Skip to main content
Normal View

Seanad Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 27 Jan 1932

Vol. 15 No. 7

Railways (Miscellaneous) Bill, 1931—Committee.

Sections 1, 2, 3 and 4 agreed to.
SECTION 5.
Every order made by the Minister under this Part of this Act shall state the day (not being prior to the day on which such order is made) on which such order is to come into operation and every such order shall come into operation on the day so stated therein.

I move:—

Section 5. To delete all after the word "shall" in line 49 down to the end of the section and to substitute therefor the words "be laid before each House of the Oireachtas and shall not come into effect until a resolution approving such order shall have been passed by each such House."

Part II of the Bill, of which this section is part, deals with the cessation of services on certain railway lines and the possible closing of the lines. Most if not all of these lines were made under the authority of Parliament directly, or by statutory orders which had the approval of Parliament. It is proposed that the Minister may make orders allowing these lines to be closed on his own initiative without seeking the approval or the sanction of the Oireachtas. The first prompt was to put down the normal amendment dealing with orders to be laid on the Table which might be declared invalid after a certain period, and that even though such invalidity was declared any act done under the order would be valid. I think that formula would be unsatisfactory in this case, because if a line were made non-effective the act of the Oireachtas in invalidating the order at a later stage would be of no effect. Consequently the amendment put down is to the effect that every order made by the Minister with regard to the cessation of services shall be laid before the Houses of the Oireachtas and a motion of approval be passed by each House. I think that is a reasonable proposition in view of the fact that services that may be closed have been ordered by Parliament, have been supported by public funds or have been approved by specific resolutions of the Parliament of the time. If there is to be a cessation of these services it ought not to be done merely by the order of the Minister but by an order of the Minister plus the sanction of the Oireachtas.

I oppose the amendment. It seems to me that if it were passed it would bring this whole matter into a political and a controversial atmosphere, which is exactly the atmosphere in which it should not be dealt with. As the Bill stands the matter would be the subject of inquiry and would be settled in a judicial and responsible atmosphere, because the Minister has much more responsibility than either of the two Houses could have in a matter of this kind. It would become a controversial and a political matter under the amendment, and for that reason I do not think the amendment is desirable.

Minister for Industry and Commerce (Mr. McGilligan)

I want to point out that I have taken precautions to give myself power to hold an inquiry. I do not say that that inquiry will always have to be held. The phrase is: "The Minister may, if he thinks proper so to do, cause a public inquiry in regard to the making of such order to be held." I said that, ordinarily speaking, I would have such an inquiry held in order to get the views of the people affected, and to have the situation clarified for them, so that they would get some idea of the respective economics of the types of transport on offer. I agree with Senator Bagwell that after going through that process—having a local inquiry held, with a certain amount of ventilation of ideas there and a report made—if I am supposed to delay action until a resolution has been laid before the Oireachtas, and until both Houses pass resolutions approving of such order, then, undoubtedly, the delays are going to be interminable, and I do not know that we are going to have any better situation created. As Senator Bagwell pointed out, by discussion of these orders in either of these Houses an amount of consideration would be brought to bear upon them that would not universally arise at a public inquiry. The responsible Minister, in these circumstances, with the information that he has obtained from the public inquiry, will have a certain amount of extra responsibility placed upon him before the making of the order. He will have to consider all the facts, and, incidentally, although it is not a complete answer on the main merits of the amendment or in respect of anything I have said against it, it would be my intention—I would be driven to do so—to make orders with regard to certain railway areas almost immediately upon the Act coming into operation. I am not at all sure that certain services being run at the moment are strictly in accordance with the obligations of the company. They are the most that could be demanded in the circumstances of the time, but they do seem to me to be less than the statutory obligation. It would be my desire, my intention, and, I think, my duty to make an order immediately establishing the existing services as I find them until such time as an inquiry can be held. This amendment would make that impossible. That, however, is only incidental. I have the objection that I spoke of already to having this put in as a precise provision in the Bill. In speedily reorganising the transport system in certain areas, there will be great necessity for quick movement, and that would be impossible under the amendment.

Amendment put and negatived.

Section 5 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Sections 6 and 7 agreed to.
SECTION 8.
(2) The following provisions shall have effect in relation to an order made under this section, that is to say:—
(a) the Minister shall not make such order unless he is satisfied that, having regard to the alternative transport facilities which are or will be available in the district served by the railway line to which such order relates, adequate transport facilities will be available to the public in such district notwithstanding the cesser of the running of trains over such railway line.

I move amendment 2—Section 8, sub-section (2), To delete paragraph (a).

As many people are aware, the railway company are compelled, by their statutory obligations, to provide services on many of the branch lines which are uneconomic. Some of these branch lines mean an annual loss to the railway company of from £2,000 to £3,000 a year. The permanent way and other amenities in connection with these lines are in very bad repair and in a few years very large capital sums will have to be expended upon them. The railway company have no alternative. Under the Bill, the railway company cannot close down these lines unless they offer an alternative road service. No public trading company is likely to undertake such a service, and it seems as if the unfortunate railway company would have to shoulder this burden for all time. The burden will consist not alone of an annual loss, but of large capital sums which will have to be incurred if the railway company are to comply with the regulations of the Board of Trade or whatever body has succeeded the Board of Trade in the Saorstát. Under these circumstances, I move the amendment. The amendment does not really represent what I wish to happen in the matter. We do not wish to deprive people living in these poor areas of transport facilities, but something ought to be substituted, and the unfortunate railway company ought not to be required to shoulder the whole of the burden.

I oppose this amendment on the grounds that it would wipe out the trade of a number of important towns and districts of the Saorstát. If these branch lines are not paying the railway companies at present, they paid them for twenty or thirty years. The lines which it is intended to close now were built and handed over to the railway companies without any cost. During the years they worked them, they must have made some profit for the companies. It is a preposterous proposition to suggest that these lines should be closed down without giving an alternative service. There might be a case made for asking the Government to come to the rescue and subsidise these lines. I am sure the House would agree to a proposition of that sort, but the closing down of the lines without providing an adequate alternative service is out of the question.

Senator Counihan knows as well as I do that this House cannot compel the Government to subsidise these lines or to bear any loss in connection with them. Matters concerned with finance are outside the purview of this House.

The Senator could make a suggestion.

I have the greatest sympathy with railway companies in a matter of this kind. From the legislative point of view, I think they have not been fairly treated in this matter. They had those baronially guaranteed lines shoved on to them at some period. However, I do not think the amendment is one that will commend itself to the House. Here, you have a public service being provided, and from the public point of view I think it is only reasonable that the Minister, before he gives permission to close a line should inquire as to whether an alternative service should be provided and, if he thinks such is reasonable, that he should insist on that alternative service being provided. I cannot conceive of any district at present served by a branch line being so poor as to be unable to provide business for a small motor enterprise, which would be the alternative—possibly a sufficiently reasonable alternative—to a railway, which in many cases is much too big. To absolve the Minister from making any inquiries in the public interest as to whether or not there is an alternative means of transport available, is, I think, going too far.

Mr. McGilligan

I should like, in the first place, that the section to which the amendment refers and the amendment itself should be brought into line with the facts. It must be remembered that—if, at the moment, we are speaking of baronially guaranteed areas or of lines built out of public funds—there is an obligation on the railway company to provide services. It was recognised that it was an onerous obligation to impose upon them in the circumstances in certain districts a continuance of the old services. In fact, some of these have been modified— modified, I am afraid, beyond what is strictly and legally allowable. This represents a gesture of a generous type towards the railway company in regard to the running of these services. It allows the Minister to make an order for the modification of the services, or for the complete cesser of the services. The only sentence that Senator Parkinson, I think, objects to is this: "The Minister shall not make such order unless he is satisfied that, having regard to the alternative transport facilities which are or will be available in a district served by the railway lines to which such order relates, adequate transport facilities will be available to the public in such districts...."

That is all that is required. There is no obligation and there is no insistence in this that an alternative transport service shall be provided by the railway companies. It can be provided by anybody, even by the two-man concern that Senator Sir John Keane spoke of earlier. It will be in the Minister's discretion to interpret this phrase, and the phrase will have to be read in relation to the circumstances of the district: what is adequate transport and what are adequate transport facilities in any area. It may be, as Senator Bagwell will say, that a single small motor vehicle running a limited number of times in the week would be found in the circumstances of a locality to be adequate transport facilities. There is no necessity, as I said previously, for these adequate transport facilities of an alternative type to be provided by the railway companies. All that is here is the obligation on the Minister to see that there is going to be something which, in his opinion, is adequate. He will be the person who will pass judgment on what that means, and the whole thing will have to be taken in relation to a particular area of country. Certainly there is no injustice going to be done to the railway company or to anybody else under this. I do not think there is even likely to be the possibility of a mistake made. I would say that there are very few areas in the country where you have conditions, due to modern motor transport, in which even on its own a limited service would pay if we think entirely of the railway. That leaves out altogether the feeder value of such a service to the main line system. I have no doubt at all that in most instances we will be able to induce the railway company or some outside people to put on some type of transport which will be considered adequate to the needs of the people in a particular area.

