Seanad Éireann debate -
Thursday, 1 Jun 1933

Vol. 16 No. 23

Railways Bill, 1933—Report Stage (Resumed).

Mr. Jameson

I move amendment 20:—

Section 4. To delete the section.

This section deals with the investment of trust or court moneys in the stocks of the company. I take it that the object is to give trustees up to 1935 an opportunity to invest in any of these trust stocks and to protect them from any action by beneficiaries of these trusts because they made bad investments. I look upon that as being the purpose of the section. It looks rather strange for the Government, considering what we have been saying about the financial condition of the company, as regards the future, that there should be any clause in the Bill that could be held to lead trustees to think that they could with safety to themselves put trust moneys into these stocks in the next two or three years. I put down the amendment in order to ask the Minister: Has the Minister been advised as to the extent to which a trustee would be protected by this section if he invests trust moneys in the debentures or in any of the capital stocks of the company which but for this section would be unauthorised investments under the Trustee Act, 1893? I suppose the Minister will say that he has been advised and probably that is so. If that is so, the mere fact that an investment is one declared by statute to be one in which a trustee may invest trust moneys does not give the trustee complete protection. He is still bound in making such an investment to exercise reasonable discretion, and if the investment is one which in the existing circumstances it is imprudent to make, the trustee will be liable to make good the loss to the trust estate. I believe that, as a rule, is the law.

Applying this well settled rule to the case of the debenture and other stocks of the company mentioned in this section, it is inconceivable that any court would hold that in existing circumstances an investment of trust moneys in any of these stocks was not an imprudent one. It might turn out to be profitable, but a trustee has no right to gamble with trust moneys. The danger of this section is that it may be taken by trustees to afford them a protection against what would almost certainly be held to be a breach of trust. I am putting forward that argument in support of the amendment because there has been at least one statement in the view of a very sound lawyer, and not only one, that the weakness of Section 4 is that if any trustee relying upon it proceeds to invest trust moneys in the stocks during the period mentioned in the Bill the ordinary settled rule of law will override it and the section will not provide the trustee with a security that apparently it would give him.

The Leas-Chathaoirleach took the Chair.

Mr. Comyn

I am greatly surprised that Senator Jameson has taken the line he has taken in respect to this and the preceding section. In regard to the section just discussed, he has enunciated principles, or made a statement of a principle which is not a sound principle at all, and in the present case he seeks—I do not think the Senator would deliberately seek to do what he is doing now—to disparage the stocks of this company. That is the effect of the statement he has made, and in my opinion it is a statement which is entirely unjustified. In the course of the debate on a former occasion the Minister referred to the current price of these debenture stocks. He stated that they stood at £35 or £37. He also stated, and I think it is the opinion of every person who takes an interest in railway stocks, that that price is very low. In a former section, as part of a scheme of reconstruction, he found it necessary, in order to provide that debenture holders would make their contribution to a beneficial scheme of reconstruction, to write down £100 to £85, then standing at £37. He is accused of violating a fundamental principle of private property. I think that accusation was wholly unjustified, and that if a principle is being laid down the full principle ought to be enunciated, which is this, that the Minister, seeing that the value of the entire concern is probably under £3,000,000 at the present time, writes down stock representing £7,000,000 or £8,000,000 from £100 to £85. That is the principle which has been legislated for.

Senator Jameson represents very substantial interests in this company. He is a man whose wisdom is recognised all over the country, a man who would not be regarded as one who would make a statement which was unjustified, yet he comes and argues the question, as to whether if this section is passed a trustee will be justified in investing trust money in the Great Southern Railways. He asked that question, and the statement he made following it was that a trustee would not be justified in doing so. The Senator purports to have legal opinion. Before Senator Jameson was brought to make that statement I think he must have felt very deeply and very strongly. Speaking for myself, I think he has been wrongly advised. This section will give the necessary protection to a trustee to make this investment. The stocks are trustee stocks of the Great Southern Railways, whether the rate of interest is earned or not. I do not think it would be imprudent for a trustee to invest money now at £35 for every debenture because they are all separate debentures. Speaking for myself, I do not think it would be imprudent for a trustee to pay £35 for a debenture. I do not think anyone would have the temerity of assailing his position in case he decided to do so. I deprecate the use here of legal opinion which purported to be given on matters that came before this House. A legal opinion depends for its authority upon the case which is submitted for a legal opinion. The Senator has not stated what case was submitted, and I think he has departed from his usual course of prudence in this case. He has departed from the prudence and moderation which has characterised him in this House on the present occasion, and possibly his action will cause considerable damage to the Great Southern Railways.

Mr. Lemass

The purport of this section is to preserve the trustee status of the prior stocks of the Great Southern Railways during the period that the reorganisation contemplated by our legislation will be taking place, that is, until the end of 1935. It is, I think, undoubtedly correct to say that trustees are required to exercise discretion in the investment of funds entrusted to them, and any trustee who, after this date, invests these moneys in the prior stocks of the Great Southern Railways would have to have full regard to the future prospects of these stocks, irrespective of whether they were trustee stocks or not. But one must consider the position of trustees with trust moneys now invested in these stocks, have regard to the fact that in this year no dividend on the ordinary stock was paid, that unless some sub-section as this was passed the prior stocks and the others would have lost their trustee status, and in view of the reorganisation and reconstruction of the finances, and the prospects of the company in the future, when it will have attained, what we expect it to be, a monopoly position, we think it would be undesirable that the trustee status should be impaired during that period. We were advised to insert this section to ensure that the position with regard to these will remain unchanged. The alternative would be to let these stocks lose their trustee status, in consequence of the non-payment of interest on the ordinary stock this year, a status which they could not regain until interest had been paid on ordinary stocks for three years. The alternative might have resulted in the forced realisation of a number of stocks, with not merely serious consequences to national credit generally, but also a serious loss to trust funds. It was anticipated that the position of the company would improve in consequence of this legislation, and that trustees should be left in the position that they could retain their funds in these stocks for, at any rate, the period stated in the Bill, so that they could have an opportunity of reviewing the position after the contemplated reorganisation has taken place, but not before.

It is intended that this section shall protect trustees who follow that course and from that point of view it is much wiser that the trustee status of the stocks should be preserved than otherwise. I might say that it is a matter upon which a difference of opinion has existed. It is one which affects special interests more than the general public but, having regard to the general circumstances, we think it is much wiser to preserve the trustee status of the stocks for this period, to enable them to continue on for that period to see if interest again becomes payable on the ordinary stock. The Senator will appreciate that if after 1935 some rate of interest is not paid on the ordinary stock, these stocks will lose their trustee status in any event. In such circumstances we think it right that they should, because the re-organisation which we are now attempting would, in that event, have been proved to be a failure. There are other considerations but these are the main ones. With a view to causing the least possible dislocation, the least possible damage to credit, and the least possible loss to those who had invested in these funds, we decided that the balance was in favour of preserving the trustee status of the stocks for this period.

