Seanad Éireann debate -
Thursday, 4 Mar 1971

Vol. 69 No. 12

Transport (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill, 1971: Second Stage.

Question proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

Minister for Transport and Power (Mr. B. Lenihan)

The main purpose of the Bill is to provide for the dissolution of the County Donegal Railways Joint Committee and the Strabane and Letterkenny Railway Company and for the transfer of the assets and liabilities of the undertakings to CIE. An important feature of the Bill, and one which I will deal with in more detail later, is the provision for payment of compensation by the Exchequer to holders of baronial guaranteed shares in the Strabane company in consequence of the proposed dissolution of the company.

The Bill also contains a number of provisions dealing with measures to improve safety on the railways, the transfer of responsibility for maintenance of road surfaces on overline bridges to local authorities, toll charges at Fiddown Bridge, County Kilkenny, the handling of claims for redundancy compensation under the Transport Acts and with other miscellaneous matters.

The County Donegal Railways Joint Committee operates road passenger and freight services in the southern part of County Donegal. Prior to 1st January, 1960, when the lines were closed, the joint committee operated rail services on its own lines and on the railway line between Strabane and Letterkenny which was owned by the Strabane company, in which the joint committee holds a majority interest.

The joint committee is owned in equal shares by the Great Northern Railway Board and the British Railways Board. Since 1964, however, the GNR Board's interest in the undertaking has, for all practical purposes, been represented by CIE. British Railways have for many years been anxious to sever their connection with the joint committee and the Government decided in 1961 that CIE should take over the road transport business of the joint committee and should enter into negotiations with British Railways with a view to arriving at a basis for a financial settlement. These negotiations, which were protracted, culminated in CIE signing an agreement with British Railways on 31st May, 1967, the text of which is scheduled to this Bill, whereby, subject to the enactment of the necessary legislation confirming the agreement and payment of the sum of £57,742 by CIE to British Railways, the rights and obligations of British Railways in the joint committee and in the Strabane company would be transferred to CIE. Pending enactment of the necessary legislation CIE have taken over British Railways' interest in the joint committee and in the Strabane company. The board had, in fact, taken over management of the undertaking since 1st January, 1966.

To give full effect to the Government decision that CIE should take over the road transport business of the joint committee, CIE also entered into an agreement with the Northern Ireland Transport Holding Company, successors to the Ulster Transport Authority, under which, subject to payment by CIE of a net sum of £3,449, the assets and liabilities of the GNR Board in respect of the joint committee and the Strabane company would be transferred to CIE. This agreement, which was made in pursuance of the provisions of the agreement scheduled to the Great Northern Railway Act, 1958, was formally approved by the Northern Ireland Ministry of Development on 21st March, 1969, and by my predecessor on 3rd April, 1969.

The terms of the financial settlements with British Railways and the Northern Ireland Transport Holding Company were based on a valuation of the assets of the joint committee and took account of anticipated continuing annual losses on the operation of the joint committee's road transport services. No payment was made in respect of goodwill. Things have turned out better than expected, however, and I am glad to be able to say that the joint committee's undertaking is now operating at a profit.

The Bill confirms the financial settlement between CIE and British Railways and provides for the transfer to CIE, with effect from a date which I shall fix by order, of the assets and liabilities of the joint committee and of the Strabane company, excluding any liabilities of the latter company in respect of its baronial guaranteed shares. CIE will continue to provide the road transport services, both passenger and freight, which are being provided at present by the joint committee.

All staff employed by the joint committee immediately before the transfer date will become CIE staff. There are in all about 100 staff involved, of whom 81 are permanent staff. The Strabane company has no employees. I am taking this opportunity to assure the House that no member of the joint committee's staff will be disemployed as a result of the transfer of the CDR undertaking to CIE. It may be found necessary, however, to transfer some clerical staff to CIE locations outside County Donegal, but transfer of other staff are not at present envisaged; the necessity for such transfers at some future date cannot, however, be ruled out. Transfers of CDR staff will be covered by the same arrangements applicable to CIE staff and there will be full consultation between CIE and the trade unions in advance of any such transfers.

Provision is made in the Bill for the preservation of the pension rights of existing and former salaried employees of the joint committee who are members of the British Railway Clearing System Superannuation Fund. These particular staff are being seconded to CIE pending completion of arrangements which are at present being made by CIE to set up a separate fund, with an appropriate share of the assets of the British fund, to which members of the fund in this part of the country, including CDR staff, will be transferred. This will require legislation both here and in Britain in due course. Until these arrangements have been completed it will be necessary to keep the joint committee nominally in existence.

