned us quite rightly that the Government had found in bringing these sections before the Dáil that the most they could get was this 20 per cent., and that if the Seanád put in 33? per cent. the Dáil would not agree to that amendment. Therefore we will be face to face with the situation that our amendment will be rejected and that the Bill will be held up. In this matter I am only expressing my own views, as I have not consulted anybody. Even if I could carry this amendment, and everyone was agreed upon it, with that statement of the Minister before us I am very doubtful whether I should advise the Seanad to adopt the amendment, knowing it would hold up the Bill for a very considerable time. The Minister has told us it would have a great deal to do with the existence of many of these lines that are to be absorbed, and it might really cause a great deal of trouble. I doubt, therefore, if it would be worth while to run that risk, however strongly I may feel that the Bill in these sections does not give the railway companies a fair proportion of the savings which they will effect to enable them to raise the fresh capital which must be required. In the circumstances, the wisest thing for me to do is to withdraw this and the other amendments to the section in my name.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The following amendment stood in the name of Sir John Keane:—

Section 54, sub-section (3). Page 25. To delete the word "eighty" and to substitute therefor the word "fifty."

Sir JOHN KEANE

After what the Senator has said, I am rather in a dilemma. I am sorry he has done what he has done, but he has acted on his own judgment. Most unfortunately, I think, the position now faces us clearly that we will have either stagnation or nationalisation. I do not know which is the worst. To all intents and purposes they are the same, except that you can get a sort of spurious progress under nationalisation at the expense of the taxpayer, and under stagnation you will get what the word implies. I feel it is one's duty to say these things, even if they may not lead to much practical result. Under private enterprise, to secure which some amendments of the kind indicated are necessary, you get admittedly speculative development. The capitalist system is largely speculative. People take risks with the prospect of getting profit. You do not invest money unless you think you are going to make a profit. You may lose all, but you take the risk for the purpose of a speculation for profit. To refer to the Grand Trunk system, as Senator O'Farrell did, as an argument against private enterprise, is looking at the wrong end of the matter. You have got to recognise that if it were not for private enterprise there would not have been the enormous development that there was under the Grand Trunk system. It is true it was not remunerative and that in the end the State had to come in and take it over. But look at what the public got. They had all that railway development out of private capital instead of out of the pockets of the taxpayer. I consider it is an enormous advantage to get railways built even at the loss of private capital. However, as the opinion of the Seanad, in the circumstances, seems to be against us, I must fall into line and withdraw this and the other amendments to this section.

I consider this is an instruction to the tribunal and not a mandate. The words of the amendment are: "Provided always that such modifications shall have regard." I cannot see why the Minister should have such a strong objection to the amendment, seeing that it is only an instruction. The Minister has not argued that he objects to an instruction being given to the tribunal.

Mr. O'FARRELL

It puzzles the ordinary non-financier to know why these provisions should be so necessary in the case of this Bill, seeing that they were not necessary in the case of the British Railways Act. Amendments in various forms, but pointing in one direction, are brought forward under different specious pleas. I think we should have some sound reason to show why these amendments are necessary here. They were not found necessary in another Parliament, which certainly protects financiers to a greater extent than one might hope a Parliament such as this would. A certain long-eared animal once got leave to advise a saintly prophet, and, if I might be permitted to tender a word of advice to the financiers in this Assembly it would be, not to be too voracious. It is a dangerous thing to be too greedy like the boy who tried to get a fistful of nuts out of a jar with a narrow neck. They might have to let go all they have got by their attempt to grab too much. We have been treated to lectures and admonitions on more than one occasion to the effect that this is not as prosperous a country as Great Britain, and that we cannot expect as good conditions here as they have on the other side of the Channel. But some people who give these lectures come along and tell us in another connection "we must get something better than the British." The ordinary man in the street is unable to follow these two lines of argument. In my opinion it is trying to get more than they could possibly hope to get if this Bill had not been introduced.

