Vol. 7 No. 14
I move:—
To delete the words "the amalgamated company" in line 46 and to insert in lieu thereof the following words, "the amalgamating and absorbed companies"; and in line 56 to delete the word "increase" and insert in lieu thereof the word "modify."
I move: After line 49, to insert the following as the first clause in the proviso:
(i) any such company, may from time to time make such reductions as it may deem expedient without application to the railway tribunal.
As far as I am aware this is not covered by any amendment already passed.
But does not Section 25 provide that the railway tribunal shall do that, or does it?
Yes. Of course reference can be made to the railway tribunal by any person interested, and it may order that a reduction shall be made accordingly, after a full inquiry into the matter. But this amendment provides—and I think it is very necessary—that the company should have the power to reduce the rates from time to time without any reference to the tribunal. That is the object of this amendment, and it is a very essential amendment.
It is quite distinct from 25. Section 25 deals only with the amalgamated company, and this deals with such portions of lines, partly in the Saorstát and partly outside, as may be attended to by our legislation. I resist the amendment because Section 30, as drafted, is the natural balance to Section 29. Section 29 prevents undue preference being given to any one port over another by reduced rates, rebates, etc. If this amendment were passed Section 30 would give these companies which are not entirely in the Saorstát power to defeat what we intend to bring about by Section 29; it would give the non-amalgamated companies power which we have refused to the amalgamated undertaking.
But surely the Minister does not intend to convey that if any company desires to make a general reduction in its rates it shall not be allowed to do so?
No, I do not, but this amendment takes away the application to the railway tribunal. It was our desire that an application should be made to the railway tribunal before reductions in rates are made. If this were passed it would give the partly in and partly out lines power, by the provision of unduly cheap rates, to divert traffic to northern ports. We do not intend to do away with the provision to traders of low rates; all that we do want is that the tribunal should have a say in the matter, and should be in a position to prevent preferential rates purely for the diversion of traffic.
With all respect, I think the Minister does not understand this amendment. It does not deal with either special rates or through rates; it deals generally, I think, with what has been done by more than one company already, a general flat reduction in rates. Does the Minister mean to imply that under this Bill it is intended to prevent any company from making a general reduction in its rates in order to help the commercial community, because that is how I understand it? If he had qualified his objection and said that of course if it applied to special rates or through rates the matter should be considered because the question of preference in favour of certain ports might then arise, but if it is a general reduction such as has already taken place surely there can be no objection, if it does not give any special preference to any particular port at all.
There seems to be something in the argument of Deputy Good. I think it might be well if the Minister would leave this matter over to come up on the next Stage, when he would have time to consider the amendment properly.
Sub-section (iii) of Section 30 reads: "Any such company may apply to the railway tribunal to increase the aforesaid charges or any of them." That is proposed to be amended by the introduction of the word "modify" instead of "increase." There would be provision for reduction, but it will be under the supervision of the railway tribunal. The object of the amendment, as I read it, was to do away with application to the railway tribunal. It is intended to have application to the railway tribunal an essential feature of the Bill, before any reduction in rates of the amalgamated undertaking, or of any of the undertakings in competition with it, in so far as we can control these undertakings, takes place.
I do not like the principle that the Minister embodies in his objection to this proposal. If a non-amalgamated company is not free to make a general reduction in its rates in favour of the commercial community, should in its opinion the circumstances justify that reduction, I think be would want to put a stronger case than the case he has made. To my mind, it is quite possible to put another interpretation altogether on the objection of the Minister. Supposing the non-amalgamated companies, for instance, desire to reduce their rates, and we know that they have been considerably reduced—they stand at 75 per cent. at the moment over pre-war level as against 120 per cent. in amalgamated companies—this Bill debars them, except the matter is approved, from making a further reduction should circumstances justify it. This is one of the most serious objections. I never thought that the Minister, and those associated with him, would offer the least objection to this amendment, to take away from the non-amalgamated companies the right of reducing rates generally. I quite admit that in special cases, in the case of through rates or special rates, there might be some justification for the opposition, but I can see none for a general reduction. The interpretation that may be put on the opposition to this amendment outside the Dáil may be of quite a different character, and that is, that it is in order to keep up the rates of the amalgamated company, and that other companies who are not in the amalgamation are to have the power withdrawn from them whereby they might reduce rates, because that reduction might possibly call in question certain rates that are made by the amalgamated company. That is a line of argument I do not want to stress, but if the Minister perseveres in his opposition to the amendment I am sure it is a form of argument we will hear a good deal more about, because no real objection can be lodged to this clause when we exclude the special rates and the through rates. I hope the Minister will review the matter and re-consider his decision.
