Progress was reported when amendment I to Section 23 was brought under discussion.
RAILWAYS BILL, 1924. - COMMITTEE STAGE RESUMED.
SECTION 23.
Has this amendment already been moved?
Yes.
Before the amendment is put let me say it deals with Sections 23 and 24, and is a proposal to abolish both sections and to substitute instead this one section. I note that it has been described by the mover of the amendment as an attempt to get an immediate decrease by way of a revision of rates. I may point out that, as drafted, it will not achieve its aim, because it definitely states "fares, tolls and dues, charged by the amalgamated company," and that will have the effect of postponing any preliminary revision of fares or rates until the amalgamated company comes into existence. The amalgamated company does not come into existence until the 1st of January next. Consequently under this amendment so far from there being any hastening of revision of fares, there would be actually a postponement. The object of this Section is to have immediately on the passing of the Bill a preliminary revision of rates. This amendment if passed frustrates that main object. For that reason I urge against the amendment.
Would the Minister be prepared to substitute the words "any railway company" instead of the words "amalgamated company" wherever these words occur in the amendment? The amendment would then read: "the rates, fares, tolls and dues charged by any railway company," and so on. In that case then the railway company would have the right to reduce their rates and tolls at once, whereas otherwise we would have to wait until the formation of the amalgamated company. I am only making a suggestion. I am not the mover of the amendment.
The Deputy overlooks the fact that the amendment seeks also to give the companies the right to increase their rates. I rise, however, to ask the Minister why the Bill only deals with rates so far as the amalgamating or absorbed companies are concerned. How is it that he has left out of the Bill any question of the revision of rates by the companies that cross the Border line or the companies that have their headquarters inside the Free State, seeing that the Tribunal has the power to revise rates for that section of the railways not amalgamated where the mileage is inside the Free State?
I would like to point out to Deputy Davin that the material point he has just raised is dealt with in a later section—Section 30— which deals with rates and tolls of companies who are not in the scheme but portion of whose line is in the Saorstát. As regards Deputy Wilson's suggestion to put in the words "any railway company," that would remove one objection I have urged, that the mere putting in of the words "amalgamated company" would postpone automatically any revision of fares until the first of January. This amendment has to be looked at in comparison with Sections 23 and 24, and I hold, and I would like to impress on the Dáil that Sections 23 and 24 give room for the immediate, almost compulsory, revision, of rates. This amendment would leave it to the good graces of the company.
I would like to point out to the Minister that in England, when they started the grouping system, an immediate reduction of 25 per cent. was given in the rates, and I would like to know whether it would be possible to have a reduction given here before the Tribunal goes into the question of rates?
Before the amendment is put I would like if the Minister could give an answer to the last Deputy, because this question of rates has been under consideration, in fact it has been expected for some considerable time. The position is this: that on the 1st of January of this year the railways in the Northern area made a reduction in freights and in the ordinary rates, bringing them down to 75 per cent. over pre-war figures, and there was at the time, I understand, an intention on the part of several of the companies in the Free State to make a considerable reduction in their rates. I do not know whether they intended to go as far as the Northern group have gone or not. But it was conveyed to them that possibly a more fitting opportunity would arise for them if they held up or delayed making that reduction until this Act would be passed, when it might possibly lead or help to popularise the Act after it had been passed, as one of the things that had been brought about. But as we found out in commercial circles, it has been holding up for six months all those reductions that we expected or anticipated would come into force on the railways on the 1st of January last. I am sure the Minister has considered this matter with the officials concerned, and perhaps he would give us some information as to when we may expect the reduction referred to here in clause 23 and 24. I think that clause provides that within three months of the passing of the Act the Tribunal would consider the matter.
If Deputy Good would consult his friends in railway managerial circles, especially the managers who are likely to come under the lash of this Bill, he would find that he has not actually stated the position as it exists. I understand on fairly good authority that the last time the revision of rates was suggested at an Irish and English traffic conference, which is the authority dealing with such questions, it was put up to the Irish companies who are now coming under this Bill that if there was to be any concessions to the trading community in the nature of relief of rates, that the Irish companies should reduce their local or internal rates. They positively declined to give way in any respect in regard to any reduction of rates internally, with the result that any reduction of rates which was in the nature of ten per cent. was by way of subsidy to the Irish railways in the southern area. I am sure Deputy Good, as a trader, should be well acquainted with all these things, especially as he has experience with railway companies. If that is the position, it is an indication to me at any rate that the companies he is now concerned with, and to whom he makes an appeal for a reduction of rates, are not going to deal in that direction until this Bill is passed.
The reason is because this threat of unification, or, if the Government had the courage, nationalisation, has been hanging over their heads and they were very anxious to accumulate as much funds as possible, so that they might be in a stronger position when it would come to a question of making a bargain. That is the real reason that they have done nothing. Perhaps if Deputy Good happened to be on a board of directors he would be in a position to give that explanation to the Minister—an explanation that I say is the proper one.
I am sure nobody knows better than Deputy Davin the real reason why we cannot get reduced railway rates in the Free State. I am sure nobody could use more influence than the Deputy, and those who sit with him, in that direction, and if we could only get them to co-operate in bringing about these reductions, they would be all engaged in a most useful way.
You have not told us where the three million pounds went yet.
Deputy Good has spoken as though he desires to see railway rates reduced at once.
Yes.
Well, he is supporting an amendment the very purpose of which on the face of it, and as was explained in the last discussion, is to allow the railway companies to raise rates and prevent reductions until after the amalgamated companies are formed and have had time to approach the tribunal, and until the traders desiring reduction have a chance of also approaching the tribunal, all of which means delay. That is the purpose of the amendment—to prevent reductions in railway rates until the tribunal is set up, until the amalgamated company is formed and until the traders on the one hand and the company on the other have had an opportunity of pleading their case before that tribunal. The purpose of the amendment which Deputy Good is supporting is to prevent a reduction in railway rates before January next. That is the proposal of Deputy Hewat, and it is also the proposal of Deputy Alfred Byrne, who is not here. That is the intention of every Deputy who supports this amendment.
Will the mover agree to substitute the words "any railway company" for "amalgamated railway companies"
I expected that my colleague would be here to deal with this matter and to take the burden on his own shoulders. I have not had the pleasure of hearing what the Minister had to say on the subject, but I thought on the last occasion that we had arrived at a point when we had almost convinced the Minister that there was good reason for the amendment being adopted. It is true that Part 4 of the amendment does give the railway power to apply to the tribunal for an increase, but that is only per contra as compared with the powers that it tries to provide for the railway tribunal being asked to reduce the rates. I would be sorry to see the railway companies coming with the proposal to increase the charges. I do not think it is likely, and I think it is even less likely that such a proposal would be considered favourably by anybody. It is a fair clause and it is based on exactly the same lines as clause 30, which refers to non-amalgamated companies.
At a later stage there is an amendment in my name to delete the section, so I can hardly argue in favour of the retention of the clause at all. I do think that the companies should be in a position to ask the Tribunal to reduce the rates, and at all events that the business community should be in a position to immediately approach the Tribunal. If the railway companies are not willing to reduce the rates, it is for the business people to come forward and demand that the rates shall be reduced, instead of waiting for a very long time until the various processes which are embodied in this Bill are put into operation, transforming the whole method of working the railways out of the position they are in into a sea of uncertainty. I would urge upon the Minister that the amendment would be an improvement on the section as it stands.
I have a very good reason, which I stated before in Deputy Hewat's absence, for not accepting the amendment. As the amendment stands, the use of the words "amalgamated company" postpones until the 1st January next any reduction which might take place. There can be no reduction under the amendment until the amalgamated company comes into being. It is now proposed by Deputy Wilson to insert "any company" instead of "amalgamated company" wherever that phrase occurs. But then there is the phrase "the appointed day." What is that? Does Deputy Wilson propose any further amendment to get rid of that difficulty? I suggest to the Dáil that instead of tackling this piecemeal and whittling it down they should attend to Sections 23 and 24. I think the wording of Section 23 has not been attended to.
As regards the statement about the English companies reducing rates, they did voluntarily do so. If the companies here are anxious voluntarily to reduce rates it is in their power to do so. A question has been asked in reference to my expectation as to when a preliminary revision would take effect. I can answer that better on Section 24. If the Ceann Comhairle agrees to have one simple statement made here, inasmuch as the amendment deals with both sections, I can simply point out again that the charges now enforced arose mainly through the general percentage order made by the Ministry of Transport in 1920, and that the increase of 120 per cent. was made mainly on this consideration: That a deficit was accruing and that charges were so established that in eleven months a revenue would be derived to make up for a deficit accruing over a period of sixteen months. That being the basis of the percentage order of 1920, it is quite obvious that there should be almost immediately a reduction in the rates immediately after the passing of this Bill. I have no definite information as to when that reduction will take place.
Amendment put and declared lost.
I beg to move amendment No. 2. To insert after the words "charges' in line 15, the following words: "Of the amalgamating and absorbed companies."
This is merely a drafting amendment but it is necessary because the charges upon lines other than the amalgamated and absorbed companies are dealt with separately in section 30.
Amendment put and agreed to.
Amendment No. 3 not moved.
Question proposed that section 23, as amended, stand part of the Bill.
I ask the Minister why it was that words were not put into clause 24 so that the charges of the non-amalgamated companies would be open to revision. There is no stipulation as to revision of rates of the non-amalgamated companies in three months.
I quite agree there is no specific mention of three months, but there is a better phrase from the Deputy's point of view, and that is "provided that at any time after the passing of this Act certain things may happen."
