Skip to main content
Normal View

Seanad Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 8 May 1963

Vol. 56 No. 11

Transport Bill, 1963—Committee and Final Stages.

Government amendment No. 1:
In line 16, before "or" to insert ", a tramway".

Amendments Nos. 1 and 2 may be taken together.

This is simply a drafting amendment to make quite sure that we do not get into a state of confusion in regard to railways and tramways. Some people consider that if a railway runs through a town for a short distance, it could be called a tramway. It is purely a legal drafting amendment.

Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 2:
In line 17, to delete "or light railway" and insert ", a tramway or a light railway".
Amendment agreed to.
Section 1, as amended, agreed to.
Section 2 agreed to.
SECTION 3.
Question proposed: "That Section 3 stand part of the Bill."

With regard to the publication which is referred to in this Bill, I should like to make an appeal to the Minister to ensure that any advertisement of that nature will appear in local provincial newspapers circulating in the areas concerned, as well as, if he so desires, the national daily Press, because I am afraid that quite a number of people who do not get the daily paper will be completely ignorant of what is happening unless they secure the knowledge through an advertisement in the local provincial Press. I should like to emphasise my belief that in any matter relating to publications such as are mentioned here, the local provincial Press should be used.

It is the custom to make use of the local Press for publications of this kind.

Question put and agreed to.
Sections 4 to 11, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 12.
Question proposed: "That Section 12 stand part of the Bill."

This section deals with the extension of the borrowing powers of CIE. In his speech on the Second Stage the Minister told us that the board's programme of capital expenditure for 1962-63 and 1963-64 was £9.7 million and it has been reduced at the request of the Minister to £6.13 million. I should like to get some idea as to what is involved in the reduction of the capital programme towards improving the efficiency of public transport which has been deferred by this reduction in the estimate of the board.

I am concerned about this because of another aspect of the Minister's speech. He told us that labour costs here were some two or three times per direct mile higher than most countries in Europe. I do not imagine for a moment he is claiming that the rates of pay of railway men are appreciably higher in this country than they are in western Europe, because that is not true. He was talking about the labour costs. It seems to me that a capital programme on which CIE would be engaged would be designed not to build new railways, not to build any big buildings, but rather to improve productivity in public transport here. Here we have a situation where the Minister tells us that the capital programme has been reduced at his request. Another aspect of that is the figures he gave us in regard to the reduction in staff. Now, we see a surprising picture in that at the end of the five years' reorganisation envisaged in the 1958 legislation, the staff, according to the estimates, will be reduced by 1,141. If we compare that with the overall staff I think the reduction is only 5¼ per cent. in spite of all the branch lines which have been closed and in spite of the closure of a lot of smaller stations, particularly in the West and Midlands, this summer. You have a situation where the staff content in public transport has been reduced by only 5¼ per cent. I know it is not for me to advocate a reduction in staff. What I am advocating is this. If it is true that productivity in public transport is low here it must be related to the lack of capital and the lack of proper equipment. That is particularly so in the case of the railways.

I have been reading about the progress made by the American railways because of their continuing research, their continuing investment of new capital and how they have been able to keep their heads above water, increase productivity and keep their charges within reasonable limits. The figures in regard to increased productivity are really surprising but according to them the progress is related to the continuing research and continuing investment of new capital in order to continuously improve productivity.

Can I come back to the first question I asked? What is involved in the reduction by the Minister in the capital programme of CIE? Does it mean that productivity will not be increased to the extent that CIE envisaged, that they will not be able to reconstruct and improve efficiency to the extent the board desire because of the cut in the capital programme? What happens when the borrowing power provided under this section is finished? What happens after that? Will that be dealt with in the legislation to be brought before us in the autumn and winter of this year? I should like the Minister's help in this as to what exactly is involved in it and how he sees the position about the need for continuing investment in CIE in order to improve productivity which I think is largely desired by the workers and their representatives on CIE. This is particularly related to the railway itself and the need for new capital investment, modern methods, modern machinery. There is no history in the railways here of any opposition to improved productivity methods. It is fair to say that this is, I think, the only railway undertaking in western Europe where one-man operation of diesel engines has been agreed and accepted by the trade unions. There is this ready acceptance to improve methods and increase productivity but it is all related to a capital need for new machines, modern machines. It is not hampered in any way by any attitude of the trade unions or representations by the trade unions. I should like the Minister to clear up the point as to what is involved in this cut-back of the capital programme envisaged by CIE.