It is proposed, in line 56, to have the word "increase" altered so as to read——
It has been done.
So as to read "modify" instead of "increase." The section further provides that on application to the railway tribunal a modification which includes a reduction in charges may be made—that is to say, if the railway tribunal consents. It is vital for this Bill that the tribunal shall be a decider in regard to any application for the reduction of rates. Arguments that have been used in the Dáil, so far, have been the opposite to those put forward by Deputy Good. There has been a suspicion that sufficient control was not taken over those undertakings, partly in and partly outside the Saorstát, and that they would be able to reduce rates for competitive purposes, not of the ordinary type, and by so doing traffic might be diverted unduly to northern ports, and consequently the safeguard intended to be kept here is that there should be always an application to the tribunal before any question of a reduction is considered. The tribunal is absolutely essential to this section, and it is the natural corollary to Section 29. This is the natural balance to Section 29, and must be preserved.
But I object to the necessity for a reference to the railway tribunal. I pointed out before that the railway tribunal is not a free agent in this matter of rates. The obligation is placed on the railway tribunal of maintaining the standard income, and in any re-consideration of rates it must always have regard to the obligation of the standard income. When you come to the question of non-amalgamated companies, that does not arise at all and they ought to be free to make a general reduction. I am quite willing to limit the power of general reduction, but to say that they cannot make a general reduction in rates without reference to the tribunal is, in my opinion, unreasonable, because when you come to look at the point the tribunal may say: "We cannot drop below a certain level in our areas. These people want to drop below that level, and we will not allow them." That is an unfair and unwise attitude, and I do not consider that it ought to be supported by the Dáil, and I hope the Minister will reconsider it.
I wonder would Deputy Good bring his mind to bear on the practical application of his argument, and see what companies could be affected in the way he speaks of. The Great Northern, presumably, if the Bill passes as it stands, will be outside this amalgamation, and some other companies. I am not quite able at the moment to think of any kind of competition such as that which Deputy Good speaks of, because every company, if it seeks to get an outlet in northern ports, even as far north as Dundalk, will have to go through the Great Northern system. Perhaps Deputy Good has something else in his mind of a definite concrete kind, and I think it would be well if we were informed as to what is in his mind.
In the specialised case that Deputy Johnson referred to the Great Northern comes into competition with the Midland, one of the amalgamated companies, at a considerable number of points. It comes very largely into competition in the West. If the Great Northern is precluded, as it will be under this section, from reducing its freights generally, except through the tribunal, then commerce will not be in a position to get the advantage that it is entitled to, because the railway tribunal will say: "If we allow the Great Northern Railway Company to reduce its rates the traffic will go over its lines instead of going over the amalgamated lines." Consequently it is in the interest of the tribunal to refuse such a reduction in order to maintain the traffic over the lines of the amalgamated company. They are not an impartial authority when they come to deal with the amalgamated lines. To say that they are to be prohibited under the Bill from reducing the rates is a thing that will be very widely criticised by the commercial community.
I beg to support Deputy Good in the statement he has made. The Great Northern Railway recently reduced their rates, and naturally that has brought a good deal of traffic via northern ports. Were it not for the fact that this unification scheme was in contemplation the next thing we expected, naturally, was that the Midland would have to reduce the rates on account of the competition with the Great Northern. I think it is unfair on the part of the Government if they refuse to allow this competition to exist in future. I do not see why the hands of the Great Northern should be tied if they wish to compete for traffic via northern ports. The excessive rates at present are very detrimental to the live stock trade, and the more competition we can bring about the better.
I would like to have it pointed out in what respect this Bill proposes to refuse competition by asking that any question of reduction of rates on lines not included in the amalgamated undertaking, and which are partly in the Saorstát, should be brought before the tribunal. If we stated that no such reductions could take place, that is a definite proviso against competition. It is stated that the company may apply to the tribunal to modify the charges in existence at the date of the passing of the Act. In his argument Deputy Good advances from that to saying, that the tribunal is to be an interested party. The tribunal is not intended to be an interested party, and in so far as any provisos could be made with regard to it it is put definitely on a strict judicial basis. There is no intention whatsoever to prevent ordinary cutting of rates on the part of, say, the Great Northern Railway. The only thing stated in the section is, that any proposed reductions are to be brought before the tribunal so that the tribunal can consider all the circumstances. There is no intention whatsoever of depriving traders of low rates where those low rates are not specially cut for the purpose of injuring the amalgamated undertaking. It is quite a reasonable precaution.