On being transferred to CIE, members of the CDR regular wages grade staff aged between 21 and 50 years will automatically become members of the CIE wages grade pension scheme. The position of employees who are ineligible for membership of this scheme because they are over age will have to be examined by CIE in consulation with the trade unions.

As I have already mentioned, the Bill provides for the dissolution of the Strabane company, in which the joint committee holds all the debenture stock and 87 per cent of the share capital. The remaining shares, which are privately held, include baronial guaranteed shares with a face value of £17,510 and 148 ordinary shares which are not guaranteed. Payment of dividend at the rate of 4 per cent per annum on the baronial guaranteed shares was guaranteed, under statute, by Donegal County Council and by Letterkenny Urban District Council. These guarantees involved the county council and the urban district council in annual payments of £640 and £60 respectively, but following the termination of the joint committee's rail services on 1st January, 1960, the two local authorities discontinued their payments on the grounds that they had been advised that they ceased to be liable for these payments when the railway ceased to operate. The Strabane company, on the other hand, was advised that the liability of the local authorities continued. Apart from 1960, when the Strabane company paid the dividend in anticipation of a settlement of the dispute, no dividend has since been paid to the holders of the baronial guaranteed shares.

I should explain that the guarantees on the baronial guaranteed shares were given to the Strabane company, not to the shareholders, and as such these guarantees would become unenforceable on dissolution of the company. Furthermore, the financial position of the Strabane company is such that there would be no assets available, on a winding up, to make any payments to unsecured shareholders, whether guaranteed as to dividend or not. All the available assets of the company would be claimed by the joint committee, which has priority rights as holder of the company's debenture stock.

In considering this aspect of the matter, the Government were conscious of the fact that in the reorganisation and writing down of the capital of railway companies guaranteed shareholders have generally been treated with some consideration. In all the circumstances, the Government decided that the holders of the baronial guaranteed shares should receive compensation from the Exchequer on the dissolution of the Strabane company. The amount of money involved was relatively small—the total cost to the Exchequer is about £14,500—and the baronial guaranteed shareholders were, after all, the innocent victims of changing circumstances. Section 13 of the Bill provides that CIE shall, within two months of the transfer date, pay to each guaranteed shareholder such amount which, if invested in Government securities, would produce the same amount in interest as he would receive if dividends were being paid on the baronial guaranteed shares. Section 13 also provides for payment of the arrears of dividend on these shares with effect from 1st January, 1961.

The amalgamation of the joint committee's undertaking with CIE is a logical development. The Bill puts a statutory seal on the practical arrangements already made for the transfer of the CDR undertaking to CIE and provides for continuity of the road transport services already operated by the joint committee. It is very satisfactory to be able to record that CIE are taking over an efficient and profitable unit and I hope that this will continue to be the position.

The opportunity is being taken in this Bill to carry out some desirable amendments of transport legislation to improve safety on the railways and to deal with some other miscellaneous matters.

Section 22 of the Bill provides for the substitution of automatic controls for gates at level crossings at which CIE have no statutory obligation to provide attendance, although in some cases attendance is provided. These are level crossings on roads which were not public roads at the time the railway was built but have since been taken in charge by the road authorities concerned. CIE's statutory responsibility is confined to maintaining gates on either side of the railway and it is the responsibility of users to open and close the gates.

There are over 70 such public road crossings and some of them carry a considerable volume of traffic. Where no attendance is provided by CIE, the gates are more often than not left open by users of the crossings thus creating a serious hazard for both road and rail traffic. There has been a number of fatal accidents at these crossings and the question of improving safety arrangements has been under consideration by a working group, comprising representatives of my Department, the Department of Local Government and CIE.

The working group have recommended the installation of automatically controlled flashing lights and bells, without barriers, at seven of the more dangerous crossings, without prejudice to the addition at a later stage of any further protective measures, that is barriers, which in the light of experience may be considered necessary. It is expected that the group will recommend similar installations at other crossings as their examination of individual crossings proceeds and that the continuing development of road traffic will create a need for further similar installations in the future.

As the need for these additional safety measures arose out of the growth of road traffic which compelled road authorities to make the roads part of the public road system, section 23 of the Bill provides for the sharing of the cost of providing and maintaining these automatic installations between CIE and the appropriate road authority in each case. It is proposed in section 25 of the Bill to increase from £2 to £25 the penalty for failure to close gates at unattended level crossings.