John Bagwell, D.L.
William Barrington.
Samuel L. Brown, K.C.
Countess of Desart.
Sir Nugent Talbot Everard.
James Perry Goodbody.
Sir John Purser Griffith.
Henry Seymour Guinness.
Rt. Hon. Andrew Jameson.
Sir John Keane, Bart.
Earl of Kerry.
Earl of Mayo.
Colonel Maurice Moore, C.B.
James Moran.
Earl of Wicklow.

Níl

Richard A. Butler.
Mrs. Eileen Costello.
John C. Counihan.
J.C. Dowdall.
Thomas Farren.
Thomas Linehan.
John MacLoughlin.
Edward MacLysaght.
Michael O'Dea.
John Thomas O'Farrell.
Bernard O'Rourke.
William O'Sullivan, M.D.
James J. Parkinson.

Amendment declared carried.

Question—"That Section 54, as amended, stand part of the Bill"—put and agreed to.

SECTION 55.—PART IV.—WAGES AND CONDITIONS OF SERVICE.

(1) From and after the passing of this Act the rates of pay, hours of duty, and other conditions of service of railway employees, shall be regulated in accordance with agreements made or to be from time to time made between such employees or their trade unions or other representatives of the one part and the railway companies and other persons by whom they are respectively employed or the representatives of such companies or persons of the other part.

(2) The original or a counterpart, or a copy, certified in such manner as the Minister shall direct to be a true copy, of every such agreement as is mentioned in the foregoing sub-section shall be deposited with the Minister within one month after the passing of this Act or the making of such agreement, whichever shall be the later.

(3) In this Part of this Act the expression "railway employee" means a person who is employed by a railway company or the Irish Railway Clearing House, in any of the grades specified in the Eighth Schedule to this Act, and in such other grades as may hereafter be brought within the scope of the agreements referred to in this section by agreement between the parties thereto, and whose station, depôt, or other place of employment is situate in Saorstát Eireann.

Mr. O'FARRELL

I move:—

In Section 55, sub-section (1). To delete the sub-section and to substitute the following two new sub-sections therefor:—

"(1) From and after the passing of this Act all questions relating to the rates of pay, hours of duty and other conditions of service of railway employees shall be regulated in accordance with agreements made or to be made from time to time between the representatives of the railway companies and the Irish Railway Clearing House of the one part and the trade unions representative of such employees of the other part, and in default of such agreements shall be referred to the Central Wages Board, and on appeal to the Irish Railways Wages Board which have been established by agreement between the parties named.

"(2) Any necessary modifications with respect to the Central Wages Board and the Irish Railways Wages Board and Railway Councils to meet the altered situation arising from the passing of this Act shall be made by agreement between the amalgamated company and the other parties concerned."

This amendment is an antidote to industrial anarchy on the railways. The sub-section as it stands allows any set of employees to demand separate negotiations with the railway company. In other words, it means that when the trades unions functioning for those men make an agreement or award that any disgruntled section of the employees can repudiate that award and demand separate negotiations. Under the section all sorts and conditions of persons employed in the railways can come forward separately and demand separate negotiations. The amendment confines the negotiations to the recognised trade unions, and also asks that the new Wages Boards which have been set up as a result of agreements between both sides shall be recognised. We do not very much mind if those are not recognised in the Bill, but we think that that is a gesture towards the solution and settlement by reason rather than by force, and should be embodied in the Bill. During the past year new negotiating machinery has been set up for the regulation of rates of pay and conditions of service in the railways. The two important boards in connection with that are, first, the Central Wages Board, composed of an equal number of representatives of the companies, and the three railway trade unions, and in the event of their failing to agree, there is an appeal to an Irish Wages Board which is representative of companies, railway trade unions and users of the railways, both in the Free State and Northern Ireland. It is presided over by an eminent Judge of the High Court.