Supposing, for argument sake, that the non-associated railways desire to make a reduction of 20 per cent. in their rates, and they come before the tribunal, and the Minister says: "No, we will not approve of the reduction," is that to be the position that commerce is to be placed in in the Free State?
I do not remember saying that such a reduction will not be approved of. I have nothing whatever to say to it. The tribunal will decide whether that proposed reduction of 20 per cent. is such as comes under Section 29, whether it is undue disadvantage. That phrase is to be interpreted by the tribunal and not by the Minister or anybody in the Government. It is merely precautionary in order to provide against cut-throat competition.
In order to stop reductions by the non-amalgamated companies.
I think the point that Deputy Good made is valid, in so far as the tribunal is more or less bound to justify its previous action. The tribunal is going to decide upon the terms of amalgamation, and classification and re-organisation of capital and will, as I have already suggested, feel itself, sub-consciously perhaps, bound to justify its previous activities. When, for instance, a request is made by the Great Northern Railway to the tribunal to allow a reduction, let us say, on cattle from Navan to Dundalk, the amalgamated company may come along and say it is unfair competition and endeavour to persuade the tribunal that if they allow the reduction they are diverting traffic that would come from Navan to Dublin and thereby prejudicing the amalgamated company in paying the dividend fixed and guaranteed by the Bill. In that sense I can say that there is a point in Deputy Good's argument. Quite apart from any northern ports, you are going to prejudice Dundalk or Drogheda, because the non-amalgamated company covers that area, while the amalgamated company runs from Navan to Dublin. I can see the possibility that the tribunal will say: "No, this is unfair competition; we cannot allow you to deprive the new amalgamated company of its opportunity to pay the reasonable dividend that we think it is entitled to and which is guaranteed by the Bill." In that sense the cattle trade particularly might be detrimentally affected if the companies were not free to make reductions on that part of the line which is within the Saorstát. This section only deals with those portions of the undertaking situated in the Saorstát. It might be different if this was a tribunal clearly established to safeguard the interests of the community. We have been told so often that it is not pretending to be that, but is a judicial tribunal holding the balance as between the companies and the public, that we have always to bear in mind the possibility that the tribunal will come down in favour of the company and not in favour of the public.
I think probably too much is being made out of the northern ports in reference to this question. We should apply it more to the districts where the railways meet and where, as Deputy McKenna said, there is competition between the Midland and the Great Northern, such as the town of Cavan, where I come from. Does the Minister mean that the Great Northern cannot lower their rates below those of the Midland, except with the permission of the tribunal? If that is so, it would be very unreasonable, especially in regard to the town of Cavan, because in pre-war days the competition there was considerable. I remember when we used to have general holidays there was considerable competition between the two railways. If they have to apply to the tribunal now it will mean that competition will be cut out altogether.
May I point out that this deals with fares as well as tolls and charges. Does it mean that the company will not be able to issue special fares, either from Cavan or Navan, without application to the tribunal?
I feel very sorry that Deputy Davin is not in his place to-day. He was very much afraid in an earlier stage of this Bill, that we had not such control over undertakings, partly in and partly outside the Saorstát, as to prevent what this seeks to prevent. If Deputy Good's suspicions are well founded, that the railway tribunal is going to simply look to the interests of the amalgamated undertaking and to secure their guaranteed dividends to stockholders, or even if we take Deputy Johnson's point of view, that there is just a possibility of the railway tribunal in a particular case coming down in favour of the company as against the railway user, then, of course, this provision is unsound. Indeed the whole tribunal is unsound if you leave out of consideration all the matters in and around the setting up of the tribunal, the terms of reference and the whole principle of the Bill. Deputy Cole asks is it suggested that certain rates shall not be reduced before application is made to the railway tribunal? It is so intended. If that is not reasonable I cannot see where the great unreasonableness is, that application be made to the railway tribunal before rates are reduced. It is reasonable if you look on the railway tribunal as definitely going to crush competition or, as Deputy Good thinks, prevent competition. On that basis this amendment is perfectly sound and the section is perfectly unsound. But that is not likely to be the case. The tribunal is not bound up merely with the amalgamated undertaking. Section 30 gives jurisdiction over railways not definitely in the amalgamated undertaking, and there is a right for people interested, and desirous of being heard, to appear before the tribunal. The case has to be made in public and if the tribunal is going to stop legitimate rate reduction brought about by ordinary, competition then it has to face public odium for that. There is always that safeguard.