The capital was cut down simply arising out of the general capital demands upon the Exchequer and the fact that CIE have to take whatever is regarded as their rightful share of the total capital programme. The nature of the reductions is as follows. First of all, they have temporarily reduced the number of diesel engines they are purchasing and extending the period over which there may still be some steam engines in operation. Secondly, the diesels they are purchasing are being obtained on an extended credit basis instead of by cash payment.

There are also a number of capital items where the interest on the new capital is very small, such as improvements to stations. A number of stations, as the House will recognise, have been brightened up and better facilities given both to staff and passengers. It is simply a matter of spreading the work of the improvement to stations over a longer period. That is the kind of thing that any company would have to do in the light of their ability to secure capital.

Then there have been certain deferments in the workshop reorganisations. A great deal has been done in streamlining workshop procedures and certain deferments have been made in that direction.

All these matters will come up for consideration when the new Bill is framed and as a result of the transport group committee operating in my Department and of the examination of the project for reorganisation which will be presented to us by CIE in the course of the next few months. We will then have to see the picture afresh and what new capital is likely to be required.

Productivity has already been increased through dieselisation, through improvements in the methods of track maintenance and replacement, through containerisation and pallotisation and the reduction of handling costs and the closing of lines and of stations. As the House knows the difficulty that CIE, in common with other railways, face is the extent to which traffic cannot be taken economically on the basis of double handling. There has been a very considerable programme throughout CIE at various stations to reduce the costs of removal of goods onto rail and then taking them from rail to motor transport, or from shore to ship. The use of containers and of pallots has been found very valuable for that purpose. Everything is being done to reduce double handling costs, which are the factor driving traffic off rail here as in other countries.

So, as I have said, some of the capital projects have been deferred, and all these will come up for consideration when new legislation is enacted some time at the beginning of next year. The House can be certain that the amount asked for in the Bill includes essential projects and those which bear the greatest interest on the money invested. We have done everything we can to ensure that reorganisation continues. I do not think it is true to say that this is going to prevent CIE from continuing their general plans of reorganisation until the expiration of the 1958 Act. Then we can examine the situation a new and establish a new policy in which the capital investment will obviously play an important part.

I agree with the Minister that a lot of progress has been made and a lot has been done, but in comparison to the need and what must eventually be done the progress is comparatively small. I am told by people involved in this that the problem of increased productivity in CIE has only been touched upon and started, and that it will take long years of steady progress and investment to really bring productivity up to the highest possible level. This again to my mind stresses the need for expansion of the compensation provisions. We are in this Bill extending the compensation provisions to the 31st March, 1964. At the same time, we are cutting back some of the capital programme and stringing it out, extending it further. It will not be completed, very obviously, by the 31st March, 1964, so I again stress to the Minister the great desirability of an early determination of what the decision will be in relation to redundancy and compensation for redundancy after the 31st March, 1964. As I said, the unions are co-operative but they must have some assurances early as to what the position will be by the 31st March, 1964. That may seem a long time away, but programmes being started now will have their result in possible redundancy after that date and the unions quite understandably want some very firm assurances from the Minister as early as possible.

Question put and agreed to.
Section 13 agreed to.
SECTION 14.
Government amendment No. 3:
In subhead (1) (c), lines 18 and 19, to delete "because of redundancy arising in any of the circumstances" and substitute ", as a consequence of any of the matters".

This is merely a drafting amendment. The necessity for it arises because any redundancy within the meaning of Section 14 of the Bill that may arise in Ostlanna Iompair Éireann would arise in consequence of the happening in CIE of any of the events described in subsections (1) or (6) of the Transport Act, 1958, that is, the termination of rail services, the substitution of diesel for steam traction, et cetera. The draftsman thought it better to say “As a consequence of any of the matters” instead of “In any of the circumstances”. That makes it completely definite.

Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 4:
In subsection (1) (c), line 20, before "or" where it secondly occurs to insert ", (bb) (inserted by this Act)".