I may say that changes in the law relating to these stocks have been made before. Originally these stocks had only trustee status when interest of not less than 3 per cent. per annum was paid on the ordinary stock. That was changed some time ago and it was provided that they retained their trustee status when any interest was paid on the ordinary stock. This year was the only year in which no interest was paid on the ordinary stock and, had no legislation of this kind been introduced, the stocks would have lost their trustee status this year. Having regard to the fact that a reorganisation is now about to take place, and to the fact that there is good reason to believe that interest will again be payable on the ordinary stock, I think it will be agreed that the trustee status of these stocks should be preserved for this period. If, after that period interest is not again paid on the ordinary stock, these stocks will lose their trustee status.

Mr. Douglas

I do not think it is correct to say that if this section were not in the Bill trustees would then be immediately obliged to sell, because I asked that question of a solicitor and he told me directly to the contrary. He told me that provided the purchases were made at the proper time, and that it was reasonable then to buy these stocks, provided they were trustee stocks, no necessity to sell would arise at all. I should not like it to go out, in any sense, that the right to retain these stocks on the part of trustees depended on this section because that in itself might create the panic which the Minister is anxious to avoid. The point raised by Senator Jameson has been confirmed by the Minister in spite of what Senator Comyn may say, that apart from the question of these stocks at all, no trustee has a right to invest in stocks which he has reason to doubt even though they may happen to be trustee securities. That was the point raised by Senator Jameson and his fear, and the fear of most of us, was that this section might give the impression that persons would be justified in buying preference shares at three or four as trustee stocks. I do not believe that any attack was intended to be made on the railway company. The Senator simply asked the question of the Minister whether it would be desirable for a trustee to buy preference stocks at three or four or whatever the quotation is at the present time. Senator Comyn begged the point entirely by making a mountain out of a molehill. No one here wants to attack the railway company. There is not a single Senator here, whatever views he may have in regard to certain aspects of the matter, who does not hope that these two Bills will enable the railway company to get on its feet again. I do not believe that there is anyone in the House who is not desirous, as desirous as Senator Comyn or anybody on the other side, that the railway company should get full advantage of these Bills.

Mr. Lemass

I think it is correct to say that a trustee who had invested in these stocks would not be forced to part with the stock although there may have been default in the payment of interest on the ordinary stock, although I do not want to be taken as offering an informed opinion on that point. It is reasonable to assume, however, that a conscientious trustee would endeavour in those circumstances to transfer an investment from stocks which had lost the trustee status to stocks which had retained them. We hope that this reorganisation will restore, in part at any rate, the value of the stocks and will consequently obviate the possibility of loss by retaining money in the stocks.

Mr. Jameson

I was really only asking whether the Minister had been advised on this matter, because it seems that there is a risk, if a trustee were reading this clause, that he would think that it absolutely protected him in case of loss. The opinion I have given, I can assure the Minister, is not my own, but that of two lawyers. They say that that clause would not protect anybody, but some trustees, thinking they are protected by that, may make what would be speculative investments in these stocks. All I am urging is that that clause as now drawn would not protect them. I am only directing the Minister's attention to the opinion I have obtained, and I expect he will ask the question definitely of his legal advisers and form his own judgment about it. I really believe this clause does not protect anybody who puts money into these various stocks.

Mr. Lemass

As I understand it, a trustee is undoubtedly bound to invest money to the best advantage and nothing in this Act could operate to protect a trustee against whom it was alleged that he had not done that. It undoubtedly preserves the status of the stock in so far as it leaves them open for trustees to invest money in them.

Mr. Comyn

Do I understand Senator Jameson to say that after the passing of this section, it will not be possible for a trustee safely to invest trust money in the purchase of debenture stock of the Great Southern Company? I would respectfully venture to differ from any opinion that was given to that effect. Moreover such a statement would immediately create a panic amongst holders of debenture stock in the Great Southern Company.

Mr. Jameson

I have not referred to holders of debenture stocks in the Great Southern Company at all.

Mr. Douglas

It was Senator Comyn who raised that.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Leas-Chathaoirleach

Government amendment No. 21:

New section. Before Section 8 to insert a new section as follows:—

From the appointed day for the ordinary stock of the company until the next annual election, within the meaning of the foregoing section, sub-section (3) of Section 34 of the Great Southern Railways Amalgamation Scheme, 1925, shall apply to directors of the company subject to the modification that the reference to £2,000 contained therein be construed as a reference to £200, and from and after the said next annual election shall apply to such directors subject to the modification that the said reference to £2,000 be construed as a reference to £1,000.

Mr. Lemass

This is a section which is designed to meet the same purpose as that in the name of Senator Sir John Keane at another point. At the present time a director of the Great Southern Railway Company in order to be qualified must hold stock of the nominal value of £2,000. That stock is being written down to 10 per cent. of its value and it is proposed in consequence that the qualification for an existing director shall be that he shall hold stock to the value of £200. There is no change, in fact, until the next annual meeting. After that date the qualifying amount will be £1,000 of reduced stock.

Amendment put and agreed to.

Mr. O'Farrell

I should like to withdraw amendment No. 22, which stands in my name, in view of the Government amendment No. 23, which meets the position fully.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Leas-Chathaoirleach

Government amendment No. 23.

Section 8, sub-section (4). After the word "authority" in line 1, to insert the words "or in anticipation."

Mr. Lemass

I indicated on the Committee Stage that I would introduce an amendment of this kind. The purpose is to give an employee, who alleges that his dismissal by the Company was in anticipation of an order closing a branch line, an opportunity to go before the arbitrator to make that case and to secure compensation if he can.

Amendment put and agreed to.

Mr. O'Farrell

I move amendment No. 24:—

Section 8, sub-section (4). To delete paragraph (e).

Paragraph (e) of sub-section (4) enables the railway company, instead of paying compensation to an employee rendered redundant as the result of the closing down of a section of a line or a branch line, to transfer that employee to the road transport section of its business, to its hotel business, to its canal or dock business, or any other business instead of giving compensation. We do not object to that principle except to the extent that there is no provision to the effect that the employment that the employee affected shall get shall be analogous to that which he had previously or that it shall carry the same remuneration or anything like the same conditions of service. Under these circumstances a stationmaster could be sent to wash buses or an engine driver could be made a boots in a hotel or a clerk could be sent to lead a horse when traced to a canal barge. He might, because he was removed from a grade that was covered by superannuation, become ineligible to become a member of the Superannuation Fund and therefore have the whole of his superannuation and pension rights forfeited. It is true that the section does say that he may refuse to accept on reasonable grounds.