The Minister has not dealt with the fare question, whether this provision must apply in all cases apart from the general question of special traffic at special points. The Minister's expectation was that after five years the tribunal would have very little to do and that perhaps only one person would be required. The section reads:—
And such application shall be published in such manner as the railway tribunal prescribe and the tribunal after hearing all parties whom they consider entitled to be heard may make such modifications in the said charges or any of them as to the tribunal may seem just, and shall fix a day upon which the modifications are to come into force.
That is an application to reduce fares for an excursion party or to make special terms or arrangements that shall be published, etc. That, of course, brings it into ridicule, unless you expect the tribunal to be appealed to immediately so that the company can say, "We want to run excursions for a penny per mile for any distance," and that out of that they may make special charges. Otherwise you are placing the company in a position that they cannot make any special reduction without application to the tribunal. At the moment I am dealing with this matter from the point of view of passenger traffic. I think it is unreasonable to expect that the company will have to go through all this form of application, advertisements, hearing witnesses, etc., to find out if they should be allowed to run an excursion from Navan to Drogheda lower than the usual charge.
I think if the Minister rejects the amendment he will disappoint the people in the West of Ireland. The natural tendency already in that area, owing to the reduction in fares, is to shift traffic by the cheapest route. What is the Minister's proposition? He proposes in future that before the Great Northern Railway Company can reduce rates, they will have to go before the railway tribunal for permission to do so. It took nearly 12 months in England before the decisions of the railway tribunals in some cases were made known. If the Great Northern Company wishes to reduce rates further I do not see why they should not be allowed to do so. It will hit farmers of all classes in the west unless there is some reduction of rates. One of the reasons that the Party that I belong to supported the Bill was that we were looking forward with some hope to a reduction of rates by this unification scheme. Now, as things go, I see that the railway companies are fettered and their hands tied by the railway tribunal who will be masters of the whole situation. I would ask the Minister not to oppose the amendment.
I am glad to see that our arguments are having some effect now on those to whom we might have looked for support in the first instance. The more light that is thrown upon this Bill the better. Deputy McKenna is concerned, now that the Minister would not allow the non-amalgamated company to reduce rates. Obviously a reduction in rates would be beneficial. All this clearly shows the ramifications of this Bill. I think the Minister would want to give very good reasons why he is going to reject the amendment. In connection with the amalgamation of railways we did better under competition, and by dealing with our business in our own way than the Government are going to do under the Bill. Even though some districts may suffer through the reductions that may take place on the non-amalgamated lines I still think the districts through which they run are entitled to benefit.
This amendment is being argued as if it meant that no rates and no fares can be reduced on these non-amalgamated lines. It means nothing of the sort. There is provision made, I might point out to Deputy McKenna, in Section 24 for an immediate revision and reduction.
By the tribunal?
Yes.
No reduction could take place without the assent of the tribunal?
The rates shall remain in force so far as the amalgamated undertaking is concerned as maximum charges. There is to be a preliminary revision by the tribunal, and it is confidently expected that it is going to produce a good percentage in reduction. There is no phrase which reveals an intention to prevent any railway company from reducing its rates. It is provided that no such reduction shall take place without reference to the tribunal. Deputy Johnson says that all sorts of small excursion rates will have to be referred to the tribunal before they can come into operation. That is not the case. There is a scale in operation which will be taken over. There are scales for instance on the Great Northern system which will remain in operation. Any further reduction or extension of excursion or passenger fares will be a matter to bring before the tribunal. The present scale will be taken over. It is not a case that you start off with no excursion rates and that every minor change of a fare will have to be brought before the tribunal These things are done in general. There is neither an intention to prevent the reduction in rates nor an intention to impede the railway companies outside the amalgamated undertaking from bringing in passenger and excursion fares. The only thing is that for the future, apart from those scales in operation, application should be made to the tribunal, and the tribunal is not going to be put in a position that it will have to refuse these.
I beg to move these amendments on behalf of Deputy Heffernan:—
In proviso (i), line 50, to delete the word "traders" and substitute therefor the words "railway users," and in proviso (ii), line 53, to delete the words "traders" and substitute therefor the words "railway users."
I think it is a broader term and will embrace more people.
With regard to those two amendments it is proposed later on in Section 62, sub-section 1 (b) to introduce there the word "passengers" in line 16 and to leave out the word "or" before "freighters." That will have its repercussion on section 30.
Is it not better to make it plain here in the section?
I support the amendment. I think it is much simpler notwithstanding the suggestion of the Minister, which may be desirable in any case. It is an obvious improvement.