This is purely a drafting amendment necessitated by the amendment to subsection (1) of Section 17 of the Great Northern Railway Act, 1958, provided for at paragraph (b) of Section 20 of this Bill. The latter amendment provides for the incorporation of a new paragraph (bb) in subsection (1) of Section 17 of the GNR Act. I do not think there is any necessity to go into details on this.

Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 5:
In subsection (1) (c) (i), line 38, before "payable" to insert "(subject, in the case of a person to whom subsection (3) of Section 17 of the Great Northern Railway Act, 1958, applies, to the provisions relating to the Second Schedule to the Act of 1958 contained in that subsection)".

This is a drafting amendment to make quite sure that the entitlement to redundancy compensation covers all the classes of employment envisaged under the Bill. As introduced, the Bill referred only to entitlement arising under the Transport Act, 1958. This amendment covers Section 17 of the Great Northern Railway Act, 1958. It is a corrective amendment to make quite sure that the purpose of this Bill is being served in relation to Great Northern Railway employees transferred to CIE.

Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 6:
In subsection (1) (c) (i), line 42, to delete ", but not otherwise,".

This is purely a drafting amendment.

Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 7:
In subsection (3) (a), line 60, before "and" to insert "or was transferred or seconded under Section 14 of the Great Northern Railway Act, 1958,".

This is a drafting amendment to subsection (3) of Section 14 of the Bill which arises because of the need to bring staff who were transferred or seconded from the GNR to CIE within the scope of the subsection.

Amendment agreed to.
Question proposed: "That Section 14, as amended, stand part of the Bill".

This section makes provision for the payment of compensation to employees of the Company whose services are dispensed with or whose conditions worsened. I should like to raise again the point I raised on the Second Stage but which the Minister did not deal with. I suggested that it would be a very good thing if there were co-operation between these State-owned companies, or between a company such as this and a Department of State such as the Department of Posts and Telegraphs with a view to placing employees who have become redundant in the service, say, of the GNR. I think that opportunities frequently arise where such persons could be placed in the employment of the Department of Posts and Telegraphs or with the Electricity Supply Board, and it would not be unreasonable to suggest that this should be done as a matter of Government policy. It would relieve, in some cases, the company from payment of compensation for displacement or for redundancy. I should like to have the Minister's view on my suggestion.

I think that the idea is very reasonable, but I understand, in connection with the kind of redundancy that is taking place in CIE, there has not been much opportunity for re-employment in the other State services. I am quite certain there would be no objection to it. Of course, some State companies have their own methods of recruitment. Some Departments have their own special methods of recruitment. They recruit men from the labour exchanges—men with certain family responsibilities within an area. The Senator will appreciate, in the case, for example, of an auxiliary postman, that the major factor is the residence of the postman. The postman is required to live in a particular area. There is no objection to the suggestion. It does not work out in practice in most cases.

The case I had in mind and which drew my attention to this matter was one where a man in the employment of the GNR in County Cavan was offered similar employment in County Mayo. However, because of family commitments and the fact that he had a small farm of land in County Cavan, and because his wife was not agreeable to go to County Mayo, he decided to resign his position in the GNR. There was a vacancy for an auxiliary postman in the immediate locality. I drew the Minister's attention to it and he said it was not a matter for him. I then drew the attention of the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs to it. I am raising the matter now because I think it should be settled Government policy that in cases like that there should be co-operation and there should be an effort to fix up these men, causing them as little hardship as possible.

Question put and agreed to.
NEW SECTION.
Government amendment No. 8:
Before section 15 to insert the following new section:
Where, either before or after the passing of this Act, the employment with the Board of a person who is an officer or servant of the Board (including an officer or servant transferred or seconded under section 14 of the Great Northern Railway Act, 1958) is terminated for the purpose of enabling the person to enter the employment of the Company, and upon such termination, the person enters the employment of the Company—
(a) the person shall have the same right to membership of and benefits under any superannuation scheme for officers or servants of the Board (other than the Board's welfare scheme for regular wages staff) as he would have if his employment with the Company were employment with the Board,
(b) except where otherwise agreed upon between the Board and the Company, upon such entry the obligations (whether obtaining legally or by customary practice) in respect of any such scheme and in respect of the members thereof attaching before such termination to the Board shall, as respects the person, attach to the Company,
(c) the interval (if any) between such termination aforesaid and the commencement of the employment with the Company shall be deemed, for the purposes of any such scheme, not to be a break in the person's employment, and
(d) the Board may include in a scheme or schemes amending any such scheme provisions giving effect to this section and, where the Minister is given power to confirm such scheme or schemes, such power may be exercised notwithstanding the inclusion of such provisions and such confirmation may be either without modification of the provisions or with such modifications (whether by way of addition, omission or variation) as the Minister thinks proper.