As an example of the necessity for this amendment, this Board had before it recently important proposals from both sides, and after a good deal of public hearing it failed to arrive at an agreement, leaving both sides free to take what action they liked. One union decided to go forward in support of certain claims they had, and at one time it looked as if there would be no compromise of any kind in view of the fact that the companies would not advance an inch until the Minister for Industry and Commerce intervened, and very wisely, in my opinion, asked the Minister for Northern Ireland also to take part in the negotiations. I would like here to pay a tribute to the way in which the Minister acted in a dangerous crisis. I know he said hard things to us, but I hope he said equally hard things to the other side in another room. The net result was that it was decided to refer the matter to the Chairman of the Wages Board. The workers could not, in fact—they were against compulsory arbitration—do that, were it not for the fact that they knew the judge would give a reasonable show to both sides, and the result of his award, while not pleasing either side, gave a certain amount of satisfaction, and both sides pledged themselves to it. If the Bill remains as it is, a certain section could repudiate that award, and they could show that under the Bill they had a right to separate negotiations.

I know the Minister in the other House said that there was something in the nature of a constitutional question involved here, as the Board represented all Ireland. To that extent I think the railway company and their employees are to be commended because they have refused to recognise partition. They have decided that the whole country shall be represented and that the same conditions will apply throughout. I do not think it would detract from the dignity of the Oireachtas to recognise those Boards, seeing that a judge of the High Court presides over them, that a member of the Dáil is representing on the Board the users of the railways, and a great number are residents in the Saorstát. All we ask is that the trades unions shall be made the medium of negotiation. We hope that the machinery already set up shall be recognised as it is in the British Railways Act. In the British Act the Government had nothing to do at all with the machinery, but they decided they would recognise it as such. It makes no matter in the long run, except to give it a mandate. We ask that this section shall be amended to take cognisance of the machinery set up which, I think, is the first serious advance on the part of the employers and employees to arrive at some method by which reason shall apply in negotiations regarding wages and conditions of service.

AN CATHAOIRLEACH

resumed the Chair.

The EARL of MAYO

Senator O'Farrell foreshadowed this amendment in his Second Reading speech, which I read with the greatest interest. To my mind this is one of the most important amendments that have been brought before us, for this reason, that I consider he is perfectly right in saying that all people working on the railways who have any grievance whatsoever, shall refer them to these Boards. I, therefore, think that the amendment is absolutely necessary. I put down an amendment which only deals with just three words in the section.

If the Seanad is agreeable. I think it would be as well to take the two together. I wish to say to Senator O'Farrell that I consider if an employee wishes to deal with his managing directors with regard to a domestic matter that, as an individual, he should be allowed to approach them. It is a matter for the Seanad to decide whether Senator O'Farrell's amendment or mine is the better one. On the other side of the Channel there have been very serious and dangerous projects carried out by men who are called shop stewards, as well as by other men who, during the lunch hour, take an opportunity of making speeches to railway employees urging them to all sort of mischief. The railway systems over there contain many men holding all sorts of different opinions, and all with a different way of living. These men who wish to create mischief take great care that they go to those parts where they will find people ready to agree to the mischievous doctrines that they preach. We wish to avoid that as much as possible in this country. I welcome what Senator O'Farrell has said with regard to the Wages Board that has been set up and as to the way employers and employees have agreed to go before this Board. It is quite true, perhaps, that you cannot satisfy everybody, but the Wages Board has done its duty in a proper and correct manner. I support Senator O'Farrell's amendment because I know the very serious mischief that is being created in other places. It is people outside the workers who come amongst them and who have no right to be in their midst that create the mischief. That is done in England, and if they get the chance they will come to this country and do the same thing here. That is one of the principal reasons why I welcome Senator O'Farrell's amendment and why I intend to vote for it.