I do not exactly know what the draftsman or the Minister had in mind when the term "reasonable grounds" was inserted, or whether, for instance, a stationmaster might reasonably refuse to take a job where he would just be washing buses or driving a lorry. Whether that would be looked upon as a reasonable ground of objection or not I do not know, or whether the fact that he had to work very much longer hours, that he would get shorter holidays, that he would not be paid during illness, would be looked upon as a reasonable ground for refusing. In almost nine cases out of ten the redundant employee would, to my own knowledge, prefer to get alternative employment at the same rate of salary, of course, as he got previously rather than go out on a pension which in almost every case would be entirely inadequate to support himself and his dependents. If the principle of compensation is to be enshrined in the Bill at all it should not be possible for the company to get rid of its responsibilities by giving a kind of employment which is not at all commensurate with the employment which the employee had enjoyed before. Then after two years the employee might be discharged and there is no liability at all.

If a man not compensated at the beginning is employed in the hotels transport section or in the canal business he is only covered for two years and can then be dispensed with without any liability on the part of the company. For these reasons I move the amendment. Notwithstanding the deletion of the section, the company can still offer a man employment in other branches of its service, and I do not know that he can refuse to accept the employment, provided it is somewhat similar to the work he was engaged upon— that is to say, if a clerk gets clerical work, and so on. I do not know that he could refuse it. Normally he would not refuse it—he would take it. The alternative to a pension is that a man must take almost any kind of employment offered unless he is able to prove that he has reasonable grounds for refusing. The word "reasonable" according to the viewpoint of the arbitrator may be an exceedingly indefinite term and not at all sufficiently protective from the point of view of the man concerned. I would like to hear what the Minister has to say. As I mentioned on the Second Reading it was only on the Report Stage of the Bill in the Dáil that this paragraph was introduced into the Bill. It was a sort of afterthought suggested to the Minister, I suppose, by the companies. It slipped through without any discussion, and to that extent requires more consideration than if it had been embodied in the Bill originally.

Mr. Bagwell

The Bill may or may not be watertight against a certain amount of hardship arising in the case of lines that are closed down. I think this amendment goes a great deal too far, and for that reason I cannot support it. After all, the object of the Bill is to save the Great Southern system from collapse, and that in the national interest. One of the main features of the Bill enabling the company to do that is this closing of branch lines and the substitution of road motor transport. If this amendment were carried it would prevent the company from transferring members of the staff from the rail to the road services, so that the economy aimed at under the Bill could not be carried out. There are some forms of transference which would be unreasonable, and that is recognised by the paragraph in the Bill. It provides that a person can refuse a transfer on reasonable grounds. I do not think it would be a difficult thing to ascertain what "reasonable" means in a case like that.

If the amendment were carried it would practically declare that men who lost their railway employment, because the company ceased to operate a portion of the system, should have not employment but a lump sum as compensation or a pension for the rest of their lives without having any work to do. I think that is going too far and would endanger one of the main economies which the Bill seeks to achieve.

Mr. Lemass

I think the remark made by Senator O'Farrell that 90 per cent. of the men who are likely to be made redundant, following an order to close a branch line, would much prefer to get work to compensation is one the significance of which should not be lost sight of. If this paragraph did not appear in the section there would be not merely no inducement to the railway company to offer men work instead of compensation, but every inducement would appear to be in the opposite direction. In such an eventuality the railway company would be obliged to pay compensation to these people even though it were proposed to transfer them, or to offer them employment in some other branch of the company's service. In that eventuality it is almost certain that the company would prefer to take on young men entering at the bottom of the scale to do the other work available rather than transfer older men from the railway end of its service. The contention generally is not that a railway driver should be made the boots in the company's hotels or guards made canal bargees, but that the railway company, in shutting down a branch line and substituting a road service for it, should give employment on the road service, to whatever extent it is possible, to the men formerly employed on the railway. An employee may refuse to accept a transfer if he thinks he has reasonable grounds for doing so and satisfies the arbitrator accordingly. I would say that a reasonable ground would be where the work offered was unsuitable, having regard to the age, physique or qualifications of the person concerned. Reasonableness would have to have regard also to the rate of remuneration offered compared to the rate formerly earned, and the amount of compensation to which the person would be entitled under this section.

I think it is much more desirable that some means should be provided by which redundant workers would be continued in the company's employment rather than merely give them a small pension and render them, apart from that, unemployed. The provision that an employee is only covered for two years is, I think, not unreasonable. The intention is that at the end of two years he would become, as it were, merged in the general body of the company's employees, and have no greater rights than any others in the company's service at that time. At the present time employees have no statutory right to continued employment under all circumstances, but certain agreements have been entered into between the company and the trade unions which secure the position of employees with long service in so far as that when redundancy takes place it is the men with the shortest service who are selected for dismissal as against those with a long period in the company's service. Presumably, a similar arrangement will operate in the future in which case the men transferred to the road service and secured there for two years will be reasonably secured against dismissal, except through their own fault, having regard to the fact that if redundancy takes place the men selected to go first will be the newer entrants.

I think it would be undesirable that the section should be deleted because it would almost inevitably have this result: that men displaced as a result of an order made under this section would leave the company's service, while the men taken on to the road service substituted for the rail service closed down would be younger men and, consequently, would be entitled, under whatever agreements operated, to lower pay than the others would receive. These younger men taken on would themselves have no guarantee of continued employment. In all the circumstances, I think it is much better that men should get work rather than compensation. The section is intended to provide for that. I think we can trust the arbitrator to interpret the words "refusal on reasonable ground" so as to ensure that no injustice will be done. It is the function of the arbitrator in this matter to have regard to all the facts. He will determine whether the refusal by a man was reasonable or otherwise.

Mr. O'Farrell

I still think that the object the Minister is seeking could be secured better by the deletion of the sub-section and by the exercise of commonsense between the parties concerned. In view of the Minister's statement, however, I ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Bagwell

I move amendment 25:—

New section. Before Section 9 to insert a new section as follows:—

9.—(1) Subject as hereinafter provided, upon the expiration of six months from the passing of this Act it shall be lawful for the company to abandon and cease to work so much of that part of their undertaking authorised by and constructed under the provisions of the Cork City Railways Act, 1906 (hereinafter referred to in this section as "the Act") and formerly known as the Cork City Railways as consists of the bridge across the north channel of the River Lee and the bridge across the south channel of the River Lee, both in the County Borough of Cork.

(2) It shall be lawful for the Cork Corporation to maintain, open and close the said bridges in the manner provided by the Act subject to the provisions of this section.

(3) Within one month from the passing of this Act the Cork Corporation shall give notice in writing to the Minister and to the company that the said Corporation undertakes to maintain, open and close the said bridges in the manner provided by the Act or that the said Corporation is unwilling so to do.