I think there has been too much misrepresentation with regard to this section and not enough care to study the exact terminology of it. I hope the explanation I have given will help to reduce some of the fears that are on that point.

I ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Sections 8, 9 and 10 agreed to.
SECTION 11.

I move amendment 3:—

New section. Before Section 11, and in Part II, to insert a new section as follows:—

11.—Every existing officer and servant of a company owning a railway line whose office or situation is abolished, or whose services are dispensed with on the ground that they are unnecessary or for any other reason not being on account of any misconduct or incapacity, or whose remuneration or emoluments are reduced, or who otherwise suffers any direct pecuniary loss as a result of an order made by the Minister, under this Part of this Act, shall be entitled to be paid compensation by such company, the amount of such compensation to be determined by such company and to be subject to appeal in accordance with the rules prescribed in paragraph 5 of the Third Schedule to the Principal Act as amended by Section 4 of the Railways (Existing Officers and Servants) Act, 1926, and the said rules and paragraph 8 of the said Schedule shall apply to any such claim for compensation as if they had been incorporated herein, and references to the amalgamating company, an amalgamating company or an absorbed company shall for the purposes of this section be construed as references to the company owning a railway line by whom such officer or servant was employed immediately prior to the happening of the event giving rise to such claim for compensation.

The amendment provides for the payment of compensation to railway employees who lose their employment as a result of the closing down of a railway line by order of the Minister. This amendment does not embody any new principle. The Railway Act of 1924 contained a provision whereby men who lost their employment as a result of amalgamation were to receive compensation along certain specified lines. A railway company is a statutory undertaking, and is only allowed to operate as a result of an Act of the Legislature. It has certain commitments to the public, in reference to cases dealt with in this Bill. It has definite contracts with the baronies or with the State. All these are being enforced, or at least are being provided for. The only exception is its contract with its employees. A baronially guaranteed line had to give a certain minimum service. In return for that the baronies guaranteed the dividends at a certain rate, so that whether the line closed down or not that guarantee had to be fulfilled as far as the baronies were concerned.

In order that railways might run at all, men had to be employed. Their employment was always looked upon as being of a reasonably permanent character. In fact, such employment was always of a permanent character. Until quite recent times unemployment amongst railway employees was unknown. But now there is a great encouragement and a great incitement, in fact, to railway companies to develop along the ordinary highways instead of on their railways. Although they may be doing reasonably well on these branch lines, their policy seems to be to neglect them, and to develop a road service instead in the same district. They can then apply to the Minister for permission to close down the railway and show that they are giving an adequate service by road, whether that service be by bus or lorry.

The public may have no objection to that, because they may be quite satisfied with the new service that the company is providing, but the unhappy railway employees have no protection at all. The public must be provided with an alternative service, and the district generally must be served, but men who have given their life's service may take their tools and go, and there is to be no compensation for them. In many cases this will not happen because of any great reduction in railway traffic, but because of the greater incentive to develop a road service against the railways. I submit that if the Minister is to give permission for the closing down of a line because of the considerations I have mentioned, then he should impose on the railway company concerned the duty of giving compensation to these men or of finding alternative employment for them.

The amendment does not provide for alternative employment, but if it is incorporated in the Bill the company will be able, in the great majority of cases, to find employment for them elsewhere in the railway service or in connection with the new bus or lorry services which they are running. If there is no provision of this kind the incentive will be to dismiss the men who have fairly long service and to take on men who can start at the bottom rung. There will be no incentive at all to find alternative employment for them or to transfer them to other portions of the service.

The compensation provisions in the Railways Act of 1921 passed for Great Britain operate indefinitely, so that any man losing his employment as a result of amalgamation continues to get his compensation up to the present day. The compensation provisions in the Act passed here in 1924 were limited to seven years by the amending Act of 1926. The result of that is that railwaymen going out now are not entitled and have no legal rights to compensation at all. In this Bill a new principle is introduced. The Minister, representing the State, is given power to authorise the closing down of a railway line, and the company is given facilities to go on the road to get revenue by other means. I think that should carry some responsibility with it, the responsibility being to pay compensation as set out in the amendment. The amendment does not propose to give luxurious compensation because in order to get half-pay a man would need to have a minimum of twenty years' service. In order to get two-thirds of his pay he would need to have thirty years' service. In these matters, even though men may feel that they have a very good case, they are inclined to come to a compromise with the company rather than go before the arbitrator. In that way the railway company may get out of it at a considerably lower figure than that suggested in the amendment as they have been doing in the case of the Railways Act, where practically all the cases were settled below the statutory figure incorporated in that Act. I think that such a provision as I suggest would only be an act of elementary justice to the railwaymen who see their employment taken from them by the opening up of a new form of transport. I hope the Minister will feel that it is the duty of the State to see that some compensation is given to them.

This amendment is a very important one. A very important principle underlies it and I hope to give reasons to the House why they should not adopt it. There is a certain amount of precedent for this, as the Senator stated. There is a precedent in the Amalgamation Act passed in Great Britain and in this country, with none of which, may I say, I was in agreement and none of which I think should ever have been passed. The circumstances, however, in this case are somewhat different. I do not say that the precedent justifies the amendment, because personally I do not approve of the precedent. That is, however, only a personal point of view. Circumstances here are somewhat different. The Amalgamation Acts were compulsory. They compelled amalgamation of railways and automatically set up a state of affairs whereby a number of people lost their employment or were likely to lose their employment. This Bill is not, I suggest, quite of that kind. The action is Governmental action to a certain extent, now, in that the Minister makes an order. What has brought about the circumstances under which it has become necessary and justifiable for the Minister to make such an order? It is the economic state of affairs whereby the railway company is not justified in carrying on a particular part of the concern because it is not paying. It is losing money and it is bleeding the rest which is a vital necessity to the public. What makes this thing so important is that there is a principle underlying the amendment which really and simply is this, that railway employees should remain a privileged class. I say that with due regard to the gravity of what I am saying.

Senator O'Farrell has alluded to the fact that until comparatively recent years railway employment was looked upon as permanent or, in fact, was of a permanent character. Yes, it was. That is perfectly correct, and a very good thing it was too, and I wish that the state of affairs which existed for so many years, and that brought that about, existed to-day. Of course, circumstances have very much changed, and I suggest that it is not only the advent of road traffic, which is a new thing and which is a great competitor of the railways, that has brought about the necessity for closing down certain sections of the railway line, but also the demands of the railway men voiced by, among other people, the mover of the amendment. I cannot really see why one section of men in the country should be compensated because they lose their employment any more than any other section. It is a dreadful thing for a man to lose his employment. Do not think that I do not realise that. It is a terrible thing, and all sorts of provisions are made by the State to tide men over such a misfortune. They cannot entirely tide them over it. It is a dreadful calamity for a man, but I do not really see why any one section of the community should be entitled to compensation any more than any other section because of that, because, of course, such a provision could not be applied generally. The State could not possibly afford it, and whatever is done for one section to put them in a privileged position or to compensate them for losing their employment owing to economic reasons has got to be borne by the rest of the community to the detriment of the State as a whole. For that reason, I cannot see from the point of view of statesmanship that such action is justified.

I think it is always a delight to hear Senator Bagwell. I believe he would honestly be amazed to hear Queen Anne was dead. He has brought into this discussion arguments against amalgamation both here and in Great Britain, but were it not that the Act of 1924 was passed there would be half a score of railways closed down at the present time. Still he says the whole thing was a mistake. He argues further that the reason for giving compensation under the Act of 1924 was because amalgamation was compulsory. I suggest that if there was any argument for getting out of paying compensation it might be found there, that the railways were compelled to do something which they themselves did not desire to do. Still they were compelled to pay compensation to the men discharged; they had to do it under that Act. In this case they are not compelled. They are simply themselves asking for permission from the Minister to close a line, and in return for giving that permission I suggest that they should be compelled to pay compensation to the men who are being discharged.