Sir JOHN KEANE

I hesitate to venture into the region of trade union organisation, because I am not very familiar with it. I seem to see a difficulty, however, in this, and I feel it my duty to state it. Personally I am opposed to the ruling out of all methods of private or individual negotiations be tween employers and employees, but for the moment I will leave that aside. I will argue my case on the proposition that it is desirable to have corporate bargaining, and corporate bargaining solely. I may be wrong, but I felt when listening to Senator O'Farrell's speech, and in view of the doubts in my own mind, that he was on rather delicate ground. He talked about recognised trade unions. In this amendment there is nothing at all about recognised trades unions. I should like to ask him what a recognised trades union is. I define a trades union as any body that has statutory status. There is nothing, so far as I can see, to prevent any body of railway employees, if they think fit, from starting a trades union of their own and getting it duly registered. That would then become a recognised trades union, and I think it is most undesirable to pass any amendment that would prevent action of that kind. I gather that what Senator O'Farrell requires is that this Bill should give statutory recognition to the existing trades unions so that no other railway trades unions are to come into being. If any further railway trades unions do come into being, further legislation will be necessary to give them statutory status. I may be wrong, but that is what I gather from his speech. Passing from that, I just wish to say that I think a verbal alteration is needed in the amendment. The wording is trades union `representative." I imagine it should be "representatives" and not "representative." What I desire to know from Senator O'Farrell is if he contemplates the creation of further trades unions and if he will be prepared to allow additional unions. Perhaps it may be that disgruntled members of a trades union will break away from their union and form another union separately and legally register it. Would he be prepared to admit them in under this Bill. and give them the power and the status necessary for the purpose of negotiating? If it is the intention to stereotype by legislation the existing trades unions, and these only, I think the amendment is a most undesirable one.

Mr. O'FARRELL

I do not want to stereotype by legislation any trades union. The idea that is behind this amendment is that at least there shall be trades unions which will negotiate and not sections of trades unions, revolting sections which may be called outlaws or malcontents. Senator Sir John Keane knows that the phrase "trades union representative of the employees" is that union which can claim to represent the majority, or at all events a very substantial portion of the employees. It does not follow that because one man can start a union of say 20 members and get it registered that an employer should be asked to recognise that as a trades union. That really is a matter between the workers and the employers. Trades unions generally have to force recognition from employers, and they generally have to force that recognition by industrial action. They first of all show the numerical strength of the people they represent, and if the employers insist that the numerical strength is not sufficient in order to give recognition to the union, then industrial action is resorted to. It is obvious that a union of 100 or 200 members could not do that, and I do not think that any difficulty would be experienced by the adoption of this amendment. What we want to provide against is that there shall not be 20 different negotiating committees with the amalgamated company which could be the case if the Bill is left in its present form. I know that the Minister did not intend that that should be the case at all, but taking the Bill in the way it is drafted it is left open in such a way that a party of men could come forward and say that they had formed a union and represented 20 members. Such a union could demand certain conditions of service under the national agreement. They could go before the Board of the amalgamated company or the general manager of the company and put forward their case. With regard to the Earl of Mayo's remarks in the beginning of his speech, no one who has a personal grievance or any body of men with a grievance can interfere with a national agreement. In the first instance they would have to approach the company, and until they had approached the company and endeavoured to come to a settlement no trades union would take up their case. That is the procedure that all trades unions insist on. Trades unions refuse definitely to take up any case until the men in the first instance approach their employer and endeavour to secure an adjustment of their grievance, if it is a genuine one. It is only when they fail in that that the trades unions interfere and take up the case.

Sir JOHN KEANE

I think I have followed Senator O'Farrell, but yet I do not see how his argument is going to be satisfactorily embodied in any legislative measure. The basis of my argument is that a body duly registered appears before the tribunal with all the statutory equipment of a trades union, and that then somebody, presumably the parent union or a body representing a majority of workers also comes forward and objects. It says: Although you are a registered union we do not consider that you represent a sufficiently substantial proportion of employees to find a status here. Is it, I ask, then left to the tribunal to rule that these bodies, although properly registered and so on, are not to be heard. I see a great difficulty about this amendment, and, in fact, a good deal of litigation. For instance, I should like to hear the views of a distinguished lawyer like Senator Brown on this matter, which seems to me to be largely a legal matter. As far as I can understand, you are going to give power to the tribunal to refuse recognition to a Trades Union which has been duly registered, merely because it is not large enough or sufficiently representative in the opinion of the tribunal. I do not know where that is going to land us.

Mr. O'FARRELL

Already the Wages Board is representative of the three railway unions in Ireland.

I now move my amendment to Section 55 sub-section (1). "To delete in line 55 the words "or other representatives."