Yes. But unless one is to assume right off without any examination that the charges of the non-amalgamated companies are all as right as right could be the provisions regarding these companies are not as satisfactory as they should be, particularly to those who expected a reduction immediately, as will be the case with the amalgamated companies. Under Section 30 the rates to be charged by those companies outside the amalgamated companies shall be such as were in operation at the time of the passing of the Act. They shall not be subject to any review or reconsideration except that representative bodies of traders apply, or any trader interested in any particular charge, and the hearing has to take place and the whole procedure has to be published. All that may be perfectly right if one were justified in assuming that the existing charges of these companies outside the amalgamated companies were satisfactory. There may be companies in addition to the Great Northern which will not be brought in under the terms of this Bill as at present drafted, and their rates will not be subject to review. Is it intended that they shall be allowed to charge their present rates until the regular procedure is followed before the tribunal, and why should they be placed in an advantageous position over the amalgamated companies. I suggest that the omission of these companies from its review as provided under Section 24 requires some justification from the Minister.
I think we had better first dispose of Section 23, as amended.
Question: "That Section 23, as amended, stand part of the Bill"—put and agreed to.
SECTION 24.
The Railway Tribunal shall, at a date not later than three months after the passing of this Act, review the existing charges of the amalgamating and absorbed companies with a view to the modification of such charges or any of them having regard to the circumstances under which increased charges were authorised as from the 1st day of September, 1920, and to any reduction in working expenses since that date, and shall appoint a day when any modifications so determined shall come into operation.
I beg to move amendment No. 4. To delete the section.
I presume this amendment is dependent on Amendment I if that amendment were passed.
I am afraid it would, and I must have been rather sanguine upon that point. Section 24, however, obviously does create a difficulty by introducing an appointed day. "The Railway Tribunal shall at a date not later than three months after the passing of this Act review the existing charges of the amalgamating and absorbed companies." That is a very big operation for so short a time in which to put it into operation. Meantime the Tribunal may put in force a reduction in rates that could not be altered before the appointed day. If these rates were put in force by the Tribunal within three months of the passing of the Act, that might possibly mean a reduction which would to some extent endanger the stability of the companics themselves and these rates would have to be carried on for a very considerable time, and in fact an indefinite time. I had myself no intention of moving this amendment at all, and I am only doing so now on behalf of Deputy Byrne. Of course, I think the non-adoption of amendment of Section 23 does weaken the case for this amendment, and I do not think I will press it.
Amendment not moved.
We will take the next amendments to Section 24.
Amendments No. 5 and No. 6 not moved.
I beg to move amendment No. 7, to insert after the word "any," in line 23, the following words, "changes in those circumstances, including any."
The effect of the amendment is to enable the Railway Tribunal to have regard to all relevant circumstances. I think this amendment covers what Deputy Cooper had in mind in the next amendment.
I hope that the Tribunal will take into special consideration the circumstance that the traders in Northern Ireland have been enjoying a reduction of nearly 50 per cent. in rates since the 1st of January last, and this circumstance, I hope, will impress itself very strongly upon the Tribunal I hope they will lose no time in giving the traders in the Free State the corresponding advantage.
Amendment put and agreed to.
Amendment No. 8 not moved.
Question proposed—"That Section 24, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
I did not catch what Deputy Hewat said, but apparently he was not prepared to take his courage in both hands and move his amendment. Although I have agreed to withdraw the amendment standing in my name, I feel certain, though I hope I will be disappointed, that the work which this Tribunal will be called on to do in connection with the operation of Section 24 cannot be done in a satisfactory way within the time laid down in the Section. Deputy Good has laboured the point here on several occasions in regard to the attitude of the Northern companies in reducing their rates so much below the figure in operation in the Free State area. When the Railway Commission was sitting and dealing with the question of railway reorganisation, two of the small railway companies which are now outside the terms of this Bill came before the Commission and stated definitely and frankly that if the existing rates of wages and working expenses at that time were to continue they would have to close down. The railway rates at that particular time were the same all over Ireland. These companies, strange to say, have reduced their rates to the same figures as are in operation in the North of Ireland, and they have not closed down. The rates of wages have not been altered from what was in operation at the time they made that statement before the Railway Commission.
Can Deputy Good tell the Dáil where the subsidy is coming from which enables these companies to carry on now in view of the statement they made when giving evidence before the Railway Commission? It is obvious that they must be getting a subsidy from somewhere, or else the statement they made before the Railway Commission could not be correct. This section states "that with a view to the modification of such charges or any of them having regard to the circumstances under which increased charges were authorised from the 1st September, 1920, and to any reduction in working expenses since that date." I feel that is the rock on which the Tribunal will fall in their attempt to carry out the work in the period laid down in the section. I have made the statement here, and I repeat it, though it has not been dealt with by Deputy Good, that the reduction in the rates of wages and working expenses for all the Irish railways since wages and working expenses reached their peak point, extended to a sum of three millions a year. If the railway companies who come within the terms of this Bill were so anxious to facilitate the public in regard to fair and reasonable rates, I think that Deputy Good on their behalf, or someone else acting on their-behalf, should explain why they did not make some reduction out of the great saving they effected in reductions in wages, costs, coal, and other materials. If there was any desire on their part to give reductions, they had the opportunity of doing so when the reduction in wages and working expenses took place, but they did not avail of that opportunity.
Deputy Good said that labour can do a great deal in regard to assisting the tribunal to bring about that very desirable result, namely, a reduction in rates to the trading community. When the question comes to be settled and decided by the tribunal statements will be made presumably by the people who are anxious to get reductions. The companies will come before the tribunal with the assistance of experts, and no doubt they have many experts in regard to the figures which they prepare from time to time, and try to counteract the case that I have stated. That will take time, and I believe it will take such a long time that the three months laid down in the Bill will not be sufficient to cover the period necessary to review the rates in a satisfactory way, and in the way that we look to see them reviewed. I now come to deal with the question of the reduction of wages and the assistance which it is alleged the Labour Party and the Railwaymen's Trade Union can bring to bear on that and which Deputy Good is so anxious to secure. The representatives of the Irish Railwaymen entered into agreement with the Associated Railway Companies in regard to wages and conditions of service. At the time that agreement was entered into the bonus system was in operation, and the railwaymen agreed that the bonus should be reduced in accordance with the cost of living figure which is published from time to time by the Ministry of Industry and Commerce. That agreement has been faithfully carried out, with the result that £1,500,000 has been saved by the railway companies. I do not know what more Deputy Good can expect from the railwaymen than that, and if the railway companies are not anxious to take advantage of what they secured in that bargain I say they have made no case for the further reduction that Deputy Good is anxious to secure. I hope that disposes of that particular argument so far as Deputy Good is concerned until at any rate he puts up some more effective argument than the one he has already brought forward. I hope when the railway tribunal comes to deal with the question of the revision of rates and fares that it will take into consideration the fact that railway rates in this country have been so framed as to be in the nature of a tariff upon the food and produce consumed at home, while they act as a preference on the food which England imports from this country. That is an aspect of the question which I hope the railway tribunal will take into consideration that the railway rates inside Ireland will not place on the home consumer a more unfair burden as regards the cost of the commodity than they confer on the English people who consume the surplus exports from this country. Railway rates generally on food products are three or four times greater internally than they are in regard to through rates that are in operation for food exported out of the country. That is a very important question which I hope the tribunal will not overlook when it comes to deal with this question in an exhaustive way. There is another question, and that is the increased rates which the railway companies derive under the operations of the Ministry of Transport Act. Under that Act there has been an all-round increase of four, ten, or even one hundred per cent. I hope when the tribunal comes to consider the question that is referred to in this section, particularly in the initial stages, that it will give all the consideration it possibly can give to the question of an immediate reduction in rates on food and other articles which may be termed necessaries of life.
I make the point for this reason, that any general reduction in railway rates, so far as food produce consumed within the country is concerned, should have a very great effect on the cost of living. For that reason I hope the Tribunal will give the question of rates on food produce consumed within the country as much consideration as they possibly can when they come to decide this question within the next three months. It was because I was convinced that the work could not be done within three months that I put down my amendment. I hope I will be disappointed in believing that the Tribunal cannot do the work within the time laid down in the Bill. I am sure it will give general satisfaction to everybody, including Deputy Good and those whom he speaks for, if the Tribunal can, within the limited time given in the section, bring about any effective reduction in railway rates, especially so far as they have a bearing upon the cost of living.
I am sorry I have to dissent from the argument of Deputy Davin regarding the effect of railway charges upon the price of food commodities, and through them upon the cost of living. I think that any reduction in railway charges, whatever benefit it may be to the trader or farmer, will have very little, if any effect upon the cost of living. On this section there are two points I would like to draw attention to. The first is to ask the Minister if he is satisfied that the word "modification" inevitably means reduction. May it not mean an increase? If the Tribunal happens to look upon this question from the point of view of the railway companies they may say that modification should mean a greater charge. I therefore, suggest that we should substitute the word "reduction" for "modification," so as to leave no loophole. Further, this section provides that the Tribunal shall, not later than three months after the passing of the Act, review the existing charges of the amalgamating and absorbed companies with a view to reduction, having regard to the circumstances under which the increased charges were authorised as from the 1st day of September, 1920, bearing in mind the amendment that has been adopted, and any changes in these circumstances, including any reduction in working expenses. Changes in the circumstances may be argued to be at the cost of the companies, and, therefore, to justify an increase. But this provision only applies to the amalgamating and absorbed companies.
Therefore, there would be left out of this provision the Great Northern, the Cavan and Leitrim—which is wholly, I think, in the Saorstát, or perhaps there is a small portion of it in the Six County area; the Dundalk, Newry and Greenore, the Sligo, Leitrim and Northern Counties, the Castlederg and Victoria Bridge Tramway, the County Donegal Joint Committee, the Strabane and Letterkenny, the Derry and Lough Swilly, including the Burtonport extension and the Carndonagh extension. These are all companies portion of which is within the Saorstát, or the whole of which is within the Saorstát. Yet, there is no intention apparently to review the rates charged within the three months by these companies. I think we require to have some justification for that exception. I should not have quoted the Cavan and Leitrim, but the other companies have all been allowed to raise their charges, and they all should come under review. Unless there is some very good reason adduced why they should be allowed to retain their present rates without review until the setting up of the Tribunal, until application is made by traders and the whole procedure of examination into every specific claim is gone through, I cannot support the proposal. I would suggest that it would not do any harm to Part 3 of the Bill if the Minister would allow these words "amalgamating and absorbed" to be deleted, or if the section itself were amended in such a way as to allow a review of all the existing charges of all the companies within the Saorstát.