Again in the interests of safety, it is proposed in section 29 of the Bill that engine drivers and persons whom CIE wish to train as engine drivers shall be subject to compulsory medical examination. CIE have made periodical medical examination a condition of employment since 1968 for new entrants to the grade of locomotive driver and the board is most anxious that such examination should be compulsory for all engine drivers with a view to ensuring the detection at the earliest possible stage of drivers who might be suffering from diseases which would constitute a disability for driving and a public hazard. I am in agreement with the board that this additional safety measure is necessary. It will be a matter for negotiation between CIE and the trade unions as to how men who are found unfit will be dealt with.

Section 36 deals with another railway problem—the misuse of the communication cord on passenger trains. This has been a growing problem in recent years and is particularly prevalent on trains which are being run for sporting occasions. In some cases the cord has been pulled repeatedly with consequent lengthy delays to trains. In the hope that an increased penalty will act as a deterrent in such cases, section 36 of the Bill provides for an increase in the penalty from £5 to £25.

The other provisions of the Bill deal with a variety of matters including the application to level crossings on railway lines in this country owned by the Fishguard and Rosslare Railways and Harbours Company of section 9 of the Transport Act, 1958, which provides for the substitution of automatic controls for gates at level crossings on roads which were public roads at the time the railway was built; the transfer, subject to payment of compensation, of responsibility for maintenance of road surfaces on overline bridges from CIE to road authorities; the transfer from CIE to Westmeath County Council of liability to maintain Float Bridge on the River Inny— this would also be subject to payment of compensation; the reference in future of all disputes in redundancy compensation cases to the Circuit Court; the fixing of toll charges at Fiddown Bridge, County Kilkenny; and certain provisions relating to two of CIE's subsidiary companies, Aerlód Teoranta and CIE Tours International Incorporated. I do not propose to deal in more detail at this stage with the miscellaneous provisions. They can, in my view, be more usefully discussed during the Committee Stage debate. All I can say now, impromptu, is that it is a miscellaneous Bill which I commend to the House.

Professor Dooge

I certainly agree with the Minister that this Bill is aptly titled. I do not think that I have ever seen a more miscellaneous Bill during my period in this House. On looking at the various provisions one has the same reaction—one wonders why all these things were not done long ago. One almost has visions of a dusty file at the back of a press for which nobody could find the key. Either the key was ultimately found or the lock was broken open, the file was taken out, the dust blown off it and the Bill introduced to deal with the various matters that have been mouldering there for some years.

Here we have a picture of private railways operating on their own in one corner of the country; epidemics of unfastened gates at railway crossings; power-blind drivers careering throughout the country, and a question of activities by the CIE Tours Company on the American scene. So we have in this, as the Minister has said, a very miscellaneous Bill.

It is customary on Second Stage to look for the principle that underlines a Bill and to discuss that principle. The only principle that one can detect here is that it is advisable to clean up transport legislation, to take all these outstanding items and to put them in order in one measure. On that principle there can be no quarrel. The things which the Minister recommends in this Bill are all, on the face of them, desirable and quite properly they should be done. At the end of his speech, the Minister mentioned that because of the nature of the Bill, it is probably far more appropriate to discuss the matters in detail on Committee Stage.

Meanwhile, there are a few comments which I should like to make in general. Part II of the Bill, which encompasses almost 20 sections, is concerned with the final taking over of the County Donegal Railways. This appears to make adequate provision for the taking over of this company. One might say that our Irish railway system has been so much the result of the amalgamation of smaller companies that the carrying out of this operation should by now be virtually an automatic, smooth procedure, with all the difficulties known for a long time past. I do not know if baronial shares are a new complication of the situation but it seems to me that these have been certainly as generously dealt with as anyone could have possibly hoped for.

I should like to ask the Minister if these interests are being more generously compensated than was the practice. In the case of taking over of companies in the past, for example, does this represent a more generous treatment than that of the shareholders in the Great Southern Railways Company? This was once the most attractive of investments for people in this country, but subsequently had a sorrier history.