The difficulty would be in section 62. Section 62 is bound up very definitely with this particular section, and the words "railway users" will not be so inclusive a term as "traders."
Will the Minister observe that in (b), referring to traders it says: "It may obtain a certificate from the Minister that it is a proper body to make such an application."
I would urge the Minister to give more consideration to this matter.
I am quite prepared to accept it. It is only a matter of drafting, but I suggest it comes in better in section 62.
Supposing there is an application, say, from the Commercial Travellers' Association, they would not come into this definition of Section 62 at all, because they are not a body or an association representative of shipping—they would be denied that by their employers—nor an agricultural body, nor traders, because they are only travellers for traders. Yet they should be a body who would be listened to by any tribunal, and they are railway users.
Would not they be passengers?
Yes, but they would not come under this definition unless they made application for a certificate.
Very well; the substitution of the words "railway users" will be considered, and we will bring it up again on Report Stage.
Would you leave the word "traders" in and make it "or railway users"?
This section applies to charges of non-amalgamated companies. Section 62 provides for applications by public authorities in certain cases. I do not think the two sections hang together at all.
Yes, section 62 states: "Where under this Act an application may be made by a representative body of traders, or by a body of persons representative of trade or a locality, the application may be made by any of the following authorities:" The introduction of some phrase or some word—possibly not the words "railway users"—will be considered at this point. I do not intend to abide by the word "traders."
I accept that.
I move amendment 31: In line 57 to delete the word "and" and substitute therefor the word "any." I think it is an improvement.
I move amendment 32:—To delete in line 29 the words "whom they considered entitled to be" and to substitute therefor the words "interested and who are desirous of being." The object of this is to give anybody who has any grievance and who desires to go before the railway tribunal an opportunity of doing so. You will see that under the Bill, as drafted, the tribunal regulates the persons who have a right to go before it. The words are: "Whom they consider entitled to be heard." Seeing that we are dealing at the moment with non-amalgamated companies, I think we ought to extend every privilege to them, so that nothing might be said against the tribunal that it did not hear all the evidence that was entitled to go before it, before it gave a decision. This amendment meets that point by substituting, as I said, the words "interested and who are desirous of being" for the words "whom they consider entitled to be."
I move amendment 33:—To add at the end of the section, line 62, the words: "Provided always that in no event shall the charges as so modified by the railway tribunal be fixed at a figure lower than the corresponding standard charges unless with the consent of the company concerned."
Of course that is a matter of justice. I think we must recognise that this clause deals with the non-amalgamated companies. If the tribunal were to fix a lower charge for the non-amalgamated companies than the standard charge, it would be an obvious injustice to the non-amalgamated companies.
There is one objection to the amendment. It would prevent any application for reductions on these lines, partly in and partly outside the Saorstát until the standard charges had been established, that is to say, until sometime after the 31st December, 1925. It would postpone actual reductions until that date. The introduction of the words "standard charges "would limit decrease in rates or fares on these lines until after the standard charges became operative.
Could the Minister really expect any reduction in the non-amalgamated companies until the standard rate is fixed for the amalgamated company? We have had a division based on the fact that we were seeking to prevent these reductions immediately.
The question is—"That Section 30, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
Before passing from this, I am a little doubtful about the phraseology of the first paragraph: "in so far as they relate to those portions of their undertakings situate in Saorstát Eireann." We have a definition of Saorstát Eireann in the Interpretation Act:—... "the area for the time being within the jurisdiction of the Parliament and Government of Saorstát Eireann."
In respect of railways, what is the jurisdiction of the Parliament and Government of Saorstát Eireann? We have, at least, partial authority over railways in Ireland as a whole. At least, no other authority has any more control in regard to new railways in any part of Ireland than the Government of the Saorstát. I am not quite sure whether the phraseology in this section does not forget that fact. When we speak of "situate in Saorstát Eireann" and then refer to the Interpretation Act as to what is meant by the words "Saorstát Eireann," we find they mean "the area for the time being within the jurisdiction of the Parliament and Government of Saorstát Eireann." If we read that as having reference to railways then the Parliament and Government of Saorstát Eireann have certain not very clear, not very well defined, authority over railways outside the present area of the jurisdiction. I do not want to go into the matter just at the moment because it will come up at a later stage, but I would ask the Minister to think over it, and consult with the Attorney-General as to whether the phraseology in the Bill would require any amendment, having regard to all the circumstances in connection with the powers of the Saorstát Government, in relation to railways in the northern counties.