A great many points have been raised on the actual section. I am afraid I cannot answer Deputy Davin's points in detail, because they left me under the impression that he was speaking mainly against Deputy Good, though apropos of the section. It is only in connection with a small portion of his remarks, dealing actually with the section, that I have anything to say. In so far as they deal with the section he seeks again to put me into the dilemma with which Deputy Johnson has already faced me, that is to say, either the revision is meant to be an exhaustive one—and we are told by Deputy Davin that it has taken a Tribunal in England three years and that they are not yet finished——
I do not think I used the word "Tribunal." I said the experts concerned with the rates question.
The time question is the important end. It has taken somebody three years in England, and it is not yet complete; yet we are seeking to do the same thing in three months, or else the alternative is that we only want a minor modification of rates. Then Deputy Johnson says that that is not an honest attempt; that he had looked upon the Bill as an honest attempt to bring down rates immediately, and if it is only a minor kind of thing it is not an honest attempt. There is a medium between these two things. We do not seek to have the general charges and the standard rate established within the three months. That is left to the twelve months, starting on the 1st January next. But we do hope immediately to have a modification that will give a considerable relief in the way of reduction in rates.
I find it essential to repeat again how these rates arose. In September, 1920, certain matters were taken into consideration. One of the matters was that the standard revenue was insufficient and deficits were accruing over a certain period. That was to be looked into and increased charging power was to be granted to make up for that deficit. Those charges were not allowed to be put in force until after the expiration of some months, and the position eventually was that the present rates, the result of the 120 per cent. increase since September, 1920, were based mainly on the fact that in an eleven months' period you had to make up deficits accruing over a 16 months' period.
Suppose we were to say, through the terms of this Bill that we insist that the charges so established in 1920 for that purpose should be left, and the railway companies precluded from dealing with them, until whatever date Deputy Davin has in his mind as necessary for this work, say six months instead of three months, I think the first storm would arise in Deputy Davin's quarter over my allowing the railway companies to keep in force for the six months the increased charges which were built up on the basis of providing in eleven months for what had become a deficit of over sixteen months' period. On that fact alone, if that item only were taken into consideration, there should be a reduction in the first three weeks instead of the first three months. That is not the only factor to be taken into consideration. There are other factors, and they are allowed consideration under the terms of the amendment moved by Deputy Duggan and accepted by the Dáil—certain things, "and particularly reduction of working expenses since that date." Remember that is only subsidiary. The main thing is the circumstances under which the increased charges were authorised in September, 1920. Those circumstances are what I have related, that General Percentage Order of 120 per cent. Increase allowed in a certain way. There is a case immediately for modification, a very considerable modification, and in a very short period. Deputy Davin used the words "there can be no examination in an exhaustive way." There is no examination of an exhaustive nature intended in the preliminary revision. That waits for the year starting the 1st January, 1925. In the twelve months thereafter there is going to be a scientific examination of rates and the setting up of the standard charges. With regard to the two points raised by Deputy Johnson, the word modification may mean increase. It does not preclude increases, and if a case for an increase is made out that increase will have to be conceded. On the facts I have stated, how there is going to be any case for an increase made out passes my comprehension. With regard to the other point, that the words amalgamating and absorbed companies should be expanded and extended to bring in railways partly working in the Saorstát, we have already made allowance in Section 30 for a revision in certain conditions.
AN LEAS-CHEANN COMHAIRLE took the Chair at this stage.
We do not make allowance for a preliminary revision in the first three months of these other lines for a very good reason, that the effects of such preliminary revision are already here. In all the railways partly in and partly out of the Saorstát, there has already been a reduction of rates corresponding to what we hope to attain in the first three months under Section 24. That is the reason, simply because the fact is there, the reduction sought to be attained under the preliminary revision is operative already. If there is anything further to be urged, arguments can be pressed under the terms of Section 30. For that reason the section, as it stands here, is confined to the amalgamating and the absorbed companies.
I am satisfied with the explanation why railways partly in and partly out of the Saorstát are not included. If all the companies in question have reduced their rates in the manner desired by the Minister, that justifies their exemption from the section. I would like the Minister to explain the position after this review has taken place. Assuming that the railway companies have been reasonably justified in their contention—it might be a far-fetched assumption, and Deputy Good, Deputy Hewat, Deputy Wilson, not to speak of Deputy Davin, may not agree with it—that on their present earning powers, and their present costs, they could not afford to make a reduction, the tribunal within three months has to consider the case for reduction. It reviews the position to-day as compared with the position when the increase was allowed, and presumably it will hear and consider what the railway companies have to say, notwithstanding any judgment that the Ministry may have already arrived at. What I would like to find out from the Minister is, whether in reviewing these charges that Tribunal will have regard to the intentions of the later portions of this Act, as it will then be, which say that the standard charges which will be eventually fixed are to be such as will bring in a certain standard of revenue. If that is to be taken into account, as I suggest is almost obvious—otherwise the Minister suggests it is not obvious—they would not be called upon, in his view, to take into account the possible results on revenue of an immediate reduction in charges. Otherwise, what is going to be the effect of the loss which would accrue to the companies owing to this immediate review and reduction? What is going to be the effect of that loss on the standard charges for next year? It seems to me that unless the review is going to take into account the whole intention of the Act, which will be to secure for this year, and for next year, the standard revenue, standard profits, provided by the Act, the standard charges of the subsequent year will have to be higher to make up for the current year's loss.
Providing there is no reduction in expenses.
The contention of the railway companies is that they have taken out all that is possible in the way of expenses. Deputy Good may make up his mind that the chances of reduction in expenses of the kind he is thinking of, and only thinking of, are very small, indeed, unless some very great changes take place in other directions. It is quite useless for Deputies and the public to look to a reduction in wages as the means for reducing prices and freights. They will have to look elsewhere, and not to a reduction in wages.
But will the Minister give us an assurance, based upon his knowledge of the Bill, that when the Tribunal revises the present rates and reduces them, the cost of that reduction will not inevitably fall upon the rates to be charged next year after the revision. And could he with any confidence say that the tribunal, which is to be a judicial body, and not to be influenced by the Ministry, will not take into account the necessity for fixing rates and charges which will ensure to the companies' shareholders a standard dividend.
I think that the Minister has not made any case as to why the non-amalgamated companies should be excluded from this preliminary revision. If the Bill seeks to protect the various ports in the Free State area, then I say it should be concerned with the operation of any uneconomic rates that would divert traffic from ports in the Free State area, traffic that would in the natural course of events go in that direction. For that reason, which I think is a very good one, I think at any rate he should seek the power under this particular clause to make a preliminary revision of the rates now in operation by the non-amalgamated companies which operate within Free State territory.
When I was speaking before I think I pointed out that there were two companies, with the greater portion of their mileage in the Free State area. They appeared before the Railway Commission and gave evidence that they would have to close down at that particular time unless there was a reduction in wages and working expenses. They did not close down; there was no reduction in wages at any rate, and if companies such as those I refer to have agreed to a general reduction of rates, and if their previous statement is true, a subsidy must be coming from some other source, probably from some wealthy company inside the Northern area, so as to assist in diverting the traffic from its natural route. For these reasons alone I think the Minister should seek power—he may not go into the question very exhaustively—to deal with these companies in the same way as he would deal with the amalgamated or absorbed companies, from the point of view of the general question of a revision of rates.
I think I stated when I was speaking before that any reduction in railway rates, so far as it would apply to food produce or the general necessaries of life, should be passed on to the consumer. I do not say it has been passed on to the consumer, but I do contend that any increase in the railway rates so far as they apply to a particular commodity—food of any kind—were passed on to the consumer in a far greater degree than they should have been owing to the manner in which those engaged in the work of distribution were disposed to fleece the consumer. For instance, I know where a 4 per cent. increase in rates was brought into operation. The traders generally passed that increase on, not at the rate of 4 per cent., but at the rate of 25 or 40 per cent. I hope when the Profiteering Bill which we are looking forward to with a great deal of pleasure will be introduced, it will prevent these things happening to that extent. At any rate, I do not think the Minister has made a good case for not including the non-amalgamated companies, so far as the question of the revision of rates is concerned, in the same way as when dealing with the amalgamated companies. I put it to him if there is a case in a particular area where an uneconomic rate is in operation and where the company is perhaps being subsidised by some other company outside the area and diverting a considerable amount of traffic out of its natural route, such as is happening at the present time in the West of Ireland, that that is a very good reason why he should do as I suggest. If he does not do so, I ask him what powers has the Tribunal to deal with the question of unfair diversion of traffic, if it is due to that cause.
I think it is fairly obvious that the traffic will go by the cheapest route.
And why would it not?