In Part III of the Bill we have a number of provisions in sections 22 to 25 dealing with the question of level crossings. At this stage I should like to ask the Minister a question which might help us to a more appropriate debate on Committee Stage. From time to time one notices in the newspapers accounts of accidents at level crossings. It may be that they are reported more often, but there seems to be a tendency for such accidents to increase. This may be no more than a reflection of the increase in traffic on roads which hitherto carried hardly any traffic at all, but I should like to ask the Minister if he has information in regard to the incidence of accidents at level crossings and, in particular, if he has any information which he could give us, either now or on Committee Stage, in regard to the safety history of the automatic crossings, some of which have been put in in the past few years because, as I understand it, what is proposed here in the Bill is an extension of the idea of automatic barriers or, indeed, flashing lights. It is not enough to say that people will get used to this new system. One takes what happens in other countries. For example, in the United States of America in all the years that they have had this system, despite all the injunctions that at every crossing you must stop, look and listen, the number of accidents at such crossings remains inordinately high. It would be helpful to us if the Minister had some information on that when we come to discuss this Bill in detail. It certainly seems necessary that there would be an educational campaign in regard to the dangers at such level crossings and it may well be necessary to make a quite substantial effort in this regard.

The provisions in sections 26 and 28 in regard to road maintenance and the passing over of maintenance by CIE seem eminently reasonable and acceptable. The provisions in section 29 in regard to medical examination of locomotive drivers are one of those that one would have expected to have seen in legislation long ago. One can only hope that they are now just merely a statutory enactment confirming what is the position in practice. This is, of course, a most difficult area. We know from reports of railway accidents from time to time that very often it is just that a driver passed a red light realising afterwards he had done it and unable to explain why. There is, indeed, scope not only for legislation in regard to this but there is scope here for research into the causes of such accidents.

Sections 32 to 35 deal with the company incorporated in the United States to promote CIE tours. As I understand it from the sections here, the intention is that this company should be completely separate from CIE rather than a subsidiary. I may well be minister-preting the sections here. If not, I should be glad if the Minister could indicate what is the reason for this. For example, in section 32 we appear to be allowing for the position that anybody at present working for CIE who in future is to work for CIE Tours International is apparently to be terminated in their employment with CIE and then be employed by the company with transfer of superannuation rights. I should be glad if the Minister would let me know if I am correct in my interpretation of this. If so, what is the reason why this is handled in this way rather than by a secondment or anything of this type? These are points which I have raised because in them I am looking for specific information which might be more helpful and, like the Minister, I think it appropriate that more detailed comment be left over until the Committee Stage.

Dr. West

Like Senator Dooge, I welcome the Bill because I feel that this is necessary legislation which perhaps should have been introduced earlier, but we welcome the provisions at this stage. I should like to make most of my remarks at the Committee Stage of the Bill but just direct the Minister's attention to a few general points which he might mention in his reply to the debate. First of all, he mentions that the staff of the County Donegal Railway Company numbers about 100. Perhaps he could give the House some idea of the actual scope of the operations of the system when he is replying, because I have no idea of the number of vehicles——

Mr. B. Lenihan

It is road freight entirely now.

Dr. West

Are there no buses?

Mr. B. Lenihan

Road freight and buses. There is no railway aspect.

Dr. West

I know this. Perhaps we could have a rough idea of the size of the company. It is obviously not a big one. I should like to make a general point. I welcome the provisions in the Bill which to my mind even out the apportionment of finance from the railway company to local authorities in maintenance of road surfaces, bridges, et cetera. I think that our railway company are usually at a disadvantage when costings are done, at least when they are done in public, because the full cost of the railway operation is borne by the railway company, and road hauliers and transport systems using the roads do not bear the full cost of the operation. I will quote from the EEC Manual on Transport:

The fundamental principle underlining the EEC common transport policy is that traffic should be distributed between the different modes of transport by means of free competition after the full apportionment of infra-structure costs to the transport operators.

I think this is very important. Whenever we are talking about our railway system we should bear this in mind, as it is difficult to apportion the costs to, say, a licensed road haulier, but this must be done to compare it fairly with the railways who bear the full brunt of the costs involved in the operation, whereas the road hauliers are supported by the people who maintain roads and this is a tremendous proportion of the total bill involved in road transport.

Also, I welcome the change in legislation on level crossings. Certainly the safest type of level crossing is the level crossing with a gate which is manned, but this is now getting prohibitively expensive. We can expect the number of manned level crossings to decrease with time and the number of level crossings with automatic barriers to increase. I commend the warnings on RTE as to the correct operation and the correct way of using the automatic crossings. I think these are excellent warning advertisements, much to be commended. They make their point briefly and very well. The public have no excuse for misusing these level crossings. But whether they have an excuse or not, they will probably continue to do so. I welcome the Minister's reference to a study group dealing with the problems of level crossings, because even the automatic barriers will prove too expensive to install in every case. We will be reduced to the question of grade crossings that are in operation in the US in which the lesser used level crossings are just marked by a post with two crossed pieces of wood with the words "rail crossing" or "level crossing" and then it is up to the driver who is approaching this to look out for trains and make his own way safely across. This will involve further danger for the motoring and the pedestrian public but it is something that must be faced and a further campaign of warning by advertisement will help in the introduction of these crossings which are essential. I welcome the change in legislation on level crossings.