Although this amendment does not go so far as Senator O'Farrell's amendment, I would like to draw the attention of the Seanad to what he said on the Second Reading of this Bill. He said that under this section it was possible for sectional movements to take place amongst railway trades unions, and that this enabled any section of employees to go out on strike on their own at any time. I may say that I consulted no Labour member on this matter. In fact I consulted no one about it, but it appears to me that this is a simple way of dealing with what are called lightning strikes. The amendment does not preclude employees from bringing the private grievances alluded to by Senator O'Farrell before their directors.

Mr. McGILLIGAN

I have already stated that I have no objection whatever to this. The only thing is that it precludes individual employees who are not members of a trades union from being dealt with except by a separate agreement with each. If that is considered desirable, well and good. I agree with the points raised by Senator the Earl of Mayo and by Senator O'Farrell, that anything which would tend to weaken the trades union movement is undesirable, but this, I think, goes rather the opposite way. If any other form of words could be found to meet the point I have raised, the amendment would be very acceptable to me. I do not urge any very strong objection against it, but I simply point out that there is a danger to be faced.

AN CATHAOIRLEACH

I now put the amendment.

Amendment put.

AN CATHAOIRLEACH

I think the amendment is lost.

Mr. O'FARRELL

I challenge a division on the amendment.

Yes.

Colonel MOORE

But do you think, guessing, that we will be able to get through our business in these three days?

AN CATHAOIRLEACH

I have great hope that we will get through it easily by Thursday.

The EARL of WICKLOW

As a good many Senators are presumably already compelled to stay in Dublin to-night, if we were to sit late would it not be possible to finish to-morrow morning? I think, from the point of view of those who live in the country, that that would be preferable to being called up again.

AN CATHAOIRLEACH

That would be convenient enough for Senators living in the city, but I understand that a good many Senators have made arrangements for returning to their homes this evening. It would be very inconvenient for them.

Mr. O'FARRELL

It has been represented to me that in all probability there may not be a great deal of difference between the Minister and what is meant by the amendment. It might be desirable to withdraw it until the Report Stage, and I would appeal to Senator the Earl of Mayo to do so. I take it that the Minister, as a general principle, is in favour of having negotiations through the trade unions and not through sections of employees, and if that is the general principle that he has in mind I hope that it will be within the bounds of possibility to draft a suitable amendment for the Report Stage.

AN CATHAOIRLEACH

Of course, in fairness to the Minister, it must be borne in mind in doing that, that he has pointed out, from his point of view, that it will be necessary to make some provision not to exclude the possibility of representation by men not belonging to a union. It is quite possible that between this and the Report Stage some form of words that will meet the situation will be found, and therefore it cannot do any harm to let the amendment stand over for the Report Stage.

Consideration of the amendment postponed.

SECTION 56.

(1) Save as hereinafter in this section provided, all appointments to any office or situation in the clerical grades of the service of the amalgamated company shall be made by means of open competitive examination in accordance with regulations made by the amalgamated company.

(2) Every such open competitive examination shall be open to all persons desiring to attend the same who are ordinarily resident in Ireland and pay fees and possess the qualifications as to age, health and character prescribed by the regulations relating to the examination.

(3) The amalgamated company may by special regulation provide that such proportion as may be approved by the Minister of the vacancies in the clerical grades of its service shall be filled by means of limited competitive examinations, and where an examination is so limited only persons in the employment of the amalgamated company or the children of such persons shall be admitted thereto.

Mr. O'ROURKE

I move: To add at the end of the sub-section (1) the words "fifteen per cent. of the marks at such an examination to be for a knowledge of Irish." The time is coming, I hope, when we will be bilingual, and to lay the foundation of that the majority of the people should have a knowledge of the national language, and it will be essential, I believe, that all officials should have such a knowledge ten years from now.

Yes.

Sir JOHN KEANE

I say that in a concern of this kind which is still contemplated by this Bill to be independent of the Government, and still controlled, or mainly controlled, under private enterprise, and which is a proprietary concern in the general sense of the term, that you should not place what I say is a handicap, in the bread and butter sense, on the employees. It is quite evident that if they want to learn Irish they can do so, but to compel them to learn Irish, while crowding out subjects which it is very necessary they should know in order to earn their living, is a great mistake.