We may as well be candid about it. If we do not get the rates on the railways in the Free State down to the level of the rates prevailing at the moment in portion of the Free State, though they do not come within this combine, traffic will naturally go northwards. What we want to see as a result of this Bill—and one has some difficulty in seeing it, particularly in view of the statements that have been made by Deputy Johnson and Deputy Davin that they do not hope to see any economies—are economies, and if we do not get the economies under this Bill that trade and commerce are calling for their traffic will find other routes. The point that has been put up by Deputy Davin is one that should have the consideration of the Ministry and of the tribunal. What I cannot follow is why reductions have not taken place already in that area where competition is going on at the moment and has been going on for the past five months. Deputy Davin has pointed out that by reason of these reductions traffic from the West of Ireland is going over the Northern railways, traffic which, in the ordinary course, should go over the railways in the Free State. If that traffic is carried at a rate of 75 per cent. over the pre-war rates, while in the Free State the rates are equivalent to 120 per cent. increase on pre-war rates, the bulk of it will go over the railways in the Northern State. I think it will be up to the tribunal to see how economies can be effected, because it is quite obvious that economies must be effected in order to get these rates down. I hope the tribunal will deal firmly with the subject and effect these economies, because except we can get, as has been pointed out here several times during the discussion of this Bill, rates reduced to such an extent as will enable those who have to deal in export trade —and export trade forms a very large volume of the trade within the Free State—to compete on practically the same terms as those they have to compete against on the other side, we are going to do them a serious injustice. That is the object that the Minister ought to have in view and that this Dáil ought to have in view. It ought to be the duty of all those in the House to try and co-operate in the national interests in effecting such economies as will enable rates to be reduced to the figure they stand at on the other side.
The question I put to the Minister a short time ago was, could he give us any reason as to why these reductions have been delayed in the rates in the Free State. It is fairly common knowledge outside this Dáil that but for this Bill reductions would have taken place on the railways in the Free State on the 1st January last, when very large reductions took place on the railways in the Northern area. I would like some definite statement from the Minister on that point. It may be that commerce has been burdened for the last five or six months with these heavy rates in the Free State in order to enable those who are in favour of this Bill to make a great flourish of trumpets when it comes into force, or a short time after it passes, by saying: "Here is the first fruit of this measure; we told you that immediately it came into operation it would do such things, though those who opposed it told us it would not." Instead of being the first fruit it is late fruit. It is the fruit that would have accrued in the ordinary course on the 1st January last. I am quite satisfied that it would have accrued in the ordinary way if this Bill had not been on the tapis. Instead of being a first fruit it has been a burden on commerce. I would like some information as to why these reductions have not taken place. He has already explained to us on more than one occasion that the increases which took place on the 1st December, 1920, were increases that were to produce in the eleven succeeding months a sufficient revenue to make up for the deficiencies of the preceding sixteen months. They should have terminated on the 1st August, 1921, in the ordinary way, and yet those rates are still in force. Some information ought to be given to us on that particular point as to why reductions have not been made.
Deputy Johnson raised one very substantial point. He asked if I could give an assurance that losses to the companies subsequently to form the amalgamated company, accruing as a result of a preliminary revision, will not be made up by increased charges on the standard rates when they come into force. On that, I can say definitely that what the Deputy forecasts is not possible.
Is it protected in the Bill?
Section 52 deals with the adjustment of charges to revenue, and it has nothing whatsoever to do with losses, either for the remainder of this year or next year. It only deals with the period after the standard charges come into operation.
Is it possible for the Minister to give the Dáil an assurance—I am afraid it is not if the tribunal is a judicial body—that the consequences of the reductions now will not influence the finances of the new company in course of formation?
It is not possible for me to give such an assurance on behalf of a tribunal which, if so minded, might do all sorts of ridiculous things. But I go on to the point that Section 52, more or less, gives the terms of reference to the tribunal with regard to the adjustment of charges to revenue, and that section states:
The standard charges to be fixed in the first instance for the amalgamated company shall be such as will, together with the other sources of revenue, in the opinion of the Railway Tribunal, so far as practicable, yield, with efficient and economical working and management, an annual net revenue (hereinafter referred to as the standard revenue) equivalent to the average annual aggregate net revenue for the three years of account ended next before the 1st day of January, 1914....
There are certain additions then made to it, but there is no provision whatsoever for taking in losses this year or next year. I do not see, with these terms of reference before them, how the tribunal could possibly take losses this year or next year into consideration. As far as we have been able to do it by settling definite terms of reference for the tribunal, we have precluded their taking any such losses into consideration.
Deputy Davin is still of opinion that no case has been made for not including the railways partly in and partly out of the Saorstát. I thought I had explained, to the satisfaction of the House, that; inasmuch as all railways partly in and partly out of the Saorstát had definitely made reductions corresponding to what we hope to achieve under Section 24, that was sufficient reason for not including them. The Tribunal, Deputy Davin thinks, is overloaded with work in having to make a preliminary revision for the companies in the Saorstát in three months, and nevertheless he suggests that we should place extra work upon it by including the railways which are partly in and partly out. Deputy Davin, after stressing the point with regard to insufficiency of time, should be the last Deputy to seek to throw an additional burden on the tribunal.
It would be well worth the additional time.
We have already decided the time, and having decided the time, Deputy Davin should have regard to the circumstances and try not to put extra work on the tribunal in the matter of this preliminary revision. I find it difficult to discover what particular argument Deputy Davin desired to make in respect of "statements by the railway companies." I do not know whether Deputy Davin desires us to believe that what the railway companies say is true, because I am sure it is utterly abhorrent to Deputy Davin to accept what the railway companies say as true. I do remember that he spoke of unfair diversion of traffic by means of reduced rates on railways operating partly in and partly out of the Saorstát. Any unfair diversion of traffic is met by Section 29. Section 29 represents our opinion as to how unfair methods of diverting traffic can best be countered. If Section 29 does not satisfy Deputy Davin, he can show his dissatisfaction on the point when we are dealing with the section. But we have not completely lost sight of the possibility of unfair diversion of traffic.
If due to the existing uneconomic rates, I suggest there is no method by which the Tribunal can deal with the matter.
There is a bigger question than that. We seek to put the amalgamated undertaking on such a footing, by amalgamating separate companies, that it will be enabled to compete on fair grounds with railways not included in the scheme—that is to say, by grouping, with the consequent economies.
I would like the Minister to develop that argument. It is a most interesting one.
On Second Reading these economies were explained. The principle of the Bill was adopted by the Dáil, and, that being so, I do not feel at liberty now to go into the economies to be effected. I gave a list on Clause 2 or Clause 3, on which economies could be effected. It was a big list of items—the question of standardisation of rolling stock, the removal of certain unnecessary workshops, the removal of certain redundant people on the directorate, and a variety of other items.
Might I put a question to the Minister at this point, if he will forgive me for interrupting him? He has had an opportunity of going into the figures regarding the economies he has mentioned. I would like him to give us some information as to the result of his examination of these economies, and whether in his opinion, it will enable the tribunal to bring down the rates to a figure corresponding with the rates that exist on the other side, because those are the rates and those are the markets with which we in this country will have to compete.
No, I am not in a position to state with regard to rates generally that they will be brought down to a particular level. All I can say is that there is every hope that the rates will be brought down.
Materially brought down?
Yes, materially brought down. Not any small minor modification of rates. That is what we hoped to get within the three months' period, but after that, when the standard charges come to be put in force at a time when the economy which we are hoping to gain by unification becomes operative, the hope is that they will be materially reduced from those at present obtaining. The point I was developing was in answer to Deputy Davin, that a more economical working of the amalgamated undertaking, when that has been achieved, will place the undertakings under the amalgamated company in a position to compete on good terms with the railways partly in and partly out of the Free State.
In the meantime things must go on as they are?
No, that is not correct. Things must not go on as they are. Immediately we hope to have a preliminary modification which will bring us into a position of being on as good and possibly better terms than the railways operating partly in and partly outside, and then when we get the final standard charges they ought to put us on better terms than these railways. As o the big question raised by Deputy Good, whether I can say what prevented the railway companies from bringing into force the reductions already brought into force on other lines. Deputy Good has himself used the argument that the reductions which the railway companies intended to make of their own accord were held up by somebody in order that later on they could be pointed out as being the first fruits of this Bill. It is an interesting change on the part of Deputy Good to find him looting forward to such reductions so surely that he seeks to take away credit from this Bill by saying that these reductions would have taken place in January last only for some particular person saying to the railway companies: "Do not bring these reductions into force at the beginning of the year, but keep them until after the Bill is passed." I doubt if Deputy Good can point to one single company and say with assurance that that particular company had intended to bring down its rates on the 10th January, but that they were held up by reason of this Bill. If I am asked to go further into that and state why the railway companies did not bring down the rates from the 1st January it would lead me into an indictment of the railway companies which I could possibly make better from the benches on which Deputy Davin sits than from these benches.
The apparent conclusiveness of the Minister's reply to my statement in regard to the possibility of making up in standard charges next year or the year after, what is lost by the reduction in the present charges—the answer to that by reference to section 52 is not as conclusive as it seems on the face of it. We must bear in mind that the standard charges to be fixed are to be such as will, in the opinion of the tribunal, yield an annual net revenue equivalent to the average net revenue for three years. I suggest that it is not at all improbable that if this percentage cut all round that he foreshadows is taken by the railway companies to be one which they cannot afford, and they then continue to defer expenditure on work which has already been too long deferred and spend it in subsequent years it will be brought before the tribunal as an expenditure reasonably due on those years, and therefore will make the charges against the gross revenue higher, and will make it necessary to have a higher gross revenue to produce a net revenue required by the Bill. It may well happen that you reduce rates by a stroke of the pen without consultation with the companies and in defiance of the matured opinion of the company. I say that under Section 52 they will be able to recover, from future standard charges, the cut that is imposed on the companies in the ensuing three months because they will be saving working expenses, expenditure on necessary work which has been too long deferred. They will defer it for another year, impose it on the charges for another year, and consequently prove to the tribunal that the charges against gross revenue are so much higher than otherwise they would be. In that way they will be able to transfer to future standard charges the cut that has to be taken into review three months after the passing of the Act.
I am quite clear that what Deputy Johnson has outlined is not possible under Section 52, but I suggest that we could leave the matter over until we come to Section 52 when we could examine it in detail and make provision against what he considers likely, if it is considered likely under the terms set out in Section 52.
Question—"That Section 24, as amended, stand part of the Bill"—put and agreed to.
SECTION 25.