There are a few further points. Regarding the medical test for drivers, I note that the Minister has pointed out that CIE have been carrying out medical tests from time to time. Medical examinations have been made a condition of employment since 1968 for new entrants to the grade of locomotive drivers. Because these tests have been carried out over the last few years that will ensure that we do not find, on the test becoming statutory, a large number of our locomotive drivers legally unfit for service. Presumably this will not be the case because the test has been gradually introduced. I certainly welcome this provision. It is essential that people who drive public vehicles which carry large numbers of passengers or large goods trains should have medical tests, just as it is essential for airline pilots to have the same sort of test to ensure their fitness for the service.

In section 31, dealing with the Fiddown-Portlaw Bridge, there is a present toll of one old penny. Perhaps it is the Minister's intention, with which I do not agree, to change it to one new penny.

Mr. Keegan

I propose to deal with section 22 of the Bill which provides for the substitution of automatic controlled gates at level crossings at which CIE have no statutory obligations to provide attendance. What is stated in this section is entirely correct. Many roads are now public roads and they have been improved and tarred. The volume of traffic which uses these roads is considerable. This section of the Bill, in my opinion, does not go far enough. It should provide for the introduction of grids in preference to gates. Very few farmers today drive livestock across railway tracks. They are usually transported by tractor-trailer or truck. If those grids were installed on each side of the railway at level crossings it would completely eliminate the maintenance of gates. Many of those gates are far too narrow and they are often left without being properly maintained.

I would ask the Minister to consider the possibility of installing grids in preference to gates. There is no company or body in a better position to install grids than CIE themselves with the amount of surplus rail track they have and the amount of worn track which they remove from the lines from time to time. They could provide those grids at a very minimum cost. We all know that many accidents have occurred over the years as a result of having to get out of a car to open one gate and cross the railway to open the second gate. By the time that person can get back into his car a train may have come along and a fatal accident may have occurred. I should like the Minister to have a second look at this and introduce some section that would allow for grids in preference to gates. The maintenance cost of grids would be fractional in comparison with the maintenance of gates and they would eliminate the possibility of unattended gates being left open from time to time.

I note that CIE propose to hand back to Westmeath County Council the liability for the maintenance of Float Bridge on the River Inny, I am also glad to see that this would be the subject of compensation. I know that Westmeath county council have no funds to maintain or reconstruct any bridge whatsoever, this bridge is in need of immediate maintenance there is not any money to repair it.

In general, I should like the Minister to consider the problem of all bridges spanning canals. They were originally constructed in such a way that boats could travel underneath them. Many of our canals are no longer used. Many local authorities are more than anxious to dispose of those hump-back bridges and to erect a straight span in their place. The Westmeath local authority is anxious to dispose of many of those bridges but they have not, as yet, got the go ahead from CIE. I should like the Minister to consider the possibility of allowing all local authorities to construct new flat bridges wherever those dangerous hump-back bridges exist.

Ruairí Brugha

Like other Senators, I welcome this Bill. I will not cover any of the ground which has already been covered. I should like to ask the Minister if he could give some idea of the sort of assets involved. I see two figures referred to, the figures of £57,742 and £46,625. I would be curious to know what sort of assets are involved in this rolling stock, buses and so on.

Mícheál Cranitch

I wish to make reference to two points concerning sections 22 and 46. Section 22 of the Bill provides for the substitution of automatic controls for gates at level crossings at which CIE have at present no statutory obligation to provide attendance. It is true that in many cases attendance is provided. Up to now our attitude towards level crossings has been far too casual. These level crossings are at all times potential killer points and any rules or regulations which will help to ensure safety both for road users and railway users is to be commended and I am very glad to see provisions in the Bill which would help to make travelling safer for both roads users and passengers on trains.

Our attitude has been much too casual. There is a story told of the tourist who on coming to a level crossing found one gate closed and the other open. When he made inquiries as to the reason for this phenomenon he was told that they were half expecting a train that evening. Unfortunately, we have a tendency to say: "God is good, nothing will happen, everybody will think of closing the gates", and so on. I welcome the provisions in the Bill that will help to make travelling safer.