The very argument Senator Bagwell used against the amendment could be used far more effectively in the other direction. He also brings King Charles's head into it when talking about high wages on the railways. Is 35/- a week an exorbitant rate? It is true, as he states, that railway work was permanent in the past, but I should not like to go back to the days when the railway milesman was paid 12/- a week, porters were paid 13/- or 14/-, and hundreds of stationmasters were paid from £1 to 25/- a week with a free house. That probably accounted for the fact that it was permanent, together with the other consideration that there were no fixed hours of duty and no payment for overtime or Sunday duty. To say that it is railway wages that have the railways in their present condition, as has been said hundreds of times, is a statement that has failed to impress the members of the Railway Wages Board, on which there are representatives of the trading public. At all events, I think there is a better case here for compensation even than under the Railways Act. The amount involved will be a comparatively small sum. It will be rendered all the smaller by the fact that the company will be able to absorb redundant members of the staff on other sections of the service or in the alternative service which they will be creating.

Mr. McGilligan

I regard any argument based on what happened under amalgamation as entirely inappropriate to this discussion. Amalgamation was really something that was brought about by direct State action. It was also brought about because it was believed, and has since found to be a fact, that the amalgamation process would leave the railways in a healthier condition financially than they were at the moment of amalgamation or that they were likely to be in if there was to be no amalgamation. Arising from that and from the economies which is was thought could be effected under amalgamation, at least there was some fund out of which compensation could be paid to people whose disemployment was brought about by direct State action. This is entirely different. The Senator has argued that I make the Order, and the weak-analogy is drawn that it is through State compulsion. The fact is that the Order will only be made when the facts of the situation warrant its being made. The facts will only warrant the Order in the case in which it is found that the railway system is either obsolete or obsolescent, and where in fact the position is that there is really no work of a railway type for railway men to do. The circumstances are therefore entirely different.

The amendment of the Senator would give compensation to people who are dismissed for any reason. Quite clearly the Railways Act of 1924, as well as the amending Act, provided that compensation would only be payable where the dismissal or the loss of employment was directly due to amalgamation. The speech made explaining the amendment before the House shows clearly that here compensation is being claimed for loss of employment or loss of employment whether or not as a result of any State action. It is being claimed even if the reason for the loss of employment is clearly this: that there is no railway traffic to be handled.

The closing down of the line.

Mr. McGilligan

Due to the closing down of the railway line because the traffic does not warrant the line being kept there. That amounts, in fact, to what I have often argued against before in the other House—the contention of the Labour Party that we should stereotype the number of railway servants and should compensate those who leave, no matter what the reason that brings about their dismissal or their loss of employment.

That, of course, I am going to ask the House not to agree to. We have got to recognise facts. Senator Bagwell has deplored that facts may bring about the disemployment of certain people. I deplore it myself. If that is the fact, and if, contrariwise, there are going to be other people put into employment of a different type of service, the resulting situation is no worse off from the point of view of employment given. It is different with regard to the individual who is being disemployed in any particular section. I made a point in the Dáil. I can make it again here—that where, in fact, the circumstances are such that a railway company decides to close down a branch-line railway service and to substitute for that a road service of its own, I would make an appeal to the railway company to see that those disemployed railwaymen would be given whatever employment there was before any new entrants, and that they should have regard to the unemployed railwaymen, but only in the circumstances where there is a branch railway line closing down and where the railway company are themselves taking on a new form of transport. I certainly would not feel able to make that appeal to them in a case where they are closing down a branch line because the traffic does not warrant its being kept open and where they are not themselves providing an alternative form of transport. There are certain other objections I would have to this amendment, but this is the main one. The subsidiary one which I think I will mention is that the contrast in different types of railway services, if this amendment were carried, would be most extraordinary. If men were put out of employment because a railway company decide either to abandon or single certain parts of their main line, no compensation is payable; but if the same thing happens in a branch line by reason of stress of economic forces such as have been described, then compensation has got to be paid. I think that is completely illogical. At any rate, I have spoken of the merits of the amendment in the main, and I ask the Seanad not to accept it.

I want to touch on the principles involved in this, especially in view of the speech of Senator Bagwell. He has argued against the very principle of compensating the workmen who are thrown out of work by action taken for the public interest. Hitherto railwaymen have been, or are said to be, a privileged class, because they are claiming compensation on being thrown out of employment, and he says it is impossible for that principle to be applied to other workmen in other industries because the State would not be able to bear the cost. Let me draw attention to the fact that the railwaymen that would be thrown out of employment if they have served three years are not even entitled to unemployment insurance. Therefore they are thrown out of employment penniless, without even a week's expectation of wages or money to keep their family. Surely one has to take into account the relationships between the workmen and those who own the industry? The Senator is quite right in saying that if this is applied to railwaymen it ought to be applied to all other workers. I agree, and it ought to be applied to all other workers. Industries ought to be made to bear the cost of their redundant servants.

If, as Senator Sir John Keane said a little while ago, the labourer was a chattel, or a word to that effect, that he was a commodity; well, if the commodity were a horse, there would be some kind of assurance given that the horse was going to be kept after it had lost its ability to give faithful service. I want to put it to the Senate that the principle of compensation for disemployment, when it suits either the public or the shareholders to disemploy, is a just one and founded upon a right ethic and reasonable justice. In the days that, no doubt, the Senator looks to as being ideal, the days before the War, the days before the trades unions became effective, when, as Senator O'Farrell pointed out, there were ten, eleven, twelve and thirteen shillings paid to adult railwaymen with families, either the public or the railway shareholders or both got the advantage of this sweated labour of their workmen. The company, as an organisation, got the advantage, and the company to-day has the right to bear some of the responsibilities of the services of those whom they employed and who through their service paid the dividends that were realised by the company. The principle that is involved in the amendment is one that this House ought to assent to, and if the time comes when we ask the House to apply it to other industries, again the House ought to assent. The principle is that the workman who gives his life to a particular service has a right to be considered in the days when his labour is passed, or when, to suit the shareholders or the public, the services of that man are no longer required. We take a man working for twenty, thirty or thirty-five years, and say we are closing down in the public interest or we are closing down in the shareholders' interest. You can go; we have no further responsibility for you. That is the position the Senator and, if I might say so, the Minister in the Bill ask the House to assent to. The amendment puts the contrary proposition. It asks the House to see that the railway company, having employed men for years and taking all they could get out of them, have no right when in their declining years they are being deposed for the benefit of the shareholders or the public, as the case may be, to get out of their responsibilities.

I would like to ask the Senator where in this amendment a long service of twenty or twenty-five years is shown. Nothing of the kind appears in the amendment. The amendment would apply to a man who had been in the service of the railway company a week or a month.

With reference to the last remark, I would like to say that the length of service would determine the amount of compensation that would be paid. A man with short service would have little compensation or practically nothing to get. I would like to call the attention of the House to the difference in the treatment that it is proposed to be meted out to the actual people who carried on the work of the railways and the Board of Directors. The people who have given a long service on these branch lines, many of them at considerably less wages than should have been paid to them, are to be dispensed with and thrown on the rates. In consequence of the reduction of the services it is contemplated in the Bill that there ought to be a reduction of directors, but what do we find? We find that the number of directors is to be reduced when they die or resign, notwithstanding the fact that most of these people have six, seven or eight directorships as well. The same set of people who are directors of the Great Southern Railways and who receive handsome remuneration as directors, are directors of the I.O.C., for which they get remuneration, and they are also directors of John Wallis and Co., which is a kindred company, and for which they also receive their fees. It is nearly time that this class inequality was wiped out. This Bill is protecting the rights of the directors; they are not to be removed or to lose their jobs notwithstanding the fact that some of them have five or six other jobs, with handsome remuneration for the whole of them. Their number is to be reduced only when they die or resign, but the unfortunate stationmaster who is in receipt of 24/- or 25/- a week with a small house, the milesman, the linesman or the platform porter, who may have given thirty or thirty-five years' service are to be thrown on the rates. As Senator Johnson pointed out, they will not even get unemployment benefit because the railway company were exempted from stamping cards. The ratepayers have got to keep them after the long and faithful service given by these people.

Amendment put.
The Committee divided: Tá, 12; Níl, 21.

Tá.

  • Chléirigh, Caitlín Bean Uí.
  • Cummins, William.
  • Dowdall, J.C.
  • Duffy, Michael.
  • Farren, Thomas.
  • Foran, Thomas.
  • Griffith, Sir John Purser.
  • Johnson, Thomas.
  • O'Farrell, John T.
  • O'Neill, L.
  • Phaoraigh, Siobhán Bean an.
  • Ryan, Séumas.

Níl.

  • Bagwell, John.
  • Bellingham, Sir Edward.
  • Bigger, Sir Edward Coey.
  • Browne, Miss Kathleen.
  • Costello, Mrs.
  • Counihan, John C.
  • Crosbie, George.
  • Desart, The Countess of.
  • Douglas, James G.
  • Fanning, Michael.
  • Garahan, Hugh.
  • Granard, The Earl of.
  • Keane, Sir John.
  • Kennedy, Cornelius.
  • MacKean, James.
  • Milroy, Seán.
  • O'Connor, Joseph.
  • O'Hanlon, M.F.
  • O'Sullivan, Dr. William.
  • Toal, Thomas.
  • Wilson, Richard.
Tellers:—Tá: Senators Johnson and O'Farrell. Níl: Senators Wilson and Bagwell.
Amendment lost.
Sections 11 to 15 agreed to.
SECTION 16.