(4) Upon the expiration of the period aforesaid or upon the taking over of the maintenance, opening and closing of the said bridges by the Cork Corporation, whichever event shall first happen, all the powers, rights, duties and liabilities of the company in respect of the maintenance, opening and closing of the said bridges (whether existing pursuant to the Act, the Great Southern Railways Amalgamation Scheme, 1925, or any Statute or Order, or existing at Common Law) shall be and are hereby determined.

(5) In the event of the Cork Corporation undertaking the maintenance, opening and closing of the said bridges as aforesaid the said Corporation shall have such of the aforesaid powers, rights, duties and liabilities of the company in respect of the said bridges as are necessary for the purposes as aforesaid.

(6) If the Cork Corporation will not undertake to maintain, open and close the said bridges in the manner aforesaid the company may at their sole expense remove the said bridges and restore the sites thereof to their former condition in such manner and within such time as may be approved by the Minister.

The object of this rather long amendment is the same as that of the amendment I moved on the Committee Stage. Its purpose is to relieve the Great Southern Railways from the cost of maintaining the bridges of the Cork City railways. They were constructed under an Act promoted by the Great Western Company and only came under the control of the Great Southern Company as the result of the passing of the 1924 Act. The bridges are not required by the Great Southern Railway. The company can get no relief under Section 8 of the Bill because it is provided that where an order is made closing a section of railway line "such order shall not relieve from or affect any liability of such railway company to maintain all bridges, level crossings, fences, drains and other works, etc." The main cost of maintenance of this railway is the bridges.

Under present circumstances, while the company does not require to work these railways the cost of their maintenance means a drain on its resources to the tune of £3,000 a year. It was stated on the Committee Stage that the company was using these railways. I have since made inquiries from the company, and I am told that the use they make of them is entirely negligible. Just because the facilities are there they occasionally put a few wagons across them, but the company's use of them is quite negligible. It would be no inconvenience to the public if the company ceased to work them. The bridges are of great use to the city of Cork because they give an access which did not formerly exist between one part of the city and another.

This amendment is not moved in any spirit of hostility to the City of Cork. It is a city that I am very fond of. I had pleasant associations with it for a long period of years, but I think it is only fair that the people who use those bridges should at least bear some share of the cost of their maintenance. They have got those bridges without having to pay anything for them. They are very lucky in that regard. They are no use to the Great Southern Railways.

The Minister said that the matter was one for negotiation. He thought the amendment I moved in Committee was inadvisable. This is a somewhat different amendment. I agree that it is a matter for negotiation. I do not see how, without this amendment, the Cork Corporation or any other public body could be brought to the point of negotiation on the subject of taking over a certain expenditure. By refusing to negotiate they could entirely avoid incurring that expense. The amendment provides for negotiation. If the Cork Corporation will not negotiate voluntarily, then pressure can be put on them to negotiate if the Minister thinks fit. The Cork Corporation could not be saddled with the cost of maintaining the bridges unless it refused to negotiate and that, in the Minister's view, the refusal was unreasonable. The matter rests in the Minister's hands.

Paragraph 6 of the amendment makes it quite clear that the company cannot get authority to remove the bridges unless the Minister gives it. I think this is a matter for negotiation. I do not suggest what exactly the negotiation should be, but I do not think it is fair to ask the company to maintain bridges which are entirely useless to them, but which are of real benefit to a city that is paying nothing for them.

Mr. Dowdall

I am rather amused at the deep interest that outsiders, who know nothing about Cork have for the City of Cork. They know nothing about the city except what they see of it when driving through it to Killarney or Glengarriff. Senator Crosbie, who was compelled to go, asked me to be here to oppose this amendment. An amendment something akin to this, which was proposed in the Dáil, was sponsored by two Dublin men. This amendment is sponsored by Senator Bagwell, and he ran in harness, on the previous amendment, with Senator Sir John Keane. These bridges on this railway were constructed by the Great Western Railway of England, for what purpose I do not know, but the British Government gave a sum of £68,000 towards their construction. I think myself that the object at the time was that war stores could be mobilised and run down quickly, without trans-shipment, to the naval base at Castletownbere. That is my own view and it may be quite wrong but, when the Great Western Railway Company, masquerading as the Cork City Railways Company, got these rights from the Imperial Parliament, they secured rights for the compulsory acquisition of property and existing rights over those bridges. I was myself a very considerable loser by it but that is a mere detail. Large numbers of commercial buildings, stores and factories were knocked down and a railway and a road run to connect those bridges and now it is coolly proposed, having inflicted that injury on various people, that the cost of the maintenance of those bridges should be taken over by the city.

I said when I opposed Senator Sir John Keane's amendment previously, that, if negotiations were entered into with the Corporation—as a matter of actual fact and as showing the knowledge of these people, the Cork Harbour Board is far more interested in this than the Corporation, but they are not mentioned in the amendment—and with the local authorities affected, and, if a proposal was put up and negotiated on with these bodies and if then an agreement could not be come to, I would be prepared to consider an amendment that the Minister should have power to exercise his jurisdiction as to whether the proposal was reasonable or not. No such proposal is made here.

Mr. Counihan

Why did the Senator not put one down?

Mr. Dowdall

I am perfectly satisfied with the existing state of affairs. Other people are not and it is for those who are not satisfied to formulate the proposals to the local authorities. They could add that, if negotiation did not result in agreement, it should be referred to the Minister and he could exercise his discretion to see that a fair and reasonable accommodation was come to. No member of Cork City or County, however—and, as the Seanad is aware, we have Deputies in the Dáil representing Labour, Independent Labour, Cumann na nGaedheal and Fianna Fáil—has a word to say in favour of the amendment. All these amendments come from outside. Negotiation did take place before and a temporary agreement was come to, so far as I can recollect. If negotiation of that sort were agreed to and if the Minister was given discretion, I could understand it, but the proposal to put this on Cork City, having no regard whatever to the Harbour Board or the other parties interested, could only be formulated by people who do not understand the position. I oppose the amendment.

Mr. Comyn

I venture to intervene in a discussion relating to Cork City because I have some special knowledge of the circumstances under which these bridges were constructed. The Cork City Railway Company was, in reality, a creature of the Midland Company.

Mr. Dowdall

The Midland Great Western Company.

Mr. Comyn

It was called the Midland in the old Bill, but there were other interests concerned. The Harbour Board were also concerned and I think the Harbour Board was entitled to make a contribution and it did make a contribution of £10,000. The total capital of the company was £100,000. Before these bridges were constructed, negotiations took place not merely with the Cork Corporation, as it then was, but with the Harbour Commissioners and with the owners of property along the line of route which was closed. There was a highway closed under the terms of that Bill and a new highway opened and the Cork people have had to accommodate themselves to the new circumstances. Traffic was altered and the custom of various shops in the City of Cork was altered. Certain business houses, which were then doing a considerable trade, found that, by reason of the closing of a certain right of way or highway, their business was taken away and compensation was given. The railway company took power to acquire land compulsorily and they took further power to acquire a portion of land or even a portion of a house compulsorily. Practically the whole of the citizens of Cork were concerned in this bargain, not merely the Corporation but private individuals and private companies. Negotiations took place between the promoters and all these persons and, as a result of the negotiations, the bridges were constructed and the company undertook to maintain the bridges and the approaches to the bridges without any contribution whatever from the Cork Corporation.

