I did not speak on the Second Reading of this Bill for the reason that I understood the Bill was approved of, was required by the railway directors and by the Government, and there was very little opposition to it from any section. For that reason I considered it a good Bill. If we had got more time for consideration I had intended to move some amendments, but I understood that none were to be moved.
Railways (Miscellaneous) Bill, 1931—Final Stages.
Question—"That the Bill be received for final consideration"—agreed to.
Question proposed:—"That the Bill do now pass."
Why not?
I understood it was an agreed measure and that was why I did not move amendments. I believe the Minister had made a reasonable and businesslike attempt to regulate transport in this country, but if the Bill had got more time for consideration it could, I think, have been very much improved. I intended to move an amendment to the Bill regulating the speed of buses and lorries. I do not believe there would be any use in having a speed limit to be regulated by the Guards. I think the engines of the buses and lorries should be governed down to a speed not exceeding twenty miles an hour for lorries and twenty-five miles an hour for buses. This provision would ensure the safety of the public and prevent the enormous damage which vehicles travelling at a high rate of speed do to the roads.
We are not on the Road Traffic Bill now. You can do that on the Road Traffic Bill.
That Bill is to come.
Minister for Industry and Commerce (Mr. McGilligan)
That is a third Bill which is coming after these.
We will bring that in when we are the Government.
Mr. McGilligan
Then that disposes of the Bill for a very long time.
If there had been more time for consideration the Road Transport Bill could have been very much improved. I would be inclined to give consideration to the amendment moved by Senator Johnson regulating the hours of working for bus drivers.
Cathaoirleach
This is the Railways (Miscellaneous) Bill that we are discussing now, not the Road Transport Bill.
Did we not discuss both of these Bills in all their Stages together up to this?
Cathaoirleach
More or less. The Senator will get a little bit of room to talk, but I want him to keep as close as he can to the Railways Bill.
We discussed both Bills together in all their Stages up to the present. I would be inclined to support the amendment moved by Senator O'Farrell that men who have given twenty or thirty years' service to the railway company should not be dismissed without compensation for any reason except misconduct, and I would be inclined to give consideration to the amendment moved by Senator Parkinson, that where branch lines are being closed down the Government should come to their assistance either by subsidising the line or in some other way trying to keep the branch line open. It is very important that branch lines should not be closed down.
Mr. McGilligan
There was no such amendment down.
My principal object in rising is to put right a statement made by the Minister for Industry and Commerce in the Dáil, and, I think, in this House, when he said that there were no complaints from any quarter as to the bad effect of the singling of the lines. His words, I think, were that he did not hear of any damage being done to fairs or the transport of stock, or in any other way through the singling of the line. The Minister is possibly right. He may not have heard complaints as to delays or loss through the singling of the lines. The reason for that was that the cattle trade made complaints on several occasions, but got very little satisfaction from the Minister's Department. For that reason we have got quite tired of making complaints about the railways. But if the Minister will look at the records of the running of cattle and goods trains, he will find that there have been considerable delays and an enormous amount of loss caused by the singling of the lines. The cattle trade is very much upset by the singling of the lines, and the trade is particularly upset by the closing down of branch lines. The trade requested me to protest against the statement that no damage has been done to the cattle trade by the singling of lines or the closing of branch lines.
On listening to the speech of Senator Counihan I must say that I felt very sorry he did not give us that assistance yesterday. What he has now to offer is only sympathy. There was a very reasonable, amendment moved yesterday providing that railwaymen dismissed as a result of the closing down of a branch line by an Order made by the Minister should be compensated. When that amendment came to a division, whilst we had plenty of lip sympathy outside we found that all who voted for it were six members of the Labour Party; three other reasonable people voted: Senators Sir John Griffith, O'Neill and Mrs. Wyse-Power with three members of the Fianna Fáil Party. These were all who voted for this amendment whereas if all those who had voted for the previous amendment in regard to hours had voted on this amendment there was a very good chance of its being carried, but because there was a chance of it being carried certain Senators left the House rather than vote. Senator Counihan voted against it.
I said, with alterations, I would be inclined to give that amendment consideration.
The Senator did not say that yesterday. I may mention that we were not bound to the actual wording of the amendment; at any rate, the Minister took no exception to the wording. I will not accept this death-bed repentance on the part of the Senator as any indication of sincerity in a desire to do something for those who are undoubtedly going to lose employment as a result of this Bill, which is professedly in the interests of the public. I say it is only an indication to railwaymen, if they have eyes to see and ears to hear, that they can rely upon no Party in this House or in the Dáil to give them anything like elementary justice unless they can exact it by their own power and influence.
In regard to this and the other Bill, it is an extraordinary commentary on procedure to find that they are the only two measures of a really important character that have passed the other House and this House without a solitary amendment being accepted, if we except a few verbal amendments moved by the Minister in the other House. There was one minor amendment accepted regarding hours and wages which the Minister declared in the Dáil was of no consequence.
Mr. McGilligan
Let us not go over all that again.
It is merely trifling with this important matter to have it brought forward at a time when political expediency renders it impossible to have proper consideration given to it. Quite obviously there was a previous decision when the Press friendly to the Government announced that there could be no amendments accepted to these Bills here lest the Dáil would have to meet. Why there was a fear of the Dáil meeting I cannot say. All those interested in transport have a very genuine grievance in connection with the whole manner in which the proposed solution of the problem has been delayed. It has been brought forward at a very unfortunate time. I hope whoever is in charge of the Department in the future, whether it be the present Minister or some one else, will give further consideration to this matter.
Mr. McGilligan
I never said that the cattle trade had not suffered through the singling of the line. I said, and I repeat, that I had received no complaint that such a thing had happened. Senator Counihan mentioned that previous protests to my Department had not been sympathetically received and consequently they had not approached me in this instance. I remember only one occasion on which the cattle traders made serious representations, and the result was that a meeting was held under the presidency of an official of my Department to whom a vote of thanks was afterwards moved for the help he gave to the cattle trade. The Senator has not a great deal to go on.
With regard to Senator O'Farrell, I may say there was no previous decision made by anybody that no amendments could be accepted. Senators took the Bills in the ordinary way as they came along. They had to weigh up the circumstances of the time and make up their minds whether amendments were of sufficient importance to press them, the possibility being that the Bills might be held up for a month or two were the amendments passed. I think Senator O'Farrell would have been disowned by his own people if by his action he was responsible for holding up the Bills over such an amendment as was moved yesterday in relation to sanitary accommodation. I will stress that as one of the unimportant amendments. There was really no amendment of importance that had not already been threshed out on this and other measures.
The whole purpose of one amendment yesterday was to compensate people for loss of employment no matter how that loss was brought about. That is not a new question; decisions have been taken on it over and over again. There was no decision that amendments would not be accepted. The Seanad met fully aware of the circumstances.
The Minister does not pay an awful lot of attention to what Senator Counihan said. The Senator gave the reason that prevented him moving amendments. He said that he understood no amendments could be moved.
Mr. McGilligan
If the Senator understood that, he was labouring under a misapprehension. The Senator could use his own discretion as to whether or not amendments would be of sufficient importance to necessitate holding up the Bills for one or two months.
The Press indicated clearly that no amendments could be accepted, and it looked as if there was some understanding with the Press.
The railway company wants the Bills, the Government wanted them, and it was not an opportune time for any Party to discuss the matter. We wanted the Bills to go through; we were not anxious to lose them. I make no apology for facilitating the Minister or the Government.
What is the Senator apologising for?
If we had had more time at our disposal and if the amendment moved by Senator O'Farrell could be drafted in a different way, probably it would have been carried.
Question agreed to.