I beg to move amendment 4:—

New section. Before Section 16 to insert a new section as follows:—

16.—Notwithstanding anything contained in any Act or in any Statutory Order a company owning a railway to which the Principal Act applies shall be entitled for all services rendered in respect of the conveyance of passengers or passengers' luggage or merchandise upon such railway to make and receive such fares rates or charges as may be agreed upon between the said Company and the person or persons liable to pay the same, provided that such fares rates or charges do not exceed the amount of the Standard Charges for the time being in force and applicable to the conveyance of such passengers or passengers' luggage or merchandise.

Provided that the provisions of this section shall not extend so as to discharge such a company from the operation of sub-section (2) of Section 30 of the Principal Act or of any section contained in any Private Act and expressed to be made for the protection of any port, town or city.

The first part of the section confers on railway companies full freedom to vary rates for the carriage of merchandise below the standard maximum rates, and thereby be placed on an equal footing in respect to merchandise carried on the roads. The second part of the section confirms the clause in the Act of 1924 for the protection of ports.

I should like to say that my original intention was to ask the Senate to postpone the further consideration of these Bills until after the General Election so as to remove them from political controversy. I consider that the problems involved are of national importance, and should, therefore, be dealt with as non-Party measures.

However, on consulting the highest authorities on the subject, I was told that probably my motion would be ruled out of order as the Second Reading had been passed unopposed by the Seanad. I am, therefore, at the request of the Great Southern Railways, submitting this amendment to the Seanad. It is not my drafting; it was drafted by a skilled exponent of that class of work.

The aim of the amendment is to place the transport of traffic by rail under identical conditions with traffic carried on roads. The Bill proposes to place the railway companies on a footing of equality on roads with any other road carriers; that is, that they can adopt competitive rates on their road services, and actually act as competitors to their own traffic on their own lines of railway, which are controlled by standard rates.

My object in moving this amendment is to give an opportunity for full and free discussion on this important, but much misunderstood problem.

My justification for bringing this matter forward is the state of the finances of the railways. Probably I have been selected by the Great Southern Railways because I am a shareholder. Let us look at the present value of our railway property. We have on several occasions heard it spoken of as representing £26,000,000. Part of that is Debenture Stock— £8,760,000. The rest of it is composed of Preference and Ordinary Stock amounting to over £17,000,000. Our Debenture Stock this month represents £4,000,000. Our £17,000,000 of varying stocks are down to £3,400,000. The total of £26,000,000 is represented now by something below £7,500,000.

The present method of fixing standard rates on rails for goods is defended as a necessary protection against "undue preference." No such restrictions are imposed on carriers by road. It has been suggested, in defence of this, that if a trader is aggrieved by this, he can obtain a motor lorry of his own. The same argument might be used in connection with what is called "undue preference" by a railway company—the trader can get his own motor or avail himself of competitive rates by road.

The inevitable result of the proposed legislation and fettering of the railway companies in fixing their rates below a standard maximum must be to drive merchandise from the rails on to the road. It is perfectly obvious that it will always be possible for the road carrier to quote a lower rate than the authorised rate which the railway company must charge. The railway rates are published.

The idea of co-ordination or cooperation of rail and road traffic was that the railways should be the principal agencies for the transport of merchandise, and that the road services should act as feeders to the railways for all long-distance traffic. The proposed arrangements in regard to rates and charges must result in the railway companies having to carry merchandise to its destination by road instead of by rail, in consequence of having to charge a higher rate on the rails than on the roads. This may be of some advantage to traders, but not to the proprietors of the railways or to those who have to maintain the roads. Such a policy must lead to the abandonment of railways unless they are taken over as a charge to the State, or, in other words, nationalised.

To combine road and rail transport efficiently, much thought and ingenuity has been expended on the design of road and rail trucks, waggons or carriages, sometimes known as "convertible vehicles," for use on railways and roads (that would be by a slight change in the tyres) and the same car or truck would be available either for rail or road. To the merchant the direct delivery of produce or materials from farm to market, from factory to store or from door to door, is the ideal. It reduces cost in transhipments, in handling and in injury to goods. This is one of the special attractions of transport by road lorries, but with the development of road-rail vehicles this advantage should be shared by the railways.

To summarise the case on behalf of the railway companies, they have standard rates fixed by the Tribunal under a rigid classification scheme, and if they attempt to vary these rates to meet exceptional cases they must justify their action, obtain the sanction of the Tribunal, and publish the rate. The railways are hampered in their goods traffic dealings and conveyance by harassing regulations not one of which has been relaxed. If what is called "undue preference" is allowable on the roads, and if the road carriers can charge what they like and go where and when they like, absolutely free as regards the wages they pay and the hours their employees serve, how can the railways survive against such unfair conditions? What is the remedy? Relieve them of obligations imposed by standard rates and charges, subject only to maximum rates to be fixed for public protection against overcharge and thus be placed on a level with road competitors.

The Senate should, I think, resent the way in which it has been treated by having Bills of first-class importance submitted to them late in the Session, with threats. I think this is the worst case which has come under my notice. The capital of the shareholders representing millions of pounds is threatened with confiscation, and Bills supposed to give relief are to be hustled through without amendment. It is remarkable that during the discussions on these Bills no suggestions have been made that the traffic will increase, or that any of the proposals in the Bill will increase the earning power of the railways, or benefit the shareholders in any respect. It appears that the opposite will be the case. The whole object of the proposals appears to be to transfer the traffic from the rails to the road, and if to meet this, railways have to place a fleet of lorries on the road, new capital will be wanted for the purpose, and the value of the existing capital of the railways must depreciate.

There seems a general impression that in the interests of the country, railways must be maintained for main line traffic, but with a vanishing revenue it is quite clear that they cannot be maintained by the companies. The inevitable result must be that the State will have to intervene with subsidies leading to final nationalisation. The one and only way to save the situation is to adopt the amendment which I have moved. By this means the railways will be able to recover much of their traffic and carry it much more expeditiously and safely than could possibly be done on the roads. At the same time inordinate expenditure in the maintenance of our roads will be reduced.

I fancy but few Senators remember the intense controversy which raged on "undue preference" and "preferential rates" in the eighties and the nineties of the last century accompanied by inquiries, commissions, committees and legislation. The maximum charges permitted to railways were laid down in a series of Rates and Charges Confirmation Acts of Parliament passed in the Sessions of 1891 and 1892. These were necessary on account of the monoply of transport exercised by the railways at the time. No such monoply exists now, competition by road having put an end to railway monoply, and there can be no reason for not allowing railways to compete with the roads.

I regret that I must oppose this amendment. If carried it would give the railways, in my view, the right to differentiate in the matter of rates. Almost invariably the rates would be in favour of the large trader rather than the small trader. Not only would they differentiate as between trader and trader, but in some classes of business they might divert traffic from the most natural ports and routes. Long before any amalgamations were brought about I frequently had need to get goods from London to Cork. Both from the point of view of convenience and preference my firm was anxious to get the goods via Fishguard direct by steamer to Cork. When the Great Western opened at Rosslare, notwithstanding specific instructions, goods were sent by Fishguard and Rosslare. If the amendment proposed by Senator Griffith is passed I can see goods being diverted at the option of the railway company through ports which are not the most convenient to the general public. I ask the Seanad to bear in mind that an Act called the Railway (Directorate) Act was passed in 1924 and statutorily it puts the representative of the L.M.S. on the Board of the Great Southern Railways Company. I opposed that provision very strongly at the time, but it was passed into law. I need hardly say it is expecting too much of human nature to assume that a nominee of the L.M.S. is put on the Board of the Great Southern Railways Company without some advantage, consciously or unconsciously, accruing to that railway.