Now, the people who are on that line of route—Senator Counihan will know it and, of course, Senator Dowdall does—have an interest in the keeping open of these bridges, apart altogether from the Corporation of Cork, and, if it should happen that the railway company were allowed to close these bridges and the Corporation of Cork considered that they ought not to incur the expense of keeping them open or in repair, there are certain people immediately adjoining the new road that has been constructed who have an interest quite apart from the Corporation of Cork and the City Railways. There were various clauses in this measure. It was a Bill of almost 100 clauses. Every interest was meticulously considered and the greatest desire was shown to treat every person concerned with the greatest fairness. It is now proposed in this amendment, without consideration for anybody concerned, without negotiation with the people whose livelihood may depend on the continuous user of this bridge, without giving any notice whatever of this proposed change, to close these bridges behind their backs, because that is the meaning of it. The amendment provides that there may be negotiation with the Corporation of Cork but the last clause sets out:—

If the Cork Corporation will not undertake to maintain, open and close the said bridges in the manner aforesaid, the company may, at their sole expense remove the bridges and restore the sites thereof to their former condition in such manner and within such time as may be approved by the Minister.

That is giving power, on a motion by Senator Bagwell, who loves Cork so much, without notice to the people whose private interests are seriously affected, to close these bridges and destroy the property that has arisen, in the same way as they destroyed, with compensation, property on the highway that was closed as a result of the previous Bill. I do not think it would be fair or reasonable, even after notice and after full consideration, to close this new highway which has been constructed in the City of Cork and to which the people have become accustomed. When the Bill was brought forward, the railway was called, I think, the Cork Loop Railway.

Mr. Counihan

The Cork Junction Railway.

Mr. Comyn

Yes, the Cork Junction Railway. The people of Cork were greatly interested. Every person was considered and it occupied a considerable time. It occupied a considerable share of my personal attention when the Bill was going through Parliament, although I regret to say that I was only devilling for another person at the time and received no remuneration. Therefore, I know, perhaps, as much about these bridges as any other person and I would advise the Seanad not to accept an amendment of this kind.

Mr. Counihan

I do not see anything unreasonable in Senator Bagwell's proposing the amendment. I think he is the most competent person to deal with an amendment to a Railway Bill, and why Senator Comyn and Senator Dowdall object to an amendment being put down in the name of Senator Bagwell, I do not understand.

Mr. Comyn

I did not object to Senator Bagwell, but I objected to the amendment.

Mr. Counihan

You objected because Senator Bagwell put down the amendment.

Mr. Comyn

I only said he loved the City of Cork and he said that himself.

Mr. Counihan

I do not see anything unreasonable in the amendment except paragraph 6 and, certainly, I cannot support the amendment while that paragraph is in it.

Mr. Johnson

That paragraph is the essence of it.

Mr. Counihan

I think Senator Dowdall and every other Senator who knows Cork knows that the Cork bridges are a great acquisition to the City of Cork and to take them up, even at the expense of the railway, is something which I think the Seanad should not approve of. Senator Dowdall made a suggestion and I put it to the Minister that he should accept it and, if there is yet time, act on it. It was that he should take powers to see that negotion is entered into between the railway company, the Corporation, the Harbour Board and whatever parties are interested. He has taken power to see that negotiations are carried on under the Road Transport Bill and I think he should adopt some measures, such as those he has adopted in that Bill, to see that negotiations are carried on in this matter because it is quite unreasonable to compel the Great Southern Railways Company to maintain these bridges solely and simply for the use of the citizens of Cork. If they are an advantage to Cork, the citizens of Cork City should pay for them, particularly in the present state of the railways. I appeal to the Minister to consider Senator Dowdall's suggestion and I would ask Senator Bagwell to withdraw his amendment and see if something further cannot be done.

Mr. Lemass

I think that the Great Southern Company have a very strong case for transferring the whole or a large part of the cost of maintaining and operating these bridges in Cork to the appropriate local authorities. My suggestion is that the Great Southern Company should itself proceed to get in contact with these bodies and negotiate with them. I undertake that if they produce a reasonable scheme, agreed upon between them, to assist the passage of legislation to give effect to that scheme. I undertake, on the other hand, that if the local authorities in Cork prove to be unreasonable in the matter, I shall be willing to consider the introduction of legislation either to provide for some arrangement for the allocation of the cost of maintaining and operating these bridges or to enable the railway company, if it is considered desirable, to abandon the bridges.

Mr. Bagwell

After what the Minister has said in the last few sentences, I do not propose to take up the time of the House. He is evidently unwilling to accept the amendment in its present form and would prefer that negotiation was brought about by other means. As the Minister has signified his willingness to work in that direction, I ask leave to withdraw the amendment. I should like, however, in doing so, to deal with one or two points. It was stated by Senator Dowdall that he would favour another amendment which he did not move and which is not now movable. From his outline of that amendment, I do not see how it would differ from my amendment. Criticism of the amendment also went on the line that this question should be initiated by a Senator or Deputy from Cork—that they were the only fit persons for a task of this kind. I may not be as well qualified as a citizen of Cork to deal with this matter. I am not in daily contact with the city, as a Cork citizen would be, but, as a Tipperary man I claim that I am in a more independent position to move an amendment on this subject than any Cork man. I have moved it and no member either of the Dáil or the Seanad who comes from Cork moved a similar amendment. I think I have achieved my object.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Cathaoirleach

Amendment 26—Government amendment.

New section. Before Section 9 to insert a new section as follows:—

From and after the passing of this Act the rates of pay, hours of duty, and other conditions of service of the road transport employees of a railway company, employed for any of the purposes of the road transport business carried on by such company and whose depot or other place of employment is situated in Saorstát Eireann, shall be regulated in accordance with agreements made or to be from time to time made between the trade unions' representative of such employees of the one part and such railway company of the other part.

Mr. Lemass

This amendment carries out the intention which I referred to on Committee Stage. It provides that the present arrangement under the 1924 Act by which rates of wages and conditions of work are subject to agreement between the companies and trade unions representing the employees will extend to the road services' employees of the companies.

Mr. Johnson

I think that this proposal is quite satisfactory and I ask the House to agree to it.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. O'Farrell

As regards amendment 27, in my name, the subsequent amendment in the name of the Minister is worded more comprehensively than mine and meets what was a very necessary point in respect of Section 9.