Deputy Johnson has succeeded in explaining what seems so clear, so clearly, that it now seems perplexed. All I can say is that I will consult with the Attorney-General, but when "Saorstát Eireann" is defined as a particular area, it seems to me to fit very well in with what was the intention.
The intention is clear enough.
I think it is clearly expressed, too, but I will consult with the Attorney-General.
I beg to move amendment 34, which stands in Deputy Heffernan's name. It is as follows:—"In line 60 to delete the word ‘forty,' and substitute therefor the word ‘twenty.'"
Amendments 34 and 35 are the same.
AN LEAS-CHEANN COMHAIRLE took the Chair at his stage.
It is a matter for the Dáil. If there is any great desire to have this 40 per cent. limit reduced there is no great point of principle involved.
I am sorry the mover of the amendment is not here. He knows more about it than I do.
I am willing to listen to any argument on the point, but no argument has been put forward about it at all.
We think 40 per cent. below the standard rate chargeable is an exceptionally high percentage and that 20 per cent. would be more like honest dealing and more like fair play.
Would the Minister explain exactly what is the object or what is the meaning of the section? Is it that only rates of 40 per cent. and over become subject to review and that those that are under that will not become subject to review, except attention is specially directed to them. Is that the meaning of it?
The figures chosen are to a certain extent arbitrary and if Deputy Gorey thinks that Deputy Heffernan might later have any great argument to advance with regard to the substitution of 20 per cent. or 25 per cent., that is a matter to be decided. There are simply two or three matters that have to be brought into consideration. I am not at all disposed to stand by 40 per cent. 40 per cent. was arrived at in a certain way. As between 40 per cent. and 20 per cent. personally, I do not care and I do not think there is any great point depending on it.
I frankly admit that I do not know what the reasons in Deputy Heffernan's mind in the matter were.
I would be prepared to leave this matter over for the present and in the meantime find out Deputy Heffernan's view.
I think it would be only burdening the tribunal unnecessarily. If you reduce it to 20 per cent., it will add enormously to the work of the tribunal.
I move amendment 37:—"In sub-section (1), to insert in line 8, after the word ‘shall,' the words ‘subject to the provisions of section 29 of this Act.'"
When this amendment was drawn up we were hopeful that we would get a more sympathetic hearing from the Minister as regards the provisions of section 29. But as the matter stands I do not think the addition is of as much value as if Section 29 had been moulded more in accordance with our ideas as to what it should be. At the same time it is useful although it is not as useful as it might have been otherwise. The section with the amendment would read:—
"On and after the appointed day the amalgamated company shall, subject to the provisions of section 29 of this Act, be at liberty to grant new exceptional rates....."
As the Committee will recognise and remember, section 29 is the section which deals with the protection of the ports. I do not think I will weary the Committee on the subject of the ports at this stage. Perhaps, later we will be able to raise it in more effective form. I submit this addition to the section for the consideration of the Minister.
If the Deputy had stated that owing to Section 29 being there in its present form he proposed to withdraw this amendment, I should have felt it was the reasonable course. Section 29 rules all this, and there is no additional safeguard in adding these words. It simply calls attention to a section which is already in existence, which has been passed by the House, and which definitely over-rides anything there may be in this amendment.
I take it the Minister does not fall in with my suggestion. Being in a small minority, I withdraw the amendment.
The following amendment stands in my name:—
"In Sub-section (2) to add in line 18 after the word ‘rates' the words ‘or any interest of any Port in Saorstát Eireann.'"
I think this amendment is very much on the same line as the previous amendment. I am sorry Deputy McBride is not here, because he would recognise that I am standing out there for the Port of Galway as well as for the Port of Dublin. The interest of any port is not debarred. I submit that that is the meaning of the words in the amendment.
Is Deputy Hewat moving the amendment?
Not in the face of a stone wall, sir.
There is an amendment to this section which reads: "In sub-section (2), line 34, to delete the word ‘forty' and to substitute therefor the word ‘twenty'." This is the same as the last amendment and is not being moved.
This is to be considered.
Yes, along with the others.