The railway tribunal shall consider and, after hearing all parties interested and who are desirous of being heard, shall determine the classification of merchandise applicable to the amalgamated company, and shall have power to divide the classification into such number of classes containing such descriptions of merchandise as they think fit, and in determining the class in which any particular merchandise shall be placed, they shall, in addition to all other relevent circumstances, have regard to the value, the bulk in comparison to weight, the risk of damage, and the cost of handling such-merchandise, and the saving of cost which may result when such merchandise is forwarded in large quantities.
I beg to move: In line 32 to insert after the word "fit" the words "and shall differentiate in favour of agricultural produce grown in Saorstát Eireann and articles of food manufactured therefrom." This is an amendment to indicate to the rating tribunal that the national policy ought to be towards carrying the goods produced in this country in a manner which will give them preference over the goods of any other country. It is not with a view to appointing a tribunal and telling them to do so-and-so, but with a view to indicating the general policy which ought to be pursued, and as evidence that such a thing is necessary. I will merely quote to you the fact that foreign produce is carried at a lower rate than that which applies to the produce of this country. Take American bacon, for example. It is sent from Liverpool to Mullingar at a cheaper rate than bacon produced in Dublin is sent to Mullingar. I do not think that is fair treatment to the produce of this country, when you come to consider the value of the article. Take, for example, a ton of potatoes. Five pounds would be a high valuation to place on them. A ton of flour produced from Canadian corn would be worth £20, and yet the railway freight for both is the same. I think the Minister should give preference to Irish produce. In order to show you that the same idea applies to England I have here a cutting from the National Farmers' Union, and in one of the items they ask permanent Government action. They want the development of the method of transport and sufficient control over carrying companies to ensure preferential treatment for English produce. That will show you that the same idea is exercising the minds of the people in England. I believe a fair case can be made out for treating our produce so that we will not be charged a greater rate than is charged to the produce of our competitors.
I think the Deputy in moving this amendment has opened up the real vista that faces us in connection, with the adoption of this Bill. The proposal here is that the tribunal should be instructed in the first instance that a system of preferential rates should come into force. In other words, we are now developing the idea, from the farmers' point of view, of bounties and the protection of industry. There is where you get into an examination of the results of the Bill. You are passing way from economy. You are going to have the farmers asking special rates for produce. The railways are going to be protected in connection with their shareholders. The business man, I suppose, will have to look after himself.
He will not be able.
He will be able to look after himself all right. Look at the position of the railway companies. The amalgamated companies are going to be called on to carry traffic at rates at which it cannot be carried economically. The burden to be placed on that preferential treatment in connection with carrying is going to be placed on somebody else, and there exactly is the old snowball again: "Who is going to pay for it?" Of course, the consumer is going to pay for it someway or another.
Agricultural produce is consumed in England.
Not much of it, I think. We see to-day that the burden of high rates and everything else is settling upon the farmers and making the cost of production relatively high. They, on the other hand, are unable to get the increased cost in a competitive market. Now they come along and say, "We want something out of the amalgamated company." We want preferential rates. Where is it going to end? I am not objecting at all to the farmers' demand, but to what is going to develop out of the Bill, which is simply on the road to the nationalisation of the railways. Supposing the farmers are going to establish their rates. They are going to get their goods at the cheapest rate irrespective of the cost of carrying them. They want, in other words, a subsidy. What is to prevent the manufacturers having still a stronger argument that their goods have got to be carried at an uneconomic rate? Is not their case unanswerable? If the farmers have to get it why not the manufacturers? Where is the railway company to be? Who is going to bear the burden? It must pass on to somebody else. It is laid down in the Bill that capital shall get a certain amount of remuneration not worse than pre-war. I am sorry Deputy Davin is not here, because he was in an aggressive mood while he was here. Labour says "you are not going to cut down our wages. First bring down the cost of living, and then we will think whether we will reduce our wages or not." Where are your railways going to be under those conditions? Where is your tribunal going to be? Look at the wilderness of argument that is going to lead up to the tribunal. If the tribunal gets through its work in our lifetime it will be doing very well as far as I can see. This particular Bill is needlessly going on a road which, as far as I can see, has no end.
Deputy Hewat has been arguing on economic rates, and never said a word about uneconomic rates. He never explained why a ton of sugar can be conveyed from Glasgow to Ballina via Dublin for £1, and that the same ton of sugar cost 29/- to be taken from Dublin to Ballina. I suppose a ship went in there once a month and the railway company wanted to carry the goods for nothing in order to capture the traffic. As a matter of fact, the railway companies, in order to capture this through traffic, are penalising the local traffic and the uneconomic rates they are charging are adverse factors against us. The through rates operate against us in respect of the cost of living in this country. If the through rates were in the past economic there is no question at all that the others were too high a charge on the local rates. They were uneconomic. They put their loss on the one hand on to the local traffic, and Deputy Hewat did not point that out. I do not see why he should object to carrying Irish bacon at the price at which he would carry American bacon and American produce. That is what I wanted to know.
I do not object at all.
You do; it is by means of the combination of shippers and railway companies that pour American bacon into this country and it is brought along to the exclusion of our products, and is charged a preferential rate on our railways. It is fed in America by the offals of the American flour which we consume here, and we do not get the offals to feed pork, and on the two sides we are beaten in what he calls Protection. We are asking for nothing out of reason; we ask that the Government should indicate to the tribunal that the proper course to adopt would be to give preference to the products grown in this country and not to outsiders.
I do not think that the amendment will do what Deputy Wilson desires, but I want to support the general view that he has expressed and to point out that Deputy Hewat, notwithstanding his constant insistence upon the desirability of allowing the railway companies a free hand, and while reprimanding in a mild manner Deputy Wilson for suggesting that agriculture should get a preference, seems to forget that in through traffic the importer competing with Irish agriculturists does as a matter of fact get a preference; that under this very system allowing the railway companies to have a free hand they did in fact give preferential tariffs. So that what Deputy Hewat condemns in the farmers' demand he inferentially approves in the case of the foreign trader. They get a preferential tariff by the free action of the free railways, but he condemns the control of the railways because it may give preferential treatment to the home producer. I would ask Deputy Wilson and those who act with him to ask themselves this question—what are railways for? Deputy Hewat says they are to enable the man with money to get a return on his investments. That is the object of railways, to enable the person who has saved money to invest in something that is likely to give him a return! Incidentally it may be serving the public, but the purpose of these railways is to bring a return to the investor. Does Deputy Wilson agree with that view of what the railway is for? Does the Government agree with that view of what the railway is for? They suggest that they would rather not, but they are afraid of the consequences of taking any other view. If they say "no, the railway company is not in existence for the purpose of bringing a return in income to the investors; it is in existence to serve the public," then they are afraid that the whole outlook of this problem will be changed so radically that they will have to come to a different conclusion as to the methods of treating it.
If the railway companies are intended to serve the Irish public as a system of transportation, then you will treat the problem as a whole, and you will deal with it as an organisation of transport with a definite purpose in view. But unfortunately you are bound by the old-fashioned conception, by the Deputy Hewat conception, of what a railway should be—an instrument for extracting profits from the railway workers on the one hand and from the public on the other hand in order to enables the shareholders to get a dividend. Having that conception in mind that that is the primary purpose, then you have to adjust railway rates and conditions and everything else to this primary purpose, and consequently Deputy Hewat's colleagues complain of railway charges, Deputy Wilson's colleagues complain of the railway charges, and the Government complain that it has had to solve the problem which it need not have been called upon to do if people years ago did their work with a better view of what was due to the public, and we have to complain of the consequences of the same evil conception that the railway companies have been used to exploit the workers on the railways in the interest of the shareholders, forgetful all the time of the public needs. Now, I suggest to Deputy Wilson if he wants to ensure that agriculture in Ireland is to be served and if the railways are not to be used as a means to pay interest to the shareholders as a primary function, that he would look upon this railway problem with a different eye altogether and he will find, unfortunately too late, that the only possible way of serving the purpose he has in mind is to see that the railways shall serve the public and that the public will get what is required, whether it is going to bring 6 per cent., or 5 per cent., or 4½ per cent., or 3 per cent., or whatever it may be: that is purely incidental. The public must be served. Deputy Wilson is afraid to take that view; he would rather not be in that position because it might be called socialism.
I must again intervene in this debate on account of what Deputy Wilson and Deputy Johnson have said. Incidentally Deputy Wilson referred to the question of through rates. Now what industry is benefited to a larger extent by the operation of through rates than the cattle industry in this country? Cattle have been brought from all parts of Ireland to all parts of England at exceptionally low through rates. Deputy Wilson refers to the carriage of sugar and these commodities carried at through rates.
Would you refer to the Canadian rates?
I will not, because I might take too long.
For that reason?
Yes, for that reason. I will allow you to introduce it. This question of through rates are the rates arranged between the various countries. The Government have already put protection for the public into operation in various ways. Deputy Wilson altogether ignores the fact that if sugar is brought down to Ballina for 20s. a ton. or whatever the freight is, its result was to provide sugar in that district at a price which was very much lower than it would be if the through rate had been higher. Now, Deputy Johnson has referred to the fact that the existing railway shareholders get a dividend. Might I suggest to him that if the public wanted a railway the public could build a railway. In this particular case the railways were put there by the subscription of money by shareholders who built the railways, and in building the railways I maintain they took the risk of loss as well as of profit. As far as profit is concerned, I do not think the railway shareholders get a very considerable return. Let us adopt for one moment Deputy Johnson's attitude to this matter. Will he go forward with the proposition and ask people to subscribe money to build a railway, and to run it purely for the benefit of the public—a philanthropic concern—with his dictum behind it, that the railway company is to do what it is told, no matter whether it loses money or not. After all, is not the railway built by the shareholders' money, having first got an Act of Parliament which protects the public as far as is necessary? The Socialist idea is that because these railway concerns were built by private money, and because they served the public, the confiscation of their property is a justifiable proceeding. Now if he develops that argument I do not think he will get very many people to engage in building railways or anything else. As far as I am concerned, if I have any money I will keep it in a stocking rather than put it into such railways.