Amendment not moved.

Cathaoirleach

Amendment 28—Government amendment.

Section 9, sub-section (2). To insert before the sub-section a new sub-section as follows:—

"(2) Where at the date of the passing of this Act any employees of the company are entitled to any rights in or benefits from any existing superannuation or benefit fund, no superannuation scheme under this section shall prejudice such rights or reduce such benefits."

Mr. Lemass

The purpose of this amendment is to provide that any superannuation scheme which may come into operation under this Bill will not operate to prejudice the position of any employee of the company entitled to benefits under any existing superannuation scheme.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. O'Farrell

I move amendment 29.

Section 9, sub-section (2). To delete in line 44 the words "entitled to benefits" and to substitute therefor the word "contributing."

Mr. Lemass

I accept the amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Cathaoirleach

Amendment 30— Government amendment.

Section 9, sub-section (2). To delete in line 44 the words "take part" and to substitute therefor the words "share equally with representatives of the company."

Mr. Lemass

This amendment is intended to provide that the management of the fund shall be divided equally between the company and the representatives of the employees.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment 31 not moved.

Mr. O'Farrell

As regards amendment 32, the amendment introduced by the Government—No. 33—fully meets the position with which I sought to deal.

Amendment 32 not moved.

Cathaoirleach

Amendment 33 — Government amendment.

Section 9, sub-section (3). To add at the end of the sub-section the words "or, if it is of opinion that such scheme would not meet the reasonable requirements of the employees of the company, refuse to confirm such scheme and make a special report to the Minister stating its reasons for such refusal."

Mr. Lemass

The purpose of this amendment is to provide that where a superannuation scheme produced by the company has been under consideration by the railway tribunal and the railway tribunal is of opinion that the scheme cannot be modified so as to meet the reasonable requirements of the employees of the company, the scheme will not be forced upon the employees of the company but the railway tribunal shall make a report to the Minister, who will consider the report.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment 34 not moved.

Cathaoirleach

Amendment 35 — Government amendment.

New section. Before Section 10 to insert a new section as follows:—

10.—(1) The Minister may at any time by order (to be known and in this section referred to as a uniform rate order) direct that any particular merchandise when carried by rail by any specified railway company or railway companies on the conditions (in this section referred to as the special conditions) prescribed for such merchandise by such order shall be so carried at a rate (in this section referred to as a uniform rate) fixed in relation to each distance (in this section referred to as a prescribed distance) prescribed by such order in accordance with this section and whenever the Minister makes such an order a uniform rate shall be fixed under this section in respect of each prescribed distance and from and after the date on which such uniform rate becomes operative under this section while such order remains in force each such uniform rate shall be the rate which, notwithstanding any other enactments, shall be charged for the carriage of such merchandise on the special conditions by such company for the prescribed distance to which such rate relates.

(2) In every uniform rate order the Minister shall specify the particular merchandise to which such order relates and the unit of quantity of such merchandise by reference to which the charge for the carriage of such merchandise shall be calculated and shall prescribe the special conditions for the carriage of such merchandise and the distance in respect of which uniform rates shall be fixed under such order.

(3) The Minister may in any uniform rate order prescribe the distances in respect of which uniform rates shall be fixed under such order by prescribing a graduated scale of distances, by fixing maximum distances, by reference to zones round any specific point, or in any other manner which the Minister may think fit.

(4) The Minister may include in the special conditions prescribed by any uniform rate order conditions as to all or any of the following matters, that is to say:—

(a) the minimum quantity in respect of which a uniform rate shall be chargeable;

(b) loading and unloading;

(c) packing;

(d) the train services available for carriage;

(e) liability for loss or damage;

(f) any other matter which in the opinion of the Minister might reasonably affect the cost of transport.

(5) Whenever the Minister makes a uniform rate order in relation to any merchandise it shall be the duty of any railway company specified therein within one month after the making of such order to estimate in accordance with this section in respect of each prescribed distance a uniform rate to be charged in respect of the carriage of such merchandise on the special conditions by such company for each such prescribed distance.

(6) For the purpose of the estimation of a uniform rate by a railway company under the foregoing sub-section to be charged in respect of a prescribed distance for the carriage of any particular merchandise the following provisions shall have effect, that is to say:—

(a) such company shall select a period (in this section referred to as the standard period) which in the opinion of such company is suitable, in the particular case, as a period for estimating the probable volume of traffic to be expected from the carriage of such merchandise for such prescribed distance;

(b) if such company has carried any substantial quantity of such merchandise during any substantial period prior to the time of such estimation, and if no material change has taken place or is anticipated in the volume and conditions of traffic resulting from the carriage of such merchandise, the standard period shall be a period prior to such estimation;

(c) if such company has not carried any substantial quantity of such merchandise during any substantial period prior to the time of such estimation, or if a material change has taken place or is anticipated in the volume and conditions of traffic, the standard period shall be, at the discretion of such company, partly before and partly after or wholly after such time;

(d) if the standard period or part of the standard period is subsequent to the time of such estimation such company shall make an estimate of the probable volume of traffic for such prescribed distance resulting from the carriage of such merchandise during such standard period or such part of such standard period and such estimate shall for the purposes of this section be the volume of traffic for such standard period or such part of the standard period;

(e) such company shall calculate the gross income from the volume of traffic for the standard period for such prescribed distance on the basis of the charges which have been or which would but for this section be made in respect of such traffic, making allowance for exceptional rates when such might have been applied or would be applicable, and shall estimate a uniform rate which would in the opinion of such company produce a similar gross income from the same volume of traffic carried for such prescribed distance in a period equal to the standard period.

(7) Every uniform rate estimated by a railway company in accordance with the foregoing sub-section shall be submitted by such company to the Railway Tribunal forthwith, and the Railway Tribunal, after hearing all parties desirous of being heard and appearing to it to be interested, shall fix the uniform rate either at the amount estimated by such company or at such other amount as may appear proper to the Railway Tribunal and shall appoint a date on which the uniform rate so fixed shall become operative and every uniform rate so fixed shall become operative on the date so appointed.

(8) Every uniform rate fixed by the Railway Tribunal under this section shall be reviewed by it on the expiration of every calendar year from the date on which such uniform rate was fixed and the Railway Tribunal may upon any such review make such modification as it may think proper in such uniform rate.

(9) The Minister may in any uniform rate order direct that such order shall apply to the carriage of the particular merchandise specified therein by canal or by canal and road and may if he thinks that the circumstances so require prescribe by such order special conditions for the carriage of such merchandise by canal or by canal and road either in addition to or in substitution for any other special conditions prescribed thereby and thereupon this section shall apply to the carriage of such merchandise by canal or by canal and road as if a canal company were a railway company and the special conditions for the carriage of such merchandise by canal or by canal and road prescribed by such order shall be special conditions for the carriage of such merchandise when carried by canal or by canal and road.