This is a new section. If the amendment is accepted, then it involves the deletion of Section 15. This is an amendment which was introduced on the recommendation of the Revenue Commissioners. They have indicated that for the purposes of the approval (by the Commissioners) under the provisions of the Finance Act, 1921, of pension schemes in which staff transferred from CIE to Ostlanna Iompair Éireann will continue in membership jointly with CIE employees, it will be necessary to amend each such scheme so that Ostlanna Iompair Éireann will be formally empowered to participate as a contributing employer in such scheme. The Revenue Commissioners' approval is necessary if the contributions of the employer and the employees, in this case employees transferred from CIE, under a pension scheme, are to qualify for rebate of income tax. That is all the amendment means.

I thank the Minister for his explanation. I cannot attempt to understand this and other amendments which we have here today. My trouble is that these amendments have been ready only since Monday morning. There was no possible chance of the trade unions having them examined. It is all right for a layman like me to say these amendments are satisfactory and so on but in sections dealing with the compensation and superannuation rights of people it is always very prudent for a trade union to seek legal advice. It has not been possible, with the short notice given of this amendment, to do any such thing.

I am wondering what possibility there will be of having any points clarified in difficulties that might arise. I should imagine that the Bill will go through the Dáil in just a few days and that there will possibly be an opportunity of making representations or putting up any amendments which might come to light on technical aspects of this Bill.

These amendments are, in fact, protective amendments. None of them takes anybody's rights away. They are making quite sure that the scheme is right so far as the employees are concerned. This amendment is exactly the same—in order to maintain the possibility of a rebate of income tax.

I quite accept that. You do find that lawyers tend to differ. A lawyer may say that it should be so-and-so, otherwise there will be a difficulty. We have found some corrective amendments. In spite of the detailed examination of the 1958 Act, a couple of flaws have been discovered. It is only prudent that it should be examined in detail and the advice of people who are experts in interpreting legislation should be sought by the trade union people before the Bill becomes law.

Amendment agreed to.
Section 15 deleted.
Sections 16 and 19, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 20.
Question proposed: "That Section 20 stand part of the Bill."

I have a query in regard to Section 14. I notice that in amendment No. 4 to that section "(bb)" in italics is used. That is a method of classification I am not familiar with—the use of "(bb)" in this way. It is an awkward way of doing it. Could the Minister tell us what lies behind this odd symbol?

Apparently the draftsman has introduced this now. There is already a (b) in the section so he introduced "(bb)".

Is there any objection to using Roman numerals as they do elsewhere in this Bill?

I must say it surprised me. I am prepared to accept the fact that these drafting complexities grow.

I recommend that the parliamentary draftsman should reconsider this method of classification.

As I said on Second Stage, the compensation provisions are welcome as far as they go. The problem which has been touched on by Senator Fitzpatrick is one of the shortcomings that have been discovered in the compensation provisions, that is, that there is no provision for compensation in the event of a redundant employee being transferred from one position to another. If he can show that, as a result, his rates of pay are reduced and his conditions of service worsened, then he is entitled to a lump sum for compensation but, in many instances, as Senator Fitzpatrick said, far more is involved than that.

It is not very much consolation to a man in Cavan to tell him that there is another job for him in Mayo. It might mean selling his home and transferring his family, and he might be involved in a lot of incidental expenditure in shifting his household. The compensation, good as it is, does not cover that aspect of the matter. That is a problem which has come very much to the notice of the trade unions in the re-deployment of staff involved in the closure of branch lines and small stations. It means that staff have to be uprooted and are involved in a great deal of additional expense which is not covered by the compensation provisions as they stand.