Before we depart from this section I would like to know from the Minister whether this question of owner's risk rate will be solely a question for the railway tribunal or whether there can be anything done about it during the discussion on the Bill. There is an old Act called the Railways and Canals Traffic Act of 1854, and when this Act was passed in 1854 certain regulations were laid down that compel senders of live stock, when sending at owner's risk rate, to practically give away guarantees they have from a legal point of view. This matter of owner's risk rate has been a source of great annoyance and litigation in the past, and I would like that some understanding be arrived at before the Bill is passed as to what is the line of action to be taken in the future in regard to it. Now, as regards live stock, most of the live stock in the past consigned to Great Britain were booked at owner's risk rate because the rate at the company's risk was too high, and they did not consider it worth while to insure. Supposing you lost a beast in transit under this Act of 1854, all you could legally recover was, in the case of a beast, £15; a horse, £50, sheep and pigs £2 each. Now there is an agitation going on for a long time with regard to remedying that law and bringing in legislation. No legislation was brought in, and the same law existed in England and in Ireland. I understand that since the grouping took place in England the owner's risk rate has been altered, and there is substituted now in the case of horses £100, beasts £50 and £5 for sheep and pigs. That is all.
There is another matter in connection with this clause that requires amendment. In the past if you had a claim against the railway company, unless you lodged that claim inside three days, you were debarred from going into court. Besides, if any of your animals in transit broke down in the waggons, the railway company could dispose of those animals without communicating with the owner at all, and oftentimes they sent them to the knackers and returned to the owner 25s. or the price of the hide in some cases. That is all now altered in England, and the railways in cases like that have to notify the owner, and they are also compelled to make the best use they can and to get the best price they can in the sale of the animal that breaks down. There was another flaw in this "owner's risk" rate. The railway companies insisted that it was the duty of the owner of the live stock to prove how the accident occurred if an accident occurred in transit, and unless you were able to prove how the accident occurred, you could not recover any damages. It was most expensive litigation, and it was very costly to go to law with the railway company. I know myself where there was a big lot of money lost by the owners of cattle over these laws. On one occasion there were 40 cattle booked from the West of Ireland to Carlisle at this "owner's risk" rate They were smothered at sea. The owner went to law with the railway company. In the first court it was dismissed on the grounds that they were sent at "owner's risk" rate. It was then taken to the Court of Appeal, and he was beaten in the Court of Appeal. The owner appealed then to the House of Lords, and he was beaten in the Lords, too, because this clause was there specifying "the King's enemies,""visitation of Providence." It was a wild night at sea, and this not of consignment put him out of court. The judge said it was a very bad case but it was the law. I submit that in future there should be some guarantee for the owner. The railway and steamship companies have huge capital, and as against the individual traders the can go on appealing as far as the House of Lords, and if the case goes against the trader in the House of Lords wipes him out. I hope the Minister will see that there are proper safe guards put into the Bill for the benefit of the trader in the future. In the pay it was impossible to get any value for anything lost in transit. So strict that law that even if the railway company lost a horse, a beast, or a pig, all they would legally be entitled to pay would be £50, £15 or £2, according as to what animal was lost, although the horse might be worth £100, and the beast might be worth £50.
Again I rise for the purpose of calling Deputy McKenna's attention to the fact that he is one of the supporters of this Bill. In this Bill and in this clause there is a provision which says: "Within six months of the passing of this Act, or within such further time as the railway company may permit." May I tell Deputy McKenna that "the old order changeth," and we are entering a state of affairs, in which, as I said before, this almighty tribunal is going to settle everything. The tribunal is going to be placed there to remedy "all the ills the flesh is heir to." They have a fancy job, of course, and one that I do not envy. The tribunal is to be the means whereby Deputy McKenna is to get all he desires in the way of smothered sheep, stolen lambs——
Get all the smothered sheep he desires.
All the smothered sheep. Of course, the through rate is a rate that is going to operate, and the Minister has over and over again disclaimed any intention of using even his influence—at all events, using his compulsion—as regards the other parties to the through rate. Deputy McKenna's sheep or pigs or cattle, on the through rate, have to go to sea, and he complains that he could not recover from the steamship company because the animals were sent at owner's risk. Of course, the owner's risk is one risk and the company's risk is another, but the rates are different. It is customary when you are sending live stock across the water to insure them, when you send at owner's risk. In that way you would, I suppose, get back the value of the animal that was lost. I only rise to impress upon the Farmers' Party, and particularly on Deputy McKenna, that whatever remedy they had in the past it was of such a kind that at any rate it enabled them to convince a railway or a steamship company which had a conscience and was in competition for the traffic, that they had a just claim; but under the amalgamated company they will deal with a body that has no soul at all. The tribunal is going to lay down what it is going to do, and neither the directors of the company—
Is this the Second Reading that we are giving the Bill?
We are dealing with the section.
I do not think that the Deputy is speaking on the section.
I would like to know whether or not Deputy Gorey occupies the chair? I think, as far as the ruling from the Chair is concerned, I have not been speaking out of order. With a view to consoling Deputy Gorey I may say that I have said all I intend to say on the subject.