(10) The Minister may in any uniform rate order direct that such order shall apply to the carriage of the particular merchandise specified therein by the road services of a railway company as if such road services formed part of the railway services of such company and whenever the Minister so directs the provisions of this section shall apply to such railway company and to the carriage of such merchandise by such company as if such road services formed part of the railway services of such company and carriage by road were carriage by rail by such company.

(11) The Minister may in any uniform rate order direct that a separate uniform rate shall be fixed for the carriage of the merchandise specified in such order by road by any railway company and may if he thinks that the circumstances so require specify in such order special conditions for the carriage of such merchandise by road either in addition to or in substitution for any other special conditions prescribed thereby and thereupon this section shall apply as if carriage by road were carriage by rail by such company and the special conditions for the carriage of such merchandise by road shall be special conditions for the carriage of such merchandise when carried by road by such company and a uniform rate shall be fixed for such carriage independently of any uniform rate fixed for the carriage of any merchandise by rail by such company.

(12) The Minister may by order made under this sub-section revoke, amend, or vary any uniform rate order.

Mr. Lemass

The purpose of this amendment is to permit the railway company, with the approval of the Minister, to charge flat rates for the conveyance of merchandise either on the whole of the system or in specified zones and to have rates which may be varied according to certain gradations of distance. When the Minister approves of the making of a rate in that manner, the rate will be submitted to the Railway Tribunal, which will consider the matter and either approve of the rate estimated by the railway company or fix another rate. Sub-section (6) provides for the manner in which the estimate of the rate will be prepared and the other provisions of the proposed new section set out that, where any class of merchandise can be made subject to this new rate-arrangement, a similar arrangement can be effected in the case of canal companies and in the case of road services to which maximum rates apply under the Road Transport Act. The main consideration which arises here is whether the rates of charge should be in all cases, as heretofore, on a station-to-station basis. As Senators who were present during Committee Stage of the Bill know, the railway company were desirous of receiving power to enter into agreements with traders for the carriage of merchandise at flat rates. I opposed the amendment moved, I think, by Senator Sir John Keane to give them that power on the ground that it might be operated to the undue prejudice of certain traders as against their competitors and that it was contrary to the general principle upon which legislation affecting railway rates had been fixed heretofore. This new section goes some part of the way to meet the desires of the railway company, but it preserves the general principles. It provides that flat rates may be charged only in respect of such commodities as are approved of by the Minister, and that these flat rates may be graduated in respect of defined distances or confined to specified zones. A flat rate, when fixed, must be available to any other person consigning the same class of merchandise. The circumstances under which the flat rate will be available will be defined in the Order. That is to say, there will be regulations relating to the minimum quantity of the commodity which must be offered, to the loading and unloading, to the packing, to the train service available for the carriage, to the liability for loss or damage, and to any other matter which, in the opinion of the Minister, might affect the cost of transport. The section also gives power to the company to charge such rates— a power which it has not got at the present time. The Railway Tribunal is brought into the picture so that any merchant or trader who feels that he is likely to be prejudiced in his interest by the operation of such a flat rate, may make representations and have his case considered by the Tribunal before the rate estimated by the company is approved. This section does not give to the company what the company itself professes to desire, but it goes some way to meet it. In any event, I think that this power to charge rates in this form should exist. It cannot, as the section stands, operate any more to the prejudice of particular interests than the existing power of levying exceptional charges does.

Mr. O'Farrell

I seriously suggest to the Minister that he should allow the Bill to pass as it stands without this amendment and that he should introduce a fresh Bill to deal with the subject matter of this amendment. This is about the longest amendment I have ever seen introduced. It is introduced on the Report Stage. It was only circulated yesterday and, so far, I have met nobody who has any real conception of the effects of the amendment. I do not know whether it is exceedingly good or not, but it is certainly a gem in its vagueness. Sub-section (6) is well worth reading from that point of view. I presume that this is an example of the complex way in which an expert treats simple problems. An expert has been defined as "a person who knows more and more about less and less" and this section, as drafted, is a wonderful example of the work of the expert. I do not know if the Minister consulted, in advance, representatives of the railway companies in regard to this matter. It is an extremely important proposition, because it strikes at the whole basis of freights and rates and their incidence. It deals with the relationships of one set of traders with another. I should imagine that this problem would have received very careful examination and that the affected parties would be consulted in advance. With the few hours available for examination of the amendment, I understand that the companies are not able to say at the moment whether or not the section, as drafted, will prove really workable. I presume it is intended mainly to deal with the proposed development of the peat industry.

Mr. Comyn

No.

Mr. O'Farrell

Perhaps the Senator knows all about it. Whatever it is intended to do, it is an exceedingly big proposition and I do not think it should be crammed into one section and that it should be sought to rush it through at the last moment without giving anybody affected an opportunity of examining it carefully. This is the Report Stage of the Bill, and there is no way of amending it later, if we find that it is faulty in draftsmanship, or has not taken full cognisance of many important facts.

In regard to rates I might say that men have served a lifetime in order to become sufficiently skilful in the making of them. This amendment gives the Minister very comprehensive powers, requiring the company to do certain things with regard to uniform rates. It is a much bigger proposition even than the long section dealing with it would indicate to a person having no knowledge of railway work. I have not sufficient knowledge at my disposal to discuss it seriously. The Minister, I think, is not fully aware of all that is involved. I would suggest that he should go a little slower or he may find afterwards that he will have to introduce amending legislation. It might be better to introduce a short Bill than to put it into this Bill in this way.

Mr. Comyn

Senator O'Farrell has expressed an opinion with which I would be very much inclined to agree. If the Minister presses the amendment I will vote for it, but it will be a triumph of faith over experience. I was glad to observe that it provides that all traders should get equal treatment as between one town and another. It is provided that if a big house gets a special rate over a special distance, a small house will get the same rate for the same class of goods. That is so much to the good. The Minister also provides that his order shall regulate the minimum quantity in respect of which a uniform rate will be chargeable. I suggest that it would be a wagon load. That is also to the good. However, there is in the section a provision that the uniform rate shall be fixed under this section in respect of each prescribed distance. I am sure the Minister has considered the result of that, and probably his successor will be careful to provide for the interests of the public, but I can imagine a flat rate for a distance of, say, 40 miles, and a different rate over another section for a prescribed distance. In the hands of a person who was in favour of large combines, as against small traders, it would appear to me to be the first step that this section would afford a man who favoured a large concern. Of course it would be a matter for the discretion of the Minister, and so long as the present Minister is there I am sure justice will be done. But, of course he may be promoted to another office, and some Minister who would be more in favour of combines may take his place. There is a good deal to be said for what Senator O'Farrell has recommended to the House. As long as I have known anything about railways, these rates have been the subject of dispute, and of suspicion. It is impossible to convince country people, especially small traders, that they are getting the same terms from railway companies that large houses are getting. I am sure the matter will give rise to much discussion if this Bill is passed. If there is no great necessity for inserting this new section at present, perhaps the Minister would consider whether it might be worthy of a separate measure. I take this section on trust, as I am sure the Minister has provided for all contingencies. If he presses it I will vote for it, but I would rather see it the subject of another Bill.