Sir NUGENT EVERARD

I quite understand the motives of Senator Sir John Keane in opposing the amendment, but at the same time perhaps he does not take into account that the clerical grades in the railways will have to deal with Irish. Irish is being taught almost universally. I do not mean to say that the people who speak and read Irish cannot speak and read English, but people can write in Irish if they choose, and it is for these that the clerical staff ought to be able to understand Irish.

Sir JOHN KEANE

I am perfectly satisfied that this is merely to state in general terms that Irish shall become a compulsory subject, and it is not going to work in practice.

Colonel MOORE

I think that Senator Sir John Keane accentuates the difficulty of this matter very much, indeed. I spent some years in South Africa, and I found Kaffirs and Hottentots, and people of that sort were able to speak three or four languages. I have had Hottentots interpreting Dutch, Kaffir, and their own language to me, one after the other, without any difficulty.

Sir JOHN KEANE

On a point of explanation. Might I ask had the Kaffirs and Hottentots to learn these languages compulsorily in schools, or had they to pass compulsory examinations in them?

Colonel MOORE

Of course it was compulsory, because they learned them in their childhood, and they had to learn them because everybody spoke these languages. Irish will be compulsory in most things, and I think that people like Sir John Keane had better open their eyes to that fact, and that he himself before long should be able to make a speech in the Seanad in Irish. I think the sooner he buys an O'Growney grammar the better. I can make him a present of one. Seriously, it is of great importance that Irish should be learned, that people should recognise the necessities of the case. This matter has been preached for twenty years and we all felt twenty years ago that those who did not learn Irish would be handicapped. The time is now coming when it will be a handicap not to know it.

AN CATHAOIRLEACH

Senator Mrs. Costello, would it suit your purpose if the amendment were inserted at the end of the first sub-clause of Clause 56?

Mrs. COSTELLO

Yes.

Mr. McGILLIGAN

This amendment has come on me pretty suddenly, but as far as I am concerned I may say that is is quite acceptable. I see the point made by Senator Sir John Keane, that to state that Irish shall be a compulsory subject for examination does not effect very much, and if the Senator cares to bring up any further amendment to say that a knowledge of the spoken language, and literary grace in written composition should be included, I would also be prepared to accept it.

Amendment put, and agreed to.

AN CATHAOIRLEACH

I should like to consult the convenience of the House further as to whether they would like to take up the Committee Stage again on Wednesday, or to allocate Thursday to it, and in that connection we would, of course, like to consult the convenience of the Minister as far as possible. I do not know if the Minister would prefer, and the House would agree, to have this taken up at once on Wednesday, or to leave it over for Thursday.

Mr. McGILLIGAN

I certainly should like to have the Committee Stage resumed as early as possible. Two amendments have been carried to day, and I see no great possibility of having them accepted by the Dáil. I see a necessity for having to come back here again to try to prevail on the Seanad to change its point of view, and if the resumption of the Committee Stage be left until Thursday, and we go on for a day, and if I then have to give notice to the Dáil, allow the Dáil to make its comments, and return here, I am afraid it would mean that we would be very close to the end of the Session. So that if it would not be to the serious inconvenience of the Seanad I would press for an early resumption, the earlier the better.

Mr. McGILLIGAN

The date contemplated was the 15th or the 16th, but there was, of course, an understanding that the Dáil would have to be called together later, somewhere about the end of the month, in order to receive back bills that had meanwhile been passing through the Seanad.

Mr. LINEHAN

I move to delete sub-section (3) of Section 56. I think it is very undesirable to confine competitive examinations in any public service to any special class, and if we adopt this sub-section, in order to be consistent we should apply the same principle to the Civil Service, that no persons shall be eligible for competitive examinations except the children of persons who are already connected with the service. I think that every citizen of the Saorstát should be eligible for employment through competitive examination in any of those services, and for that reason I move the deletion of this clause so that the competition may be an entirely open one.