I do not think there is any doubt but Deputy Hewat has a bit of money, but I do not think he keeps it in a stocking either. However, we are getting away from the subject matter of the amendment, which has this infirmity about it, that one could say it meant a half, a quarter, or seventy per cent. To that extent it falls short of a definite characterisation.
Classification, not rates.
The amendment proposes to differentiate in favour of agricultural produce and articles of food. I should say that the idea underlying this particular clause affects, along with other things, what Deputy Wilson had in mind in his amendment, though it is not expressed. It is a matter which would be very difficult to express when giving a direction to the Railway Tribunal, and the Railway Tribunal in its particular operation or operations ought to have as a primary consideration the general economy of the country, and would be bound, if it reflects the opinion of the country, to give the most favourable consideration —and that is what Deputy Wilson has in mind—to articles grown or manufactured in the country. I am informed that the particular instance referred to by the Deputy of getting goods from Liverpool to, say, Mullingar, at a cheaper price than goods sent from Dublin to Mullingar is scarcely correct. It is at a cheaper rate. The actual mileage charge may be less, but the actual cost is not less.
If it were, it would be obviously the business of the tribunal to take that into account and to regulate the charges of transit from Dublin to Mullingar, in accordance with, or bearing a very large relation to, the cost of sending a similar class of goods from Liverpool to Mullingar. As regards the case of Ballina, it is fairly well known that shipping charges are less than railway charges, and to that extent it is scarcely a fair case to put. This amendment, if adopted, might be read differently by the members of the tribunal. I would suggest that the amendment would not be pressed and that either we would consider the matter between this and the Report Stage to see if the clause is not fool-proof, or, in the alternative, that the scheme would be given a trial for twelve months or two years. Then, if found to operate to the disadvantage of agricultural or manufacturing interests, it would be obviously as much the business of the Government to bring in an amending Bill to remedy its infirmities, should they materialise, which I doubt, as it would be their business when considering a Budget, to see what particular items there are which, when taxed, will place as light a burden as possible on the people and yet will bring in the amount required, while at the same time an eye would be kept on the vital interests of the country.
May I suggest to Deputy Wilson that this section does not deal with rates at all, but with the classification of goods, and that his purpose would be served, as far as this section is concerned, by relying rather upon Deputy Heffernan's amendment (10) which, I think, might well be accepted by the Minister? That amendment would go very far to meeting the requirements of Deputy Wilson so far as classification goes. The matter of preferential rates would have to be considered independently of this section.
That is quite so.
There is this much further to be added in regard to Deputy Wilson's amendment: In so far as he dealt in detail with his own amendment it turned on a question of through rates, and they are a matter for argument under Section 28 and not here. I would like to point out to Deputy Wilson that it is the desire and the intention under this Bill to have the whole economic condition of this country reflected in the grouping of traffic for rating purposes, and all the parties interested and desirous of being heard must be heard by the tribunal, and if there is such a strong case to be made out for differentiation in favour of agricultural produce or even by way of classification, then all the agricultural folk have to do is to send somebody vehement, say, like the Minister for Agriculture, to argue their case. Surely, if they have an overwhelming case the tribunal is certainly not going to be prejudiced against their case from the start? I would suggest what the President has put as his alternative had better be adopted with regard to this. Let the tribunal be given a trial and see how far the classification of the rates reflects the ordinary economic situation in the country and if it be not properly done, there will be a case for amendment afterwards. As it is, there is every opportunity given to get the trade into touch with the tribunal on the matter of classification and on the matter of rates.
I quite appreciate the manner in which the, amendment has been dealt with, but I feel that when we are changing the legislation of this country and when we are taking the control to a certain extent of the railways, it is the best time to get the spoke in than to endeavour afterwards to make the change. You will find that in actual practice I am right. It is the accepted and the best method of going about things. Having regard to what the President said, and the sympathetic speeches we heard from the Government side I am willing to wait until, between now and the Report Stage, we see if we can hammer out something which will make the clause fool-proof. Then after that we will see what will happen.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I beg to move amendment No. 10. but I take it that this hangs on the same string as the previous amendment, and the same considerations apply to it. One deals with classification and my amendment dealt with a preference for our produce, but still I believe the two hang together.
The amendment which is in Deputy Heffernan's name reads:—
In line 36, after the word "merchandise," to insert the words "the classification of agricultural produce and agricultural requirements in countries similarly situated."
One halfpenny per ton is the freight per mile in South Africa, and the same is the charge in Canada and New Zealand. However, I am not moving amendment No. 10 now.
I suggest that Deputy Wilson has not made the use of the amendment that he might have done. There is a case for this amendment quite apart from the question of rates. The suggestion in the amendment is that the classification of agricultural products varies very considerably, and to speak of agricultural produce being classified and charged at a certain rate is very misleading. Agricultural produce may be classified variedly, and, I take it, it is reasonable to suggest that some consideration should be given to the manner in which such products are classified in other countries so that there may be something like a fair level as between different products in different countries. I do not know what was in the mind of the Deputy who put down the amendment, but I think it is very desirable that potatoes or wheat or bacon should be in the same classification as they are in competing countries when carried over the same railways in the country of consumption. I think that is very desirable. I suggest it is a quite reasonable proposition and should be inserted in the Bill.
I support this amendment, and I cannot see any reason why the Minister cannot accept it. There is nothing in the wording of the amendment but that account should be taken of the classification in other agricultural countries which are exporting their products and competing against us here who are farmers in this country. We cannot at any time disregard the cost of transit in our industries, and it is one of our main complaints to-day and one of the great difficulties that the farmers in Canada, South Africa, or elsewhere get more favourable consideration by the railway companies than we receive here. That is placing us at a disadvantage, and a very considerable disadvantage. In consideration of these facts I think it is certainly not too much to ask that this amendment will be accepted by the Minister and that he will insist that the Railway Tribunal will take this fact into account and see how the farmers benefit under classification in other countries. They must take into account how agricultural produce is classified.
Much the same difficulty exists in regard to this amendment as in the case of the last one. What exactly is the meaning of classification of agricultural produce and agricultural requirements in countries similarly situated? Take a man in Denmark or New Zealand. We have no information with regard to railway matters and agricultural rates classification in these countries, but if between now and the Report Stage we were put in possession of any information respecting that then we will see whether or not the amendment would be desirable to the section as it stands or whether this particular amendment would suit the purpose. As far as we are advised at the moment, this amendment will place you in no better position and might place agriculture in a worse position. In substance it will come to this, that it could be claimed that we should send a commissioner or some other person to some other countries to examine these problems and if in the meantime the classification of agricultural products were to be held up you can see at once that the vital results that we are hoping for in a short period from this Act might not be achieved. To this extent I suggest that the amendment might be left over until we get particulars regarding agricultural classification of products in other countries and then we can examine this amendment to see if it suits the purpose.
It seems to me that the real object is that supposing classificaiton, for instance, is varied in Great Britain and they put on a certain large export from here in one classification and if we had in the Free State another classification it would make a difficulty in the way of getting a through rate, and I think the more one looks into this the more useful help it will be to the tribunal, because I take it that no matter what tribunal is set up its primary object will be to help as far as it can the main industry in this country. I am sure it will help the tribunal, but supposing that alteration is made in Great Britain in classification at any time the addition of these particular words mentioned in the amendment would enable our tribunal on this side to adjust that particular item so that our side would not be hampered. I really think that that is the object behind this, and I think in accepting it the Government will not be in any way weakened but that on the other hand they will strengthen the hands of the tribunal in dealing with this particular matter in the way I mention and with which apparently the President is in accord.
I am not clear now what is proposed. Is the amendment to be left over to the Report Stage or is it being pressed?
No; in view of the promise we will withdraw the amendment, and the Minister will consider on the Report Stage if he can make the whole section carry out the idea underlying this amendment.
Amendment 10, by leave, withdrawn.
Question: "That Section 25 stand part of the Bill"—put and agreed to.
SECTION 26.
(1) The amalgamated company shall submit to the railway tribunal not later than the 31st day of December, 1925, or such later date as the Minister may allow, schedules of the standard charges proposed to be made according to the classification fixed as aforesaid, and shall (except as hereinafter provided), show the rates for the conveyance of merchandise, the amount of terminal charges, and the fares for the conveyance of passengers and their luggage, and every such schedule shall be published in such manner as the railway tribunal may direct.
(2) The, schedules so submitted shall be divided into the parts and be in the form mentioned in the Fifth Schedule to this Act or into such other parts or in such other similar forms as the railway tribunal may prescribe.
Amendment 11 not moved.
I beg to move Amendment No. 12: To add at the end of Sub-section (1), line 48, the following words: "but the standard charges for agricultural produce grown in Saorstát Eireann, and articles of food manufactured therefrom shall, in no case, exceed 2d. per ton, per mile."
I do not know, but I take it, that this amendment will also have consideration on the Report Stage. Twopence per ton per mile should be placed as the maximum charge for Irish produce. In placing such a limit we had regard to the fact that this country is bound to pay 4.12 per cent. to the companies. If I were to tell the Minister the rates operating in the Dominions of which we are supposed to be a co-equal partner, but with whom we have to compete, I am sure he would be startled. Just imagine a sack of maize being carried 1,700 miles for 1s., 300 miles to Bulawayo, and shipped at Port Elizabeth for 1s. Now you can understand the advantage that the farmers of these co-equal dominions to which we belong have over us, and, therefore, I ask the Minister to give this amendment consideration on Report.