As regards section 36, dealing with penalties for the misuse of the communication cord on passenger trains, the Minister remarked that this has been a growing problem in recent years and is particularly prevalent on trains which have been in use for sporting occasions. That is quite true and it is, if I may say so, a damnable nuisance for a sporting crowd on a train to have the train stopped by blackguards who just travel on the trains to do as much damage as they can and cause as much inconvenience to the public as they can. If there is a fault to be found with this section as the Minister has devised it it is that the penalty is not half big enough.

Dr. West

Hear, hear.

Mícheál Cranitch

These people should be taught a lesson when through pure blackguardism and nothing else they pull the communication cord and cause inconvenience to the public who are travelling and to the officials of the railway company. I am very glad to see that section there and I hope the fines will be levied without mercy for anybody concerned.

Mr. Gallanagh

I would not have been surprised to hear some Senator rising here to congratulate British Rail on their goodness in waiting four years for their money, but that is not the reason I rise. I rise because I remember those railways and it is sad to see even their names passing from the records. There must be a great deal of credit given to the people who originally started these railways at the beginning of the century for all the hard work that was put into them. I remember the trains on these railways and later on, during the war years, a great service was given when they had the lone rail bus. I do not know whether any Senators have travelled through Barna's Gap and seen a bus travelling along the side of the mountain as if it had come out of nowhere. At nighttime it could even be frightening to see the light of the bus moving along. This has given tremendous service to the people of Donegal and the scattered communities throughout the place throughout the years. It was the only means of transport of those people, and they did a lot of coming and going. Unfortunately, many a good man travelled outwardly on those trains and never came back.

Through the years they provided a great service and I hope that CIE will continue in this way to provide the service and will not evade this responsibility now that they have taken over; that they will not evade it from the point of view of economics—that when they talk about the assets and liabilities they will read into the liabilities their responsibilities to the community in that area and their responsibility of realising that the people in that area do not have the amenities of the people in other areas, particularly in cities and the bigger built-up areas. Maybe the largest town in Donegal would have a population of around 4,000. You can think of goods going there that have to be paid for by those communities and think of the extra freight that must be charged either directly or indirectly to those people.

I should like to thank the Minister for his consideration for the staff. I hope that these considerations will be fully honoured and that, as the result of the transfer, no one will be put out of work and that no one, if possible, will be transferred out of their area into another area.

Minister for Transport and Power (Mr. B. Lenihan)

One factual point first, which was raised by Senator Brugha with regard to the assets of the County Donegal Joint Committee now being taken over by CIE. The net value of the assets comes to £175,000 odd. Apart from various current assets, the fixed assets relating to passenger and merchandise vehicles and equipment come to £33,000 and depots and other buildings to £21,000, making a total of £54,000 for fixed assets. The balance of £175,000 represents current assets, that is, cash, stores, amounts due and investments, less current liabilities, accounts payable, and so on.

What this Bill is really doing in that respect is legitimising a reality. In South County Donegal for some time now CIE have been operating vis-á-vis stores, road freight and passenger service, and this now legitimises what in fact has been a business operation for some time and safeguards the situation in regard to the staff taken over by CIE and their superannuation. I thought fit to use the occasion of this measure to bring in the other miscellaneous matters that I have mentioned. As Senator Dooge said in passing, the Bill is miscellaneous with a capital M. I thought the occasion should be used to clear up certain matters that were outstanding. There are a number of matters, each of which could be regarded as a Bill in itself, small amending matters relating to level crossings, toll charges at Fiddown Bridge, the transfer of the Float Bridge in County Westmeath from CIE to the local authority, the communication cord problem and a number of other miscellaneous matters that I mentioned at the end of my introductory speech that required attention. The provision about level crossings is a major one.

I will be referring to that in greater detail on Committee Stage because there are important matters involved here, including responsibility for the safety of road and rail users. I do not think there is anything else I need mention at this Stage. The measure is one that has been generally welcomed and which, by reason of its very nature, is essentially, in my view, a Committee Stage Bill. On Committee Stage we can have a useful discussion on the Bill, because there are so many miscellaneous matters in it that each one of them warrants a discussion in itself. This can best be done in the section by section type of debate we will have on the Committee Stage.

Question put and agreed to.

Committee Stage ordered for Wednesday, 10th March, 1971.

The Seanad adjourned at 4.20 p.m. until 3 p.m. on Wednesday, 10th March, 1971.