Mr. BAGWELL

There is an objection to this amendment, sir, which, perhaps, would not occur to the mind of the mover of the amendment. It is a very ordinary practice on railways generally occasionally to promote from what may be described as the wages section of the staff to the salaried section. The cases which I have in mind are men who may begin, perhaps quite young as messenger boys or porters, but who show special aptitude for the work, and whom it is obviously desirable to promote to positions of greater responsibility than they could obtain if they remained in the wages grade. If these men had to enter through a competitive examination and had to compete against men from a school or college, who have, in some cases undoubtedly, crammed the whole thing up, they would be at a great disadvantage, and I think it would be very undesirable and a very unfair thing that they should be excluded from getting into the salaried grade by qualifying examination.

Mr. McGILLIGAN

I have very little to say on this. The system advocated is the system, I suppose, at present in operation in most of the railways, that a certain number of posts are reserved for those who make their way up by promotion, and I understand that the system holds to a certain extent in the Post Office. It is not entirely unknown to the Civil Service. It has been regarded as quite accepted and a good thing, and I think it was moved in the Dáil by a Labour Deputy, and met with the general approval of the Dáil. The Deputy pointed out these things to us and impressed this point of view upon the Dáil, that it was a system already in existence with some of the companies.

Amendment put and negatived.

Amendment by Senator Jackson, Section 56, sub-section (3). To delete in line 22 the words "limited competitive" and to substitute therefor the word "qualifying."

Mr. GUINNESS

With the permission of the House, I should like to move this amendment for Senator Jackson, for very much the same reasons as those which have been advanced by Senator Bagwell, that some of these men have been in the service of the railways and are suitable for promotion though they have lost the art of competitive examination, if I might so call it, and it would be foreign to them. But a qualifying examination in railway work would be eminently suitable for their promotion.

Mr. O'FARRELL

I do not know exactly what the result of this amendment would be. At present the 25 per cent. of clerical vacancies on lines where open competition is the rule are reserved for the sons or daughters of employees. That has worked pretty satisfactorily to a certain extent. There is this objection to it at times, that one man may be able to get into the service by that means three or four of his sons or daughters, simply because he may happen to have more influence than another, while another man equally deserving, may not be able to get any in. The meaning of the section as it stands would be that, say, this 25 per cent., or whatever number the Minister might approve, would be reserved for fair competition between the children of railway employees, so that no railway employee would get a preference as against another. These promotions are not confined to the promotion of operative grade employees to the clerical grade at all. I have known cases of men getting in two or three children who have simply passed a qualifying clerical examination, and others get in brothers and sisters. Perhaps there is a danger that some employees, through influence or through being connected with headquarters, may get an undue preference in a case of this kind. The subjects for examination may be reduced in their case, and the number of marks in order to qualify may be much lower than would be the case in open competition. But I think it would be only fair that all railway employees should have a fair field, and that there should be no favour in so far as this open competition is concerned.

Mr. BAGWELL

I am in favour of the amendment, which I think is desirable for the reasons which I mentioned when I last spoke. If a man who has been working as a weekly paid servant doing practical railway work, is it to compete at a competitive examination with the children of employees fresh from school, he will be at a disadvantage. Yet he may be a very useful man, because he has had experience of a certain number of years practical work. You cannot expect him to have had that experience of practical work and, at the same time, be as apt a competitor as the others.

Mr. McGILLIGAN

It is easy to have an examination which will take into account all these considerations. When the amendment was proposed in the Dáil it was pointed out that the examination might be a qualifying one afterwards and not a competitive one. The case of the banks was brought up very definitely. It was pointed out that there had been great dissatisfaction and all sorts of allegations of favouritism on account of there not being a competitive examination where the places were so limited. A competitive examination for the employees or the children of employees is very necessary. Without that limitation of competition, I do not see that the amendment will be very satisfactory.

Amendment put, and declared lost.

Mr. GUINNESS

I beg to move the following amendment standing in the name of Senator Jackson:—

Section 56, sub-section (3). Immediately after the word "in" in line 23 to insert the words "or have been in."

The object of the amendment is to include the children of old servants of the company.