I listened to Deputy Wilson making his case on this point, and although I say it made no impression on me that is not to be taken as pointing to any defects in his speech or his advocacy. On my part, I am not in a position to judge whether this amendment providing that 2d. per ton per mile is a fair or an unfair or a just or an unjust charge or whether it would not be a crushing burden upon the farmers. I want to make this point. This is a technical matter, and not a matter to be dealt with by me or this House. It is a matter for the tribunal. The case can be made there. The agricultural people have a right to appear there and to make their case.
The Minister has fixed maximum charges already. I want to fix maximum charges for the future.
The Minister need not be alarmed at Deputy Wilson's proposal. He is not putting his charge upon a high scale.
The only point I wish to make is that the tribunal is empowered to hear all parties interested and to fix rates. Technical matters such as this are for the tribunal, the expert body and not for this House, and I consider it would be better left to the tribunal without seeking in any way to anticipate what the decision of the tribunal will be.
If Deputy Wilson was anxious to endeavour to convince the House on this amendment it should read that it would in no way interfere with the working of the tribunal or its duties on the one hand and that it would in no way interfere with the revenue of the amalgamated company on the other. Although one may not like to dictate to the tribunal there might be reasons why it should be accepted. But what I rose to ascertain was this: if Deputy Wilson, who is the acknowledged financial expert of the Farmers' Party, the future Minister for Finance, if I may be pardoned for anticipating what may happen in the future, would give the House the benefit of his experience in one of the Dominions, as to how the farmers were treated by the railways, whether under private ownership or State control, it would be very useful information. Deputy Wilson has some information, and in dealing with a Bill like this if he would give us his experience of railways in other countries it would be very useful. The President referred to the fact that the Government had not any information at their disposal as to how the farmers in Denmark or other countries were treated in this matter. I put it to him that it is the duty of those in charge of Government Departments at the present time dealing with the railways to ascertain the exact conditions and terms for commodities charged to people in foreign countries. so that when the tribunal comes on to consider railway rates inside the three months' period they will have all the information, which it is eminently desirable that they should get, at their disposal. If Deputy Wilson has any expert knowledge as to how this 2d. per ton per mile worked out in practice it would be very useful information for the House to get if he is willing to give it.
I will be quite content to take two districts like Rathdrum and Dublin. In pre-war days we had a rate of 3/9 per 6 ton lot of potatoes for 38 miles, whereas the present rate is 16/-. I maintain that if you allowed 6/4, or double the pre-war rates as the present rate, that is 2d. per ton per mile, it would be reasonable. Mullingar is 50 miles from Dublin. The rate upon a ton of potatoes would be 8/4 pre-war; it was 6/8, and I am not asking anything unreasonable when I ask for 2d. per ton per mile. I do not know what the present rate is. Rye grass from Dundalk pre-war to Enniscorthy was 16/8; the present rate is 57/11. Talk about 120 per cent! Rye grass is an Irish product produced in the North of Ireland, and it is extensively used by farmers in the Saorstát, and consequently Irish rye grass has to be exported to England and brought back to Ireland because the railway companies wont carry it at a reasonable price. Rye grass from Dundalk to Cork pre-war was 20/-; at the present time it is 52/6, and via Glasgow—it has to be sent to Glasgow and back—the amount is 27/6. Of course, there are things that are causing railway freights to be so enormous. The railways will not give a reasonable rate. While I do not want to take away the business of the Railway Tribunal. I say it is our business to fix maximum rates here now. Railway rates are quite simple if you only understand something about them. They charge so much per ton per mile, and if that is not too exorbitant that is all we want. I contend that 2d. per ton per mile is a fair rate, and I know that in the Dominions the railways are carrying produce at ½d. per ton per mile, and that has been reduced lately to one-eighth of a penny per ton per mile. I must say there is a deficit in the working, but I do not want to talk about these small things.
Deputy Wilson's idea of running a railway is to run it on a flat rate, and that is a very common fallacy. Anybody who knows anything about the working of railways knows perfectly well that the main object of a railway is to get long haulage, and the longer the haulage the better the railway is pleased. Deputy Wilson's idea of a flat rate of 2d. per mile might work out very high in some cases and very low in others. The railway companies take all the surrounding circumstances into account. There are various special rates and arrangements in connection with the carrying of traffic. If the Tribunal is a real Tribunal it must recognise all those differences and be very expert in railway management. It will have to take into consideration, not only all the complications that railway managements have to take into consideration, but to co-relate those to the demands of the various bodies. As far as the tribunal is concerned, I wish them joy of their job.
Having placed the case before the Dáil, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question—" That Section 26 stand part of the Bill"—put and agreed to.
Section 27 agreed to and added to the Bill.
SECTION 28.
(1) On and from the appointed day the charges appearing in a schedule of standard charges as fixed by the railway tribunal for the amalgamated company shall be the charges which the said company shall be entitled to make for all services rendered in respect of which charges are fixed, and no variation either upwards or downwards shall be made from such authorised charges unless by way of an exceptional rate or an exceptional fare continued, granted, or fixed under the provisions of this Part of the Act, or in respect of competitive traffic in accordance therewith.
(2) The railway tribunal shall have power on any representations made to them, whether by the amalgamated company when submitting the schedules of standard charges proposed to be made, or by any party interested, or by the Minister at any time to determine the amount which the amalgamated company shall contribute to and receive out of any through rate or fare.
I beg to move:—
In sub-section (2), line 16, to delete the words "contribute to and" and to substitute therefor the words "retain or."
In connection with the through rate operation, the Clearing House distributes the proportions of a through rate to the various companies concerned. It is largely based on the proportion of the mileage over which the goods are carried. The words "contribute to," I think, are quite wrong in this case, and I suggest that the words I propose to put in are better than the words in the section. It would bring it more in accordance with practice. It may be that the amalgamated company would claim to retain a larger percentage of the through rate than it would be entitled to under the mileage rate, and the amendment is to provide that the amalgamated company shall not claim to get more than its relative proportion of the through rate.
I think this is a very serious proposition. I wonder if the Minister realises what it may lead up to. On a previous section we moved an amendment that the amalgamated companies should carry over their existing rights, including representation in any conference arrangement in future. The Minister stated that, rather than give statutory power in a Bill of this kind, regarding existing rights and representation, he would prefer to leave it to the amalgamated companies to arrive at an arrangement on a voluntary basis. This section gives very arbitrary power to the tribunal to set up an arrangement which may cut out in future any hope of voluntary agreement in regard to the vital matter concerned in the section. Assuming that the tribunal proceeds to carry out the powers given in the Bill, and there is a through rate from a station on the Great Northern Railway to another station in the North of England via Belfast, the tribunal only has power to deal with the rates of the amalgamated company, and with that portion of the non-amalgamated companies' mileage that is within the Free State. How is it proposed to deal with the division of a through rate from a station on the Great Northern, that will be concerned with a mileage outside its jurisdiction? That is, I think, what is claimed in sub-section (2), when it says: “which the amalgamated company shall contribute to and receive out of any through rate or fare.” Assuming that an unamalgamated company, such as the Great Northern, as regards its mileage outside the jurisdiction of the Free State, and a British company, agree to a through rate to the North of England, by taking these powers you are going to cut out any hope of a satisfactory arrangement on the question of through rates, unless the principle of voluntary agreement is accepted. If the Great Northern or the British company, as a result of any decision of the Railway Rates Tribunal, say that they will not agree to the division laid down by the tribunal, it will mean the cutting out altogether of a through rate, and necessitate local bookings to the Border line on the Great Northern. This principle, if applied, may not work out in the way that it was thought it would. It may cut out, in a case such as I have mentioned, any possibility of agreement on the question of through rates, especially outside the territory over which the tribunal will have control. I ask the Minister to consider the effect of disagreement with the division that may be laid down in an arbitrary way by the tribunal under such circumstances. I think he will see the effect will be disastrous for the trading community who derive advantage from the operation of through rates.
For the purpose of understanding Deputy Davin's argument, may I put it a point further? Does the Deputy hold that this Bill should take compulsory powers regarding through rates, via, for instance, some English port?
I have mentioned a specific case of a port outside the jurisdiction of the Free State so far as this Bill is concerned.
How is it going to be possible for the railway tribunal to bring into force a through rate via some port outside our jurisdiction. Surely that has always to be a matter of agreement. We are now back on the old question of representation on the Irish Railway Clearing House, and I get back to the point I stated as to the functions of the Clearing House, that representation there, in so far as it meant voting power, meant nothing, as voting power is useless in matters that depend upon agreement. I cannot understand Deputy Davin's apprehension with regard to these through rates. We have in this section power to determine the amount which the amalgamated company shall contribute to and receive out of any through rate or fare. We recognise that we cannot insist on through rates. Through rates are a matter for agreement, that is, through rates to some station in the interior of England. That depends on an agreement between the amalgamated company and the shipping company and railway company concerned. There is no compulsion possible. That is a matter for agreement. We are only interested in the amalgamated companies' end in the Irish Free State, and we take power here that the tribunal shall determine the amount which the company shall contribute to and receive out of any rate or fare. That is a big step in advance of anything that has ever been in existence in this country. We have a provision here for the tribunal to look into these two rates, and find out whether any proportion that the amalgamated company receives from or contributes to a through rate in any way prejudices local traffic, which will have to bear the increased cost if you give a preference by way of a through rate. As regards Deputy Hewat's amendment, I cannot see that it is any improvement on the wording which is here. The words here are “retain or receive.” The difference between “retain” and “receive” is very slight. It seeks to delete an essential point, that the amalgamated company shall “contribute to.”
I think this amendment should be read in conjunction with the next one.
Again it is "retain" or "receive." I suggest to the Deputy that the word "contribute" is a necessary one in this section. It is not practicable for the tribunal to deal with the proportion the amalgamated company shall receive and retain out of the through rates unless they are authorised to deal with the company's contribution to the compilation of these through rates. The word "contribute" I suggest is necessary in the context. To cut out the word "contribute" would damage the section materially. If the Deputy suggests to leave in the word "contribute," and to insert "retain" as well as "receive," that is a different matter. I do not know if the word "retain." adds very much to the section, but the word "contribute" is absolutely essential.