The railways exist to cope with traffic and it is to the advantage of the products of the country that the railways exist. The railways have no special virtue per se. There are very few competitive avenues in freights. The L.M.S. combines a number of companies including the old London North Western. There were also three competitive lines, the Lancashire, Yorkshire and Cheshire railways. All those systems became unified, and now there is no competition in that area. When you come to send traffic to Birmingham or London, if there are to be special advantages, and they may creep in through this amendment, by bringing the goods via Holyhead on the L.M.S. you will gradually choke up and atrophy the Great Western Railway through Fishguard, Cardiff and Bristol. That is very important. While it is advisable to do all that is reasonably possible, and this Bill does a good deal that is reasonably possible, to promote the rehabilitation of the railways, it should not be done at the expense of the agricultural producer, and agricultural produce is what is largely carried in this country. I shall give one figure. Notwithstanding the little bit of competition we have, the freight on butter per ton, which pre-war was 30/- is now 58/10. Close up one avenue and it will not remain long at 58/10. The advantage that road traffic has can now be shared by the railways if they undertake the duty of carriers and, as the Minister said, divest themselves of the railway mind. One great advantage is that goods are taken from door to door instead of being sent to a station and then carried by rail, and picked up again and carried to their destination. In addition to that, as various railway developments went on, and railways sought Parliamentary sanction for these developments, when they went before Parliament they had to make their case or, as it is technically called; prove the preamble, and either by compromise, or the decision of the Committee before which these matters were threshed out, various provisos were put in safeguarding the interests of certain ports and districts. These applied practically to the very few ports we have. In the short time at my disposal, I was only able to get some of these, which dealt with the port of Cork. In the Fishguard and Rosslare Act, 1898, Section 74, a provision is inserted safeguarding the rights, I think, of Wexford and Cork. Section 35 of the Great Southern and Western Railway (Amalgamation) Act, 1900, contains a provision inserted as a compromise safeguarding certain ports—both Cork and Limerick I think. Section 30 of the Railways Act, 1924, also safeguards certain interests with regard to certain ports. What is true of Cork is equally true of the few ports we have, although I have not the details here. I ask the House not to do anything which would permit the railway companies to act in such a way as will be prejudicial to those interests which were safeguarded after careful and exhaustive examination.

I oppose the amendment on the same grounds as Senator Dowdall, that it would divert traffic from its natural route. Notwithstanding the protection which the public have at present as to the diversion of traffic, we have experience of its being practised in many cases to the detriment of Galway, Limerick and Ballina. I shall give an instance. Some time ago the cattle trade decided to send live stock through the port of Galway and approached the G.S.R. Superintendent for a special train from Athenry fair to Galway, but we were refused any facilities to send cattle to Galway. The cattle trade decided to walk the cattle to Galway in order to create competition, but when they got to Galway the colleagues of Senators Johnson and O'Farrell there went on strike. That shows that there is more than the railway and the shipping combine— that they are all combining to close these small ports. They are all in the swim in doing that. Something the same occurred in Limerick. If, with the restrictions which are on the railway companies at present, they give preferential treatment in this way, I am very doubtful, notwithstanding what Senator Sir John Griffith said, about this portion of his amendment protecting the ports. I would be very loth to give any further facilities to the railway companies which might injure these ports. The railway companies have done all they can to close these western ports. Consequently they would prevent the cattle trade from having any competitive routes and, eventually, if they have their way, their idea will be to close all ports except the ports worked by the combine—Dublin, Cork, and possibly Drogheda. For that reason I hope the House will not accept the amendment.

Senator Counihan referred to the closing down of a port. I did not hear him very well, but I think he talked of closing it down by a strike. The men took in that case the advice of Senator Wilson and Senator Sir John Keane and acted industrially instead of depending on legislation. This amendment is exceedingly difficult to vote for. At the same time, it has to be admitted that it is a logical development of the present state of affairs and of this very Bill. What is the use of talking of controlling traffic on the rails? Supposing you are controlling a certain line of railway, may be thirty, forty or fifty miles long. You control the rates on that. The Railway Tribunal fixes the classification of rates and everything else. The Minister may make an order closing down that line, and the traffic, which previously went over the rails and was controlled, goes by lorry and bus, and forthwith all the control is lost. The natural tendency at present, the tendency of the Government by its legislation, and the tendency of the general public, is to get traffic carried by road. A time will come when probably three-fourths of the traffic will go by road and one-fourth by rail.

Not livestock.

Or heavy goods.

The railways must be kept up for livestock and heavy goods only. I thought I answered that on Second Reading. In any case, if three-fourths of the traffic goes to the roads, the railway companies can carry it and just quote whatever they like. They can make separate contracts in regard to livestock and minerals and ordinary merchandise. The Minister, the State, or anyone else, has nothing to say to it. What on earth is the use of controlling the remaining one-fourth if the railways still continue to run, and to allow the remainder to go absolutely uncontrolled? Suppose there is a big building scheme being carried out in some big town and a lot of material has to be conveyed there. Some private contractors can come along and offer to carry it at a certain rate. The railway companies can compete with their own lorries and offer to carry it at a cheaper rate. They dare not carry it by rail at a cheaper rate, if that rate is more than 40 per cent. below the figure fixed by the Railway Tribunal. Where is the logic in that sort of arrangement? The railway companies cannot even carry it by lorry to a railway station, put it on a train, take it from the station at the other end, and deliver it on the spot because the rates on the railway section will be such as to raise the total rate above the figure quoted by their competitors. In this case you are not asking for the protection of the public against high rates, but you are asking for the protection of the public against low rates, against what are called differential rates. You allow differential rates as long as the company goes on the road. It can go on the road and do what it likes, but if it goes on the rail you must control it. What is the idea of that? Is it simply that this country is fed-up with railways and wants to encourage road traffic instead? That is the only logical conclusion. Senator Dowdall talked about railways sending traffic in direct violation of the instructions issued. That is a very rare occurrence. The Senator has a perfect right to route his own traffic and the railway company dare not send it by any other route.

It was routed by my instructions and they were not carried out.

The Senator had a claim against the company in that respect. That is an exception. A canvasser comes to the Senator and asks him will he route traffic by a certain route. He signs the route order and it is only when that is signed that it is sent other than by the natural route. On the sea, you have no control of shipping rates. A foreign company—Coast Lines Ltd.— is absolutely ruining the G.S.R. down south. It is supported by people who are supposed to be very patriotic. It is supported by the method of charging and so on that they indulge in. They are encouraged in that.

By differentials.

It is the shipping company does it. The railway company cannot. The Senator said the railway companies have no special virtue per se. Of course not. Then why treat them differently from all other forms of transport? If the railways had a monopoly, and were the only people allowed to carry goods, then by all means control them. I have always been in favour of that, so that one class of trader could not get preference against another, and so that the big trader must not get undue preference against the smaller, although bulk traffic must get some preference. It is essential to business for bulk traffic to be carried cheaper. The Senator would probably do the same in his own trade. Talk about competition! Competition is fair; it is the life of trade. Senator Sir John Keane and others want free play for individual enterprise; nevertheless they will not allow them to compete except on the roads. One absolutely necessary development of that will be that the railway companies will put all the capital that they can possibly amass into the purchase of road motor vehicles. And all these vehicles will have to be imported. They will put their capital on the roads in order to beat their competitors. Having invested all that capital on that kind of trade they cannot very well go back again to the railways. The railways will have to get something on the roads for the capital they invested. You are going to take away eventually practically the whole of the traffic now controlled on the rails, and put it on the roads and say: “We cannot control it, and will have to let it go on as it is.” I believe in the interest of national credit, and in the interest of those who invested their money in railways, and in that way made a great contribution to the progress of civilisation and prosperity, and in the interest of an efficient form of transport, if the railways are to continue they should be given the same free play as they get if they go on the roads. I say, in virtue of the free play on the roads and control on the railways, in future the tendency will be to drive all on to the roads, which will be unable to bear the traffic. The amendment removes the control of the Railway Tribunal altogether.

Mr. McGilligan

Where is that?

In a sense. At all events it gives the railways more freedom than they hope for if this amendment is not passed.

Mr. McGilligan

Who is intended to look after that proviso?

The Railway Tribunal. It is not for me to explain the amendment, I am not moving it, but it gives free play in regard to the charges, and allows them to make separate contracts, just as we are allowing the transport companies, including the railway companies, to do on the roads. There is nothing illogical in that. It is a logical development. We only turn this down because we believe we should control whatever traffic goes by rail. But if the whole went by road we would not control it. Is not that a ridiculous position for the State to be in? The Minister says he cannot control merchandise traffic on the roads, but he will control every ton of traffic while it goes on steel rails and is drawn by a locomotive. That is the position in which we are placed. And it is perfectly ridiculous, and is going to have results which are not going to be in the interests of transport.

The position in regard to road transport as shown by Senator O'Farrell is not going to be so ridiculous as he would lead the Seanad to believe. On the roads the small man is able to compete with the railway company or any other company. If the price charged on the road is too high you can get a lorry cheaply and compete yourself. Those conditions do not apply to the railways. There is always the opposition of the public on the roads against any company. It is not illogical to allow the companies free play on the roads, because they will be controlled by competitors and those who want traffic carried on the roads.

Provided they give cheap rates, not high ones.

[An Leas-Chathaoirleach took the Chair.]