Mr. McGILLIGAN

The principle of the amendment is acceptable, but there has been a change made in it, and I think it will have to be considered from the point of view of drafting.

Amendment agreed to.

Question: "That Section 56, as amended, stand part of the Bill"—put and agreed to.

Section 57 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

SECTION 58.

(1) With a view to securing and promoting the public safety, or the interests of the public, or of trade, or of any particular locality, the railway tribunal may, on the application of any body of persons representing any such interests, by order require the amalgamated company or any other railway company in respect to that portion of its undertaking situate in Saorstát Eireann to afford such reasonable railway services, facilities, and conveniences upon and in connection with its undertaking (including the provision of such minor alterations and extensions and improvements of existing works as will not involve in any one case an expenditure exceeding ten thousand pounds) as may be specified in the order:

Provided that, if on any such application a company satisfies the railway tribunal that under all the circumstances the capital required for the purpose cannot be provided or expended as proposed without prejudicially affecting the interests of the then existing stockholders, the order shall not be made:

Provided further that the powers under this sub-section shall be in addition to and not in derogation of any other existing powers of requiring measures for securing the safety of the public or the provision of reasonable facilities.

(2) The Minister may by order require the amalgamated company or any other railway company in respect to that portion of its undertaking situate in Saorstát Eireann to comply with any recommendation of an Inspector duly appointed under the Regulation of Railways Act, 1871.

It might be said that a line was not closed if one passenger train a week was run. That would not be any comfort to the people I am speaking for.

AN CATHAOIRLEACH

The Senator will have to exercise his ingenuity between this and the Report Stage and bring up a provision, or suggest it to the Minister, who says he is quite willing to consider it.

Mr. JAMESON

I beg to move:—

Up to recently there was a game known as "put and take," which became very popular for a time. It is quite evident the interests that briefed Senators Jameson and Sir John Keane are determined "to take" all and to "put" nothing. Let them take care that they do not kill the goose that might lay the golden egg. In Section 54, Senator Jameson got 33? per cent. raised to 50 per cent. Senator Barrington, with the able assistance of Senator Jameson, also got in a very valuable amendment, to enable the companies to amass reserves in anticipation of something that might happen, but without any proviso which would prevent them from paying what were supposed to be reserves as increased dividends. Now they come along and suggest that £10,000, the maximum amount of expenditure which the tribunal can ask the railway company to expend in the way of necessary facilities, shall be cut down to £3,000. They really want to have it both ways. It is a case of "heads I win" and "tails you lose" every time.

Senator Sir John Keane speaks almost with a sense of nausea of anything Irish when it does not suit him. Now he asks us to realise our independence and to assert it. Why should financiers here be given privileges which the non-progressive British Empire refuses to give to its inhabitants? I only wish he would assert that independence generally and in a more consistent manner. I hope the Seanad is not going to be led away on this matter. There is no use indulging in histrionics and mutilating this Bill. This was an exceedingly good Bill for the shareholders when first introduced. It was considerably improved during its progress through the Dáil. The Seanad should not countenance an attempt to make railway shareholders an octopus on an impoverished country— parasites trying to suck out the last drop of industrial blood from the community—in the way that has been attempted. Already they are more than protected and have amply entrenched themselves as a result of the two amendments passed to-day. This is another amendment to entrench them still further. The revolt will be in proportion to the amount of havoc played with the Bill here. Reasonable amendments will receive reasonable consideration elsewhere, but are not going to be taken seriously if we make wholesale inroads in the Bill.

Mr. McGILLIGAN

Might I point out that the all-embracing proviso here is a complete answer to anything that has been said. The limit of £10,000 might very well be increased to £100,000, which is, I believe, what Senator Sir John Keane is aiming at, but as long as that proviso is there, the £10,000 does not matter. A limitation is put on it by the actual sum, but to cut that down to £3,000 or £5,000 with this very definite provision in it is to make a farce of this part of the Bill.

Amendment put, and declared lost.

The Seanad adjourned at 5 p.m. until 3 o'clock on July 2nd.

Seanad Éireann debate - Friday, 27 Jun 1924