I may be a bit dull, and in that way may not have explained what is in my mind, or perhaps the Minister does not see the effect of the arrangement suggested in the sub-section. If the Minister only intends to deal with the portion of the through rates for the amalgamated company that operates within the Free State, there is not much in the argument that I have tried to make. However, if he proposes to confer these powers on the tribunal as regards existing through rates outside the jurisdiction of the Free State, I hold he has not answered the case I put up. Let us assume that there is a through rate at the present time in operation from Dundalk via Belfast to Newcastle or to some other point. Under the existing system of railway organisation that is a matter for agreement between the G.N.R. Company and the British company on the other side as to what division would be fair to both sides. When this scheme comes into operation the tribunal will have power to deal with rates only over that portion of the Great Northern Railway up to the border line. The Great Northern Company can do what they like up to that point and so can the British company if they wish to smash the existing arrangement. If the proportion which the tribunal decides to give to the Great Northern Company in connection with the carrying of a particular commodity from Dundalk to the border point is unfair, and if the Great Northern or British company disagrees, they can smash the existing arrangement, to the disadvantage of the trader by compelling the trader to book to the border point, beyond which they can set up any rate they like. I cite that as a possible case if there is disagreement or difference as to whatever powers the tribunal may exercise. If they agree to give an unfair proportion to the Great Northern Company for its services inside the Saorstát, or from any station of the amalgamated company to one outside the Free State. I suggest that it would be to the disadvantage of the trader, as if there is disagreement we lose the concession given on a voluntary basis.
In order to drive the argument home, would the Deputy illustrate what can be done with the Great Northern Company outside the Saorstát?
If the Minister cannot do that with his knowledge of the Bill, I think he should not put in this section without a better explanation.
It appears to me the explanation is perfectly sound. If, for example, any material is sent from Dublin to Belfast, and that as far as Dublin to Dundalk, or to the boundary line, is concerned, the rate is 2/- per ton, and that the corresponding charge for the delivery of the goods from Dublin to that particular destination alone is 5/-, that is obviously a case to go before the Tribunal, to see that the incidence in respect of the one charge bears relation to the incidence of the other charge.
May I explain that I am not arguing against the case going before the Tribunal, but I am arguing on the possible effect of an arbitrary decision that will prevent, agreement.
Cases, I take it, will not be gratuitously brought before this Tribunal. There must be a strong case to bring it before the Tribunal. What does the section say actually? It says "by any party interested, or by the Minister at any time." It gives a regular list of reasons which ought to animate anyone bringing a case. I take it that there will not be any unreasonable cases of that sort coming before the Tribunal. If there is a case for rectification, what we seek is power to enable the Tribunal to consider it. To that extent I think the section is sound and that you could not do without it. It is necessary to keep it in, in order to retain that authority of the Tribunal, in so far as any power we have over through rates is concerned. We have the power up to the point where our jurisdiction extends. We seek also in connection with the through rate from that, that it should be a case for consideration by the Tribunal.
As far as the amendment is concerned, I think it is a question altogether of wording—"retain" or "contribute." Although I should say they are different in substance, absolutely different, one would imagine that "receive" and "retain" were the same, but I think it is better that we should have "contribute" in. The word "contribute" should be put in because some people would say we did not intend to give anything at all. The Deputy had not that in mind, I know, because he evidently meant to retain some portion, not the whole of it. But there are people who think that we are not doing justice in this case, and in order to make their minds easy, if it were nothing else, we put in "contribute."
As far as the amendment is concerned, I want it to be clearly understood by the President that I am not arguing against any clause which gives greater powers to the tribunal, because as one who believes in Nationalisation, I believe in giving the greatest possible amount of control. I think it is desirable, at the same time, to get an enlightened explanation of the Minister's point of view, because that may not be quite so clear to me as to him. He has drafted the Bill, and has all those expert advisers around him to give him any necessary information.
May I take it that the Deputy is satisfied with the explanation that has been given?
I hope that it will work out in practice in the way the Minister anticipates.
I think that Deputy Davin is talking on other subjects besides the amendment. The amendment is not really my amendment at all, so that I have to apologise for the inefficient way in which I put it forward. I agree that perhaps the word "contribute" should have gone in, but it is based on the usual practice of the Clearing House, to show that the collecting company retains, and, in connection with the next amendment, it is really to secure that the amalgamated company should not retain more than its mileage proportion. Perhaps the Minister would consider the matter if I withdraw it. If there is anything he can do in the direction of making an alternative arrangement, I hope that he will do so.
We will consider the word "retain" in substitution for the word "receive."
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The same applies to amendment 14.
Amendment 14 really has to be read with amendment 13.
I consider amendment 14 a much more serious amendment than the previous one. I look on it as one of those amendments which prejudice the position of the amalgamated company in favour of certain steamship companies, and I would like to have it treated on a different basis altogether from amendment 13.
Of course, I agree that it is much more far-reaching than the previous amendment.
Are you moving the amendment?
I do not think there is any use in moving it, if the Minister will not consider it, or consider it too drastic; but I would like to be clear that this amendment is really only providing that the amalgamated company should not use its power autocratically and should follow the lines that are at present in operation as far as through rates are concerned.
Amendment 14 not moved.
The question is: "That Section 28 stand part of the Bill."
I have not been able to follow this discussion very clearly, but I would like to have some assurance from the Minister as to whether I am right in assuming that sub-section (2) is intended to prevent the amalgamated company from using any of its lines to the disadvantage of this country, and perhaps to the advantage of another country and another company; that it will give away service at a low rate on the possibility that it will get some counter-advantage in some other way. If there are possibilities which this sub-section is directed against, that the company may, in respect of one direction of its service, cut through rates to an uneconomical level, and cut them so low as to mean practically no return to the company for the purpose, perhaps, of serving another interest, such a proposal ought to be brought before the Tribunal. But suppose that a non-amalgamated company proposes to do the same: let us assume that the Great Northern Railway, for instance, say from Drogheda, is prepared to carry goods to Greenore or Newry for nothing for the purpose of getting traffic, of cutting out possible competitive routes, are you retaining power in the Bill to meet such a case as that?
Major COOPER took the Chair.
It is not the same point, I think.
It is not the point that has been already discussed, I agree, but it is a point I see in this sub-section. It seems to me that giving power to the Tribunal to intervene in through rates not only gives them power to intervene with regard to the proportion on the high side of through rates but the proportion on the low side. I can conceive interests, perhaps, in an amalgamated company being so powerful within that company as to divert traffic from certain points in Ireland by a certain route, by a through rate, the proportion of which through rate accruing to the Irish company will be too small, and, therefore, wasteful, and only used for the purpose of diverting traffic into an unnatural direction. If that is possible and has to be guarded against in respect of the amalgamated company, ought it not to be guarded against in respect of a non-amalgamated company? Ought you not take power to protect, shall I say, the country as a whole, against the use of certain lines by a company which may be partially in and partially out, to cut rates in respect of the Saorstát lines excessively with a view to diverting traffic. Under this section that power does accrue so far as non-amalgamated companies are concerned, but I do not know whether, in any other part of the Bill such power is given to the Tribunal.
The point mentioned by Deputy Johnson comes in more under Section 30 than under this particular section. It is a strong point, a point upon which it would be difficult to frame regulations that would protect all the interests concerned, and even if we were to consider them, it raises the other question, which Deputy Johnson addressed himself to at some length, but in an entirely different form; if, for example, there is an area with agricultural experts round about Drogheda who see an opportunity of sending out their goods, does it matter to them through what particular port they pass? What really concerns them is the cost at which they can be sent out. The rest of the country is not affected by the particular ports to which the products go unless there is a port within the Saorstát which might benefit through sending out those goods, but whose charges may be, perhaps, higher than those of Greenore, the very case the Deputy mentioned. If it were the case that farmers round about Drogheda were in a position to load trucks with cattle, at a cost of practically nothing, that the railway companies through some arrangement with the steamship company paid all the railway charges, I take it that in order to protect the other ports it would be necessary for us to have some prohibition with regard to that. I see great difficulties in the way of doing that. I really do not see how it can be done, even in an Act of Parliament. The fact is that it is unlikely. All that can be said about it is that it is very, very unlikely to happen.
The President should not confine himself to the possibilities only in respect of export trade. That is only an instance.
I took the Deputy's own instance.
Yes, that is an instance, but there may be other instances. Let us take the possibilities within Ireland of two rival concerns— let us say pork-curing. There is a demand for pork from the West of Ireland, which may go South to Limerick, or North to Derry. I can conceive of railway companies and pork curers making an arrangement whereby through rates on Irish lines may be varied in such a way as to induce pigs to be sent North, and you may by the association of pork curers and railway companies subsidise the Northern curing establishments at the expense of the Southern. There may be other and similar arrangements that are not unknown in the railway world.
Not in this country, as a rule, but perhaps in America.
They are not, perhaps, so common in this country as in other countries, but I think we should guard against the possibilities. All I desire is that this section—I do not know what Section 30 does—will be-a guard against that possibility, and that we should aid not merely the amalgamated company, but non-amalgamated companies, by such a provision.
It is, to some extent, my dread of Deputy Good and his maledictions on me over the Housing Bill, which prevented me putting in something of that nature here. I think we should wait and see if a case of that sort arises before we seek to do so. Otherwise I see an endless vista of possibility arising, and questions as to whether we should have provided for this or that. In practice we will find whether we have sufficient safeguards, or whether there are persons who are inclined to drive a coach-and-four through it.
You want to wait until the dog bites you before you shoot him.
It might be safer sometimes to try him before you shoot him.
Question—" That Section 28 stand part of the Bill"—put and agreed to.
Motion made to report progress. Agreed.