Is it not a curious fact, that although 40 per cent. is allowed by law to be taken off the standard rates by the railways, still it is said these rates are so high you cannot compete? It shows your rates hitherto have been up in the moon, far and away from anything relating to conditions in the country, and that is the reason the roads are used now mainly for traffic. We know perfectly well why the roads are being used. Everyone who has been dealing with railways, if they can possibly get their traffic sent in any other way, will take it away from the railways. So long as they had a monopoly they carried on, but now there is a way out. I have no objection to a condition of things by which the railway companies can have free play on the roads just as any other persons. But that is all they are entitled to. It is not illogical to do that. But it is illogical when they have a monopoly to give them a right to charge a rate which even when 40 per cent. reduced is still too high for the traffic.

This amendment has my sympathy, but whether it is going to get my vote is another matter. It is true that railways are under obligations in the matter of quoting rates which arise out of a time when they were a monopoly in inland transport. These obligations are now being continued although the monopoly has disappeared. That seems to be on the face of it illogical. Lorry owners are free from all such obligations; they can do as they like. The argument that you must retain this control because preferential treatment will be given to certain ports to the detriment of others does not weigh with me very much because of the last part of the amendment, which specially provides for them. When you come to look closely into it I do not think there is so much in it as to make a great deal of difference, or that it will be an advantage to the railway companies. I do not know of my own knowledge because I am no longer in railway life, and I am now perhaps a little out of date, but I accept the information given in this House, which was never contradicted, that railway companies could, without going to the Railway Tribunal, quote rates 40 per cent. below the standard. Further they could go very much lower and come subsequently to the Railway Tribunal for sanction which, we are informed, has never been refused. If that is the case in fact they have a good deal of freedom. I see the Minister's point that it is desirable that he should have some record of what is done in the matter of rates because, after all, we are a very long way from the state of affairs alluded to by Senator O'Farrell— three-fourths of the traffic of the country being carried on the roads.

We are a long way from that. A great deal of traffic is carried by rail. An overwhelming amount of a certain class of traffic is carried by rail. It is, therefore, reasonable that the Minister should know what he is going on. He would not know if the amendment was carried. The position seems somewhat anomalous. A railway company which has no longer got a monopoly is under obligations that lorry owners are not under. Taking the situation which has to be dealt with as a whole, I would like to know who could devise a Railway Bill which would not have some anomalies when dealing with so complicated and so difficult a problem as is dealt with by this Bill. As I said on the Second Reading, I think this Bill is a very good attempt to deal with a very difficult situation. I think it should be taken in conjunction with other Bills, and that it will be a very great help to the railways to get back some measure of prosperity. I do not agree with the views expressed by the mover of the amendment, that this Bill is so bad that it would be desirable to redraft it or to have some other Bill brought in. Speaking as a humble individual with such knowledge of this subject as I possess, which is certainly not expert in every direction, I am convinced that this Bill, taken with the other Bills, is a help. I would not like to see it deferred or held up by any action of this House. I think that would be a great mistake. I cannot see my way to support the amendment for these two reasons.

While I would be very impressed by any statement made by Senator Sir John Griffith I share his views when I say that I think that if possible it would be better to postpone this Bill until after the election, when there would be more time to deal with it. No matter what conclusion is come to in relation to the present legislation, I think it will have to be amended later. We are not yet at the end of the traffic competition between rail and road. I see cattle coming to the Dublin market every week in increased numbers and from greater distances by road. I know that arrangements have been made by a certain organisation of farmers for the safe loading of their cattle on lorries. I would be very glad to see some consideration given to the railway system, because the railways are the iron roads of commerce and are the principal carriers for the staple industry of this country. There were 104 wagons of stock for shipment, particularly store cattle, carried from Roscrea fair last Monday. There is no such thing as competition with the railway for 1,000 cattle which were shipped that day to England and Scotland. The importance of the railway service to the staple industry cannot be ignored. The railways must be kept up either by some kind of subsidies or under Government control. The question of preventing competition by road is impracticable. It is unreasonable to expect farmers not to use their own lorries. As another Senator mentioned, a farmer can run his sheep into market by lorry and can effect considerable economy as compared with railway costs. For a number of years the rate for stock from Roscrea to Dublin was £2 1s. 3d. a wagon, while the rate since the war is £4 5s. 6d., over 100 per cent. of an increase. When people find that they can get their cattle and sheep carried conveniently by road they will avail of the road service. At present a service is running from Birr by lorry, and it is a most efficient service. People who send sheep to the market consider it much more economical to do so by lorry, while the appearance of the stock is better. It is a very tall order to have final legislation in this matter. I think it is possible that there will be a rearrangement of the two systems of traffic, and that that will be in the interests of the country. I was on a deputation that went to London thirty years ago with regard to the maximum rates on the railways. At that time such a thing as a road transport service was undreamt of. The deputation went because the railway people had not a great deal of sympathy with their interests. The railways had a monopoly, and the deputation went with a view to preventing their exceeding the maximum rates. Sir Courtenay Boyle, who was head of the Board of Trade at the time, was very sympathetic with the people representing the cattle trade. I happen to be a small railway shareholder, and I am interested in seeing the traffic increase. The position will have to be dealt with in some generous way, while at the same time being fair to everyone. Unfortunately the prices for stock have taken a very bad turn in recent years, so that farmers are very interested in economising in every possible way. Any saving that they can effect in the transport of stock will be taken advantage of.

When I saw the condition into which the railways got I was inclined first to blame the directors. There were a great many of them, and perhaps one would be inclined to imagine that under the long Government control to which they were subject their minds were running in a single track. The railway at Blessington failed as a steel railway, but seems to be quite successful by the adoption of a small 25 h.p. Ford motor. It carries about 40 people by taking advantage of the smoothness of the line. This is not a very complicated part of the railway question. We can get a clear example as to what would happen if the railways exerted themselves, adopted modern discoveries and progressed on up-to-date lines. For instance, if they were to adopt such a thing as the Michelin train that runs in France, a train that takes advantage of the smooth rail surface to use pneumatic tyres, and which is capable of greater speed, great carrying capacity and great braking capacity on account of the grip of the rubber, we would get a picture such as this. Suppose you put a five ton lorry on the railway at the Broadstone with pneumatic tyres, and if necessary with a modern 25 h.p. engine. That could run to Galway——

On a point of order, while I do not want to be discourteous, I ask if these remarks have any relation to the amendment?

Leas-Chathaoirleach

The Senator had better keep to the amendment.

I am keeping to the amendment, and the suggestion that Senator Sir John Griffith made. I do not know whether Senator Sir John Keane is a railway director or not. He may have got into the single-track way of looking at things. I was giving an example of how an anomaly arises from the limitation of charge when a vehicle is on the rail and when it is free while on the road. If you put a 5 ton wagon, fitted with a 25 h.p. engine on rail at the Broadstone and take it off at Galway and make it run round to every house—which could easily be done by the adoption of the patent mentioned by Senator Sir John Griffith —that wagon is controlled when on the rail, and there has to be a man counting up the distance it ran when on the rail, while on the road it has free powers. The amendment allows the railway company scope in that direction, and I would be strongly inclined to vote for it unless the Minister can assure us that in the event of the railway companies becoming modern-minded and adopting the methods that railway companies in other countries have adopted to save themselves, he would not apply control to such a vehicle as that.

As regards the interests of the ports, it might be no harm to point out that "the interests of the ports" is merely a paraphrase of "the interests of foreign shipping companies." It is the interests of English shipping companies that are being served at the expense of an Irish company. I will support the amendment because it holds open the hope that modern invention will give the railways a chance. Even if they had a completely free hand, the railways will have to compete against the motor. They have to compete against the door-to-door service in a very small area. This country is too small for a successful railway. It is far too small for a controlled railway. It is perfectly obvious that the railway will have to be an amphibious thing. It will have to give a better road service and it will have to adopt the pneumatic tyre on rail. By so doing, it will take away the biggest of all anomalies—the anomaly of a company which has to pay its own shareholders competing with a system which is on the charges—on the rates. This system pays no rates. It has no charges for upkeep and it has not even to guarantee a constant service. Until the other Bill is through, that will be the case. That competition is unchecked and it is subsidised by the public as against a private system like the railways. Senator Sir John Griffith's amendment, inasmuch as it gives scope for the amphibious vehicle, will deserve such support as I hope it will get.

I should like to refer for a moment to the reference made by the last Senator to the interests of the ports being the interest of foreign shipping companies. That was largely true until recently. There is an independent service at present running out of Dublin and I may tell the Minister that, within a few months, there will be an independent service running out of Cork. That will do away with the foreign monopoly to which the Senator referred.