Another problem about compensation which I might mention to the Minister is in regard to long-term compensation. When a person has been declared redundant and paid off, he is in receipt of an annual sum. That annual sum may be satisfactory at the time it is fixed, but as time passes we are brought up against the problem of the diminishing value of the compensation, the diminishing value of the annual sum.

Later on, we will be dealing with a Superannuation Bill which, to a certain extent, gives some compensation to people the value of whose superannuation has been reduced by devaluation or by the increased cost of living. There will be something to be said for trying to maintain the relative value of the annual sum that will be paid to any person declared redundant.

The terms of service within CIE, State Departments and transport organisations, provide for possible transfer from one place to another. That is why the redundancy provisions do not include a worsening of conditions because of the fact that a person is transferred from one locality to another. If there is to be any consideration of this matter it is a matter for the unions and CIE. It does not come under legislation. As I have said, it is a universal practice, and nothing can be done about it in this Bill.

It is quite true that the conditions of employment provide for transfer, but in practice it does not work out that way. There is a fair amount of transferring of junior people, and people starting in the service, but once a man gets married and settles down he is not transferred except as a disciplinary measure, or unless he applies for a post which is advertised and which would give him an opportunity for promotion. He opts to transfer in such an instance. The transfers I am talking about are forcible transfers directly related to the closure of branch lines or stations. They are not part of the normal pattern within the public transport. In this case the man has been transferred, not because he is a CIE employee, but because the branch line in which he is employed is closed, and he is offered an alternative job somewhere else. I shall report to CIE what the Minister said and they may do something.

Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 21.
Government amendment No. 9:
In paragraph (a), line 39, to delete "and".

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

It is suggested that amendments Nos. 9, 10 and 11 might be taken together.

These are really drafting amendments. The effect of the proposed amendment will be to apply this abatement provision to any pension scheme of which the transferred employee is a member as an employee of Ostlanna Iompair Éireann. We had to tighten up part of the section to make quite sure of equating the position of employees transferred to OIE in regard to abatement of redundancy compensation with that of employees of CIE. It is purely a drafting amendment.

I am a bit puzzled about amendment No. 11. We are inserting another paragraph here which, in effect, inserts another paragraph. This relates to paragraph 6 of the Second Schedule of the 1958 Act. There is no definition of "Company" in the 1958 Act. I may be wrong on this as I was wrong on the last occasion in calling the section retrospective legislation and saying that we were taking compensation from people to whom it had already been granted. I must confess that on more careful reading I acknowledge that the Minister is right. It does not take compensation from any person to whom it has already been awarded. We are inserting these words into part of the 1958 Act and so far as I can see "Company" is not defined in the 1958 Act.

There is a mistake in amendment No. 10. It is a small mistake. In the Bill "Limited" is followed by double inverted commas, and not a single inverted comma. In the amendment there should be double inverted commas after the word "Limited" and not a single inverted comma. Perhaps, the Minister will accept a punctuational amendment on this point?

With regard to Deputy Murphy's point about the word "Company", I shall look into that between now and the time the Bill reaches the Dáil. I think that is the simplest way of dealing with it. I am unable to give an answer as to why the word "Company" seems to be floating there without any reference.

I think what is intended is OIE which is defined in this Bill but not in the 1958 Act.

What about amendment No. 10?

Perhaps, the Clerk has power to remedy the punctuation?

I understand the draftsman says it is the correct way to draft the amendment. I am not an expert.

In the Bill "Limited" is followed by double inverted commas and in quoting the Bill, they are not quoting it correctly. However, the Clerk has power in this matter.

What shall we do about amendment No. 11?

I shall have it looked at before the Bill reaches the Dáil in order to make sure that the word "Company" is correctly used.

Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 10:
In paragraph (b), line 43, to delete "Limited'," and substitute "Limited', and".
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 11:
To add the following new paragraph:
"(c) the insertion in paragraph 6 after `reference to the Board' of `and to the Company"'.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 21, as amended, agreed to.
Section 22 agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported with amendments.
Agreed to take remaining Stages today.
Bill received for final consideration and passed.
The Seanad adjourned at 4.15 p.m.sine die.
Top
Share