Mr. Johnson

Since 1922 I have had to put in a demurrer very frequently against introducing Bills and passing them through without adequate discussion. It seems to me that this amendment, and the next one, are really not appropriate to this Bill at all, as they introduce a new question and ought to form the subject of a separate Bill. To introduce a separate subject on the Report Stage in this way— what should really be a separate Bill— seems to me to be asking the House to take too much for granted, without sufficient time being given for examination. The Minister would probably get, from the explanation he gave to-day, very general consent to such a Bill in the Dáil and the Seanad to secure the object which he seeks. We have an opportunity of examining whether these two amendments will secure that adequately, without doing damage in other ways to the objects he seeks. If he were to withdraw these amendments, and to introduce another Bill to gain the object he seeks, we would not lose time. It is not reasonable for the House to be expected to pass, at this stage of the Bill, two long new sections which do not deal with the subject, without having an opportunity of modifying them or giving them Committee examination. Seriously, I urge the Minister to consider the matter.

Mr. Bagwell

I agree with Senator O'Farrell that this is a colossal amendment, and one wishes that it was in the Bill when it appeared originally. Still it deals with a subject which will be very important in the period of recovery, which we hope is going to be instituted in the Great Southern Railway, and for that reason I hope the Minister will not withdraw it. I have read the amendment very carefully, and though I am not an expert, except in a special kind of railway work, I am not at all ignorant of the subject of rates. I think the amendment achieves the object aimed at, without endangering the public interest to any undue extent. It will be seen by sub-sections (8) and (12) of the amendment that if any injustice is done it can be revised by the Minister. These flat rates were not unknown in my time on railways, but they are very prevalent just now. They have become quite the fashion. I suppose it is a case of necessity being the mother of invention. The object is to secure in a wholesale fashion a flat rate, in a certain area, irrespective of distance, the traffic of large firms, or commodities sent by many people in great bulk. I think that is a good thing, and that the sooner it is put into operation the better. It will help materially. The public cannot be done any very great injury that cannot be rectified.

Mr. Lemass

It is undoubtedly correct to say that on the face of it this is a rather formidable amendment to produce on the Report Stage, but I would remind Senators that the matter with which the amendment deals was discussed on the Committee Stage on an amendment by Senator Sir John Keane which is still upon the Order Paper—amendment No. 37 —and I indicated during the discussion then that I proposed to introduce an amendment to the same effect as we are now discussing. It is also true that there is a good case to be made for re-examination of all the legislation dealing with transport rates of one kind or another, and for the introduction of special legislation in relation to them, if an amendment is desired. I think on general principles it is desirable that legislation affecting rates and charges should be separate from general transport legislation. We propose, in any event, to have that examination of the legislation undertaken at some stage, and perhaps later in the year we may have a Bill codifying the law in that respect. I would not like to have this amendment held up until then for a number of reasons. In the first place, I think we should have some experience of a flat rate system of this kind, before determining on permanent legislation; and secondly, it is correct that the enactment of a provision of this kind is a necessary corollary to the development of peat, to which the Government has put its hand.

I feel fairly satisfied that we have prevented any possibility of undue preference or of injustice being done by the section. In fact, all I have heard against the section is that it is too rigid in that respect and does not allow the company sufficient elasticity in fixing rates. Of course, the proposal of the company which was embodied in an amendment discussed was altogether unacceptable, that the company should be entitled to fix a flat rate for any single trader, and charge that rate to him, but to no one else, without regard to any provision regarding undue preference. This safeguards the position with regard to that. Possibly we have to be rather rigid in existing circumstances, in what we regard as the public interest. It would be very desirable that we should have some experience of the operation of the section before we set our hands to drafting permanent legislation codifying and amending the existing law in respect to transport charges. I would ask the Seanad to agree to the insertion of the amendment at this stage and to give us an opportunity of getting experience of the working of the amendment directly in relation to the one commodity I mentioned. I assure the House that if we should find that flat rates, that may be fixed under the section, are operating, in any case, with undue hardship, or unfairly, we will use the powers given by the section to amend them until the whole matter can be reviewed.

I am not pressing the next amendment. I do not propose to move it. I had it prepared because it would meet a difficulty of the railway company. I find that they do not regard it as meeting the difficulty, and they are not very enthusiastic about it. Under the circumstances, as they are the parties most concerned, unless a particular matter of public interest is involved, I would not press the amendment until we have a general report of the rates position we contemplate, when, possibly the same amendment, or some similar provision, will be brought forward.

Mr. Dowdall

This whole matter is extremely technical and I think that anybody doing business in any extensive way must have a man who will devote practically his whole time to the examination of his railway accounts. As the Minister is however anxious to have the section inserted I would ask him between now and the date on which it will come up for review in the Dáil, to submit the section to some organisation in which he would have confidence such as the Dairy Disposals Board and ask them to submit it to their rates expert. If he approves of it I shall be prepared to assent to it.

Mr. O'Farrell

Could the Minister say if he has in mind a general type of traffic or whether he intends to apply this merely to traffic such as peat? Does he mean to confine it to agricultural produce or does he think he can operate it in the case of general industries such as Guinness's? Has he a particular industry in his mind?

Mr. Lemass

I would not propose to operate the powers given under this section except on the application of the railway company. It would be for them to examine the position and if they find that it improves their position to have such a rate arrangement, then an order would be made but not otherwise.

Amendment put and declared carried.

Amendments No. 36 and 37 not moved.

Cathaoirleach

Government amendment No. 38:—

New section. Before Section 13 to insert a new section as follows:—

13.—(1) Section 55 of the Principal Act shall not apply to the road transport employees of any railway company.

(2) The Eighth Schedule to the Principal Act is hereby amended by the deletion of the words "Cartage Staff" in the second column and by the deletion in the third column opposite the said words of the words "Carters, Road Motor Drivers, Working Foremen."

Mr. Lemass

This amendment is consequential on amendment No 26.

Amendment put and agreed to.

Amendments Nos. 39 and 43 not moved.

Bill reported with amendments. Final Stage ordered for Wednesday, 7th June, 1933.

Cathaoirleach

The Final Stage of this Bill will be the first item on the Order Paper for next Wednesday. The Final Stage of the Road Transport Bill will also be down for that day and I hope that we shall get the Fifth Stage of both Bills finished.

The Seanad adjourned at 7.10 p.m. until Friday, 2nd June at 11 a.m.