The House will take upon itself a great responsibility if it rejects this amendment. We have got to weigh the balance of the advantages according to the argument. Speaking as a layman, the arguments I have heard are on the side of the amendment. Senator Bagwell, with his special knowledge, was lukewarm. If the arguments against the amendment were strong, he would have been in a position effectively to voice them. It appears the only thing you are going to protect under the existing state of affairs are certain vested interests. These small traders can have recourse to the road whenever they like. Reference has been made to the interests of the ports. I think these are largely imaginary. I do not think the railway companies have any sinister designs in that respect. They merely want to save themselves. When a responsible corporation, with a capital of £26,000,000, come along, say they want to save themselves, and believe—rightly or wrongly—that this is vital to the continuance of their operations, public feeling being as strong as it is, we would take a great responsibility in turning this amendment down on the arguments we have heard so far. Unfortunately, as Senator Sir John Griffith said, there is an atmosphere of unreality about this whole debate. I think that is a very sad feature of the whole thing. This measure has been considered under totally unreal conditions.

I agree with Senator O'Farrell in his contention that the logical development of the statement by the Minister that he is not prepared to apply any control to the road transport of merchandise is the amendment moved by Senator Sir John Griffith. There is, however, a point of view which has not yet found expression. A Bill passed with this amendment will leave the railway shareholders in a position to appoint a particular type of director from a particular district. You may have the well-known organising ability of the merchants of Cork used to collar the directorate of the Great Southern Railways Company. They could arrange affairs in such a way as to give a preference to Cork over such areas as Dublin, Galway, Limerick, or any other part of the country. A position similar to that may arise if there is no control at all. Everybody will admit that there were a variety of reasons for attaching the control in the original statutes. Only some of them have changed. There is still the possibility, under the position that would be created by Senator Sir John Griffith's amendment, of the kind of thing that he, above all, knows developed in America. You may have a maximum rate fixed, but if you have no control in regard to preferences you will be allowing a particular group of proprietors to get hold of the shares and use the railway companies to subserve an entirely different interest, not a railway interest at all. That is a position you have to guard against by applying the kind of check which the law at present provides and which would be removed by the adoption of the amendment. That point of view has to be taken into account, and will prevent me and, I believe, all my colleagues from voting for the amendment, notwithstanding the contention put forward by Senator O'Farrell, that it is the logical development of the attitude of the Minister in explaining the purposes he has in mind in promoting the Bill.

Senator Gogarty said that the putting on of restrictions would merely be preserving the ports for foreign shipping companies. That is not the case, because the ports that are adversely hit up to the present are those of Galway, Limerick, and possibly Sligo. These are the only ports in the country which are run by Irish shipping companies. The danger is that the combine may step in and subsidise the railway companies to give rates very much lower than the 40 per cent. which they are allowed to give under the Act so as to take away traffic from these ports and divert it to Dublin until they have those companies in such a state that they will have to close down. Senator Gogarty was under a misapprehension in making the statement that he did.

Having listened to all the speeches that have been made, I have endeavoured to make up my mind on the merits of the amendment. There has been no explanation of the contention that the removal of the restrictions and the allowing of preferential rates will not have the effect of enabling the big combine to destroy the commerce of the ports of Limerick and Galway. That contention has been very well put by some Senators. So far as I know, it has not been answered. Unless it is answered I am going to vote against the amendment.

Mr. McGilligan

Listening to the arguments made, I found myself, I cannot say attracted, but surprised by the statement made by Senator Sir John Keane that on argument the amendment had it so far. I have heard no argument for the amendment so far. I heard Senator Sir John Griffith give some reasons for the amendment, which he told us had been put into his hands by the railway company, but after that none of the other speakers, until Senator Gogarty intervened, spoke in favour of the amendment.

Senator O'Farrell.

Mr. McGilligan

Senator O'Farrell is not in favour of the amendment. I understand he is going to vote against it. His reasons are of a peculiar type, but he is going to vote against it.

The Senator spoke in favour of it.

[The Cathaoirleach resumed the Chair.]

Mr. McGilligan

Senator Gogarty's line of argument was of the type that if I were a director I should not feel complimented by having it addressed to me even with the amendment carried. I stress that because on the last occasion this was discussed there were thirteen speakers. Nine spoke in favour of the Bill, two did not identify their attitude very much, and two spoke against it for different reasons— Senator Sir John Griffith for much the same reason that he gave to-day, and Senator O'Farrell for other reasons. Yet I found the debate described in the newspapers next day as that I was at a loss to answer my critics, with the impression created that the Bill had been very badly received. That was a complete misrepresentation of a most deliberate type of what happened here. By reason of that misrepresentation quite an amount of hubbub has been created, the result of which we find in the single amendment put down to-day.

Again, I want to refer to something that happened outside, because I think this thing should be ventilated. Certain people who feel aggrieved over this have met and passed a resolution. In the course of passing the resolution they complained that they did not know what I meant about certain things. I am sorry that is the case, but it is not my fault. When I heard that that meeting was going to be called I asked leave to meet the shareholders, so as to put before them what was in the Bill. They adopted a different policy, saying that they preferred not to avail of my offer until after their meeting was held—that is, until after they had passed the resolutions. That was not a very helpful course, however discreet it may have been.

We are told of political controversy about this. I never had a Bill about which there was less Party politics than this special measure. Two Labour Senators spoke on the Second Reading of the Bill, and expressed rather different points of view. Senator O'Farrell expressed himself as being against it from one angle, and from Senator Johnson I found no hint of disagreement except on one point which he brought up again to-day in one of his amendments. Two Fianna Fáil Senators spoke. One expressed himself in the most unequivocal fashion as in favour of the measure and the other approved, I think, by inference. I found no politics brought into this. I have not found anything so free from ordinary political controversy as these two transport measures. Therefore, I do not understand the use of the phrase to-day "that it is a pity we cannot have it free from political controversy." I do not know where it exists. I think if there was a straight vote taken on any point urged on the Second Reading in relation to the particular matter we are discussing— those handicaps upon the railway company—there would hardly have been found a seconder for such an amendment, and at most there would not have been more than three people voting and the vote would not have been a Party one. There is no political controversy about the matter.

Senator Sir John Griffith told us frankly that he was putting forward this clause at the request of the Great Southern Railways Company. I would like to hear from the Senator now, or later, whether the arguments he has used are his own or the arguments of the Great Southern Railways Company, because they are certainly not the arguments that have been used to me by the Great Southern Railways Company.

The arguments are my own.

Mr. McGilligan

I am going to show that it is rather a peculiar thing to have arguments put forward here which, in the course of many discussions I had with the railway company, were not put forward to enable me to know what was the true situation so that I could mould legislation accordingly. The Senator has talked of the many handicaps. I have heard the phrase "hampering regulations which affect the railway company, not one of which is relieved by the Bill." I asked before when that phrase was going to be used that I should have some enumeration of the hampering regulations.

There was a simple Board of Trade regulation. Why not apply that to the road?

Mr. McGilligan

The Senator referred to what he describes as this system of controlled rates and the wages policy. It is noticeable that no amendment has been put forward in regard to the Wages Board to take it away. Apparently it was not thought an advisable amendment to put down that the Irish Railway Wages Board should be done away with, and that we should be left with some other type of machinery for negotiation. The sole thing concentrated on is the matter of controlled rates. A great deal of misunderstanding has certainly arisen about this point. Senator Sir John Griffith said that the tendency of the Bill is to divert traffic to the roads, and in that point of view he was joined by Senator O'Farrell. That is not my object or aim in the Bill, and I do not see it happening. That has not been the result of this type of arrangement when made elsewhere. It has had the advantage of diverting a great deal more traffic back to the railway companies, the railway company in the new circumstances being a real transport agency having both road and rail services. But it is by no means the intention, nor do I believe it will have the effect, to drive traffic on to the roads. There is a phrase used in that connection that the diversion of traffic to the roads will not be to the advantage of those who maintain the roads. Senator Gogarty talked about road services which pay no rates. Our policy on that has been explained over and over again. The policy aimed at and so far effected has been to charge those who use the roads a sufficient sum in the way of taxation, licences and everything else to pay for their maintenance. If that has not been achieved then taxation can be put up. That is certainly the aim, and I think it has had that effect.

What do these hampering regulations amount to? I want to get to the net point and to cut a little closer to the bone to-day than we did before. Senator O'Farrell used a phrase which surprised me coming from a person of his railway experience. I thought I heard him say that the railway company dare not carry by rail anything where the rate was more than the 40 per cent. below the standard rate. I may be misunderstanding the Senator, but that is the impression he seems to have left on some members of the House and it is completely wrong. Senator Sir John Griffith talked of maximum rates as having been established. There is no such thing. Standard rates have been established. If maximum rates were to be established we would have a different policy. My Department would have a different policy in appearing before the Railway Tribunal. To the standard rates we did raise certain objections, that if these traffic conditions continued the result would be to subsidise the passenger service by extra charges on goods. That is exactly the result at the moment. These standard rates, not being maximum, are subject to certain reductions which can be made immediately by the railway company. A 40 per cent. reduction can be made right away, but that does not finish the matter. A procedure has grown up, which is settled practice at the moment, that where the railway company wishes to establish exceptional rates lower than the 40 per cent. deduction from the standard rates, they do so and then apply to the Railway Tribunal after the event for sanction. As I said before, I know of no case in which sanction was refused.

Senator Sir John Griffith and some other Senator brought in the point on that that these rates have to be advertised and can be availed of by other people who want to use the system. That is not a fact. Let me give some quotations from letters I have to show that it is not the practice. Last year I had to address a communication to the Great Southern Railways Company in regard to certain rates to one part of the country which, to my Department, seemed to compare unfavourably with rates in another direction, and we received a letter which contained the following:

"My Company could not agree to take our proportion of a rate, exceptionally low because of direct sea competition, as our factor in compiling a rate from another station where the circumstances in regard to competition by sea are entirely different."

At a later date we received a further letter from them, which contained the following:

"I am not prepared to allow the lowest rates on our books between any two points to be used as a basis of charging in other directions."

In fact they do not do it. They are apparently prepared to stand their ground and say that it is not undue preference, that it is an exceptional rate because of sea competition. I do not see any reason why the rate should not be lower because of road competition, and that rate refused to other areas where the same competition does not hold. I have had no statement from the railway company that they have found that particular system disadvantageous to them. I have found no case made. I have merely got from them representations that they want something and no argument for it. All this hubbub about shackles and impediments, as far as I can gather, boils down to wages and controlled rates.

With regard to control of rates I think if it is looked at in its proper light it will be found that there is no handicap of any substance on the railway company. They have the standard rates fixed. It can be dropped 40 per cent. immediately and even lower in exceptional cases. There is no obligation on the company to allow these exceptional rates to form portion of a large rate or of a rate that operates as between two places further apart. That is the net point that has to be met so far as the amendment is concerned. To meet that the Senator proposes that the railway company should be given leave to charge anything they like provided always that sub-section (2) of Section 30 of the Principal Act holds. That is to say that whatever protection is given there either to a port town or city shall still continue, but the undue preference of any other type as between traders in the same area or traders in other areas, if they cannot be defined as a port town or city, shall be at the will and whim of the railway company. Until a better case has been made in regard to hardship, until we see some cases where hardship has been put on the railway company by reason of the other system, I do not think you should give them the big power that they ask. No argument has been put forward that would make anyone relax the particular condition that I speak of below the point to which it has been relaxed already.

May I again repeat that it is after the event that the Railway Tribunal meets to give sanction to a rate of an exceptional type lowered beyond the 40 per cent. allowance freely given? I think it is right that the public should have some defence. That is the very last line of defence, that this judicial, impartially-minded Tribunal shall meet after the event and say whether there is not an undue preference as between port and port or between traders and traders. That is what is called a shackle.

That was not raised at all.

Mr. McGilligan

What is the amendment aimed at? The amendment is aiming at getting rid of what is called control, and I am saying, what is the control? That is the whole gist of the amendment, to get rid of whatever is called control in regard to rates.

It is quite clear as soon as you allow the railway company to put their lorries on the roads that they cannot run at a lower rate than you allow them on the rails.

Mr. McGilligan

They can run at anything they like on the roads. There is nothing to prevent their lowering their rail rates. The only thing that is in the background, so far as that is concerned, is the Railway Tribunal to see that there is no undue preference between trader and trader in a particular area. I do not like using the word, and I use it without any disrespect, but when you wipe out all the camouflage, what is the bold claim made for this amendment? That we should say to the railway directors as we know them: "You have complete freedom; we trust to your discretion and impartiality to fix rates as between port and port, trader and trader, or area and area." There are many road systems, but there is only one rail system. Have we any reason to believe that people generally will say of the directors of our two rail services: "We can trust them not to look for a long haul and to divert away from a particular port?" That would be the ordinary outlook of the railwayman. Can we say that to them when in the opposition you have the system I have spoken of—post factum sanction of the exceptional rate by the Railway Tribunal? The Railway Tribunal stands between the railway company and the public and if it can be shown that the Tribunal has treated the railway company in a niggardly fashion, then I would be prepared to modify my attitude. That has not been done. That case has certainly not been made in the House and I invited representations on it.

I must refer to another matter. I again noticed the comment made, adverting to the statement I made with regard to the proposition of the railway company, that traders should only be allowed to carry their own goods within a ten mile radius. That was not contained in the draft Bill presented to me. The comment has been made in a way which shows that correspondence addressed to me in a confidential way was not regarded by certain people as confidential, because that particular item has been referred to.

The representations made to me by the railway company did, in fact, contain more than what I said on the last day. They contained this request to me: that as the railway company were now in a position to provide all necessary transport, and it did not limit that to goods, they should be given a complete monopoly of it subject only to this, that within a ten mile area traders might be allowed to carry their own goods on their own lorries. I think the phrase must have been badly drafted because I cannot see them wanting to deprive the ordinary man of the use of his motor car, but the phrase did mean that they wanted a monopoly of that transport. They wanted a monopoly of the business except that they were prepared to allow traders within a ten mile area to carry their own goods in their own lorries. A fantastic proposition which was greeted with derision when I announced it here. That was put to me. The proposition has never seen the light of day by way of amendment and I think that no one with reason would vote seriously for that amendment. We may come to the time when it has to be considered, but we are certainly not at that point now. It will be after reason given and the reason must be of this type that the Railway Tribunal is narrow and rigid in its interpretation of the Act, that it has acted awkwardly in its decisions for the company, that it has prevented them from lowering rates and that rates could be lowered with advantage. That case has not been made, I put it to the Seanad, by any one making a speech on this amendment. It is remarkable that no suggestion has been made that railway earnings will increase. I have made that suggestion. I did not confine myself to saying that the earnings of railway companies on the rails would increase, but certainly the earnings on their joint services ought to increase.

I ask the opposition is there any likelihood of railway earnings increasing under this amendment, the effect of which is to enable the railway company to cut down their rates below a point at which they found it economic in order to get some traffic back. I wonder what is going to happen after the traffic is got back. After the traffic is got back, if the services have disappeared, if they are going to continue on the road the railway earnings will seriously decrease. The amendment to my mind would reduce revenue, and we are not in such a bad position as certain railway protagonists would have us believe in regard to railway traffic. Yet Senator O'Farrell sees the time when three-fourths of the merchandise will be carried by road. I did not see it at all, but I do say this, that the 1930 traffic on the railways was much in advance of what was carried in 1925, and I said previously that I saw a certain decrease from the peak point they had reached before 1928, and I say a good amount of that has to be related to the general reduction that there has been in every country. It cannot be taken merely because the figures are down that it proves a diversion of traffic from one system of transport to another. I think most people realise in the circumstances of the last one and a half years that certain traffic has disappeared altogether. It is not being carried by any type of service. Senator O'Farrell again said that the Railway Tribunal had control—he said myself, but I think he meant the Railway Tribunal—of all goods run on steel rails. He does not think that the word "control" is going to be applicable to the circumstances I have outlined.

I referred to the rates.

Mr. McGilligan

Control of the type I have described is the whole control. If the Senator means control of every pound of goods on steel rails, then there is a new meaning for the word "control." There is no control as the word is used outside in the sense of this narrow advertence of the Railway Tribunal to certain Acts and a funny interpretation of these Acts. We have got to the last point of defence of the public. The case for giving an unrestricted discretion to the railway management—a discretion that I would be prepared to give them in other circumstances—has not been made up to the moment.

Under the heading of shackles, in the event of the railway shareholders wishing to get rid of the directors and putting in a manager, would new legislation be necessary, or would it be simply a matter of voting?

They are tied by their joint Act.

Mr. McGilligan

You could not get rid of the whole Board without legislation. There are certain directorships which fall vacant every year. I think the shareholders have that matter in hands by refusing to fill the vacancy. If the Senator means to substitute the directorate as a body by a manager, that would require legislation.

Amendment put.

Cathaoirleach

I think the amendment is lost.

I ask for a division. I think this is a matter which requires to be made definitely clear on account of the amount of talk and criticism you have outside.

Cathaoirleach

The Senators who demand a division will rise in their places.

Senators Miss Browne and Mrs. Costello rose.

Cathaoirleach

The amendment is lost.

Remaining sections and title of the Bill put and agreed to.

The Seanad went out of Committee.

Bill reported without amendment.
Report Stage ordered for to-morrow.
The Seanad adjourned at 7.50 p.m. until 3 p.m. to-morrow.
Top
Share