The point that I want to raise may be easily cleared up. I had been always under the impression that the terms and conditions affecting railway transport were standardised, and that all the companies acted on the same terms and conditions. If that is so, I wonder why we should be making changes now? I can quite imagine that the terms and conditions of the non-amalgamated companies may be different from those prescribed for the amalgamated companies. We may have terms and conditions of transport, company's risk conditions, owner's risk conditions, applicable to the Great Northern or the Donegal railways, very much more favourable or very much less favourable, as the case may be, than such terms and conditions as may be applied to the amalgamated company. I think whether it has been so in the past or not, it ought to be statutory, that the terms and conditions should be standardised and that all companies should have the same terms and conditions, so far as their general carriage is concerned. When we have in the first paragraph a reference to the terms and conditions of the amalgamated company, it seems to me that we are opening a way for different conditions for those companies which are within the scope of this Bill and those which are without its scope, and there is nothing here to show that the non-amalgamated companies shall submit to the tribunal its conditions.
Is it Deputy Hewat's contention that there was protection afforded to the trader before that is not afforded under this Act? I gathered, as far as I could follow his "Second Reading speech," that he implied that. Deputy McKenna was also inclined to make the point that the protection afforded by the Railways and Canals Traffic Act of 1854 no longer held. Would either of the Deputies mind looking at the seventh Schedule of the Act? It is proposed there to amend that Act of 1854, and for the £50 for the horse, the £15 for the cow, and the £2 for the pig, there are to be awarded £100, £50, and £5 respectively.
What is the price of the donkey?
If Deputy Hewat had read the section he might have saved the Dáil a considerable amount of time.
I never waste the time of the Dáil—at least, I try not to. Deputy O'Sullivan has brought into my remarks the Canal Commission, which I was not referring to at all. I was trying to point out to Deputy McKenna that he ought to be happy in the past compared with what he is to experience in the future. In the past he had competition, in the future——
It is determined to kill competition in the future.
Various points have been raised on this. The points raised by Deputies McKenna and Hewat have been well answered by Deputy O'Sullivan. It is very difficult to answer points raised by people who are so angered by the Bill that they will not trouble to read it. I think the amendment to the Railways and Canals Traffic Act of 1854 is to the satisfaction of Deputy McKenna. Deputy McKenna raised a matter concerning owner's sea risk—risk of conveyance by sea. With that we have nothing to do. This is a Railway Bill and not a Shipping Bill, and we do not intend to deal with that matter.
I would like the Minister to explain, then, how is he going to deal with booked through traffic. Under the Railways and Canals Traffic Act of 1854 in any cases that I saw tested in law the contract was originally made with the railway company, and you had through booking from a station in Ireland to a destination in Great Britain. You had to get over the sea, but the contract was made with the railway company in the first instance. With the greatest respect to the Minister, there should be some understanding arrived at in regard to our position with the shipping companies.
I do not see how I can insist on shipping companies which are not under the control of the Dáil giving certain rates. I cannot insist on it. We can make representations to them about it. This question of through rates has arisen several times, and we can make representations, and we can seek to have agreements, but beyond that we cannot do anything.
Then it is open, I take it, to any shipping company coming to the port of Dublin, to cut the painter so far as their through rates from Ireland to Great Britain are concerned, if they so desire. That is a very serious situation for the country at present, because as bad as the old law was, we had through rates from nearly every station in Ireland to destinations in Britain. But when this Bill is passed the Minister tells us they have no power outside the Saorstát to compel railway companies, and I think it is a very serious matter.
Is there any power at present to compel different companies to give through rates if they do not want to?
At what time was there power over a through rate more than you have at present? We had through rates in the past; we are quite aware of the fact, but the difficulty that Deputy McKenna is in is this: You had one booking. There has been a modification for the benefit of the shippers, those who ship at owner's risk, on the other side of the Channel. I think it is largely in Deputy McKenna's mind that, if possible, there should be modifications on this side of the Channel, that if possible such a regulation should be made, and as far as the Minister was concerned, if it were in his power, he should take steps to see that there was a modification here, as was made in England as regards all the bookings at owner's risk. Undoubtedly it is a very great disadvantage, and it is something that would require amendment, and if they have made this amendment in the English Act there is no reason why it should not be made in this Bill by the Minister.
This section does not deal with through rates; it deals with the terms and conditions under which traffic, live stock, or other, shall be carried, and while Deputy McKenna instanced sea traffic, the arguments he used will apply to inland traffic just as well, and it will be then a matter for the companies to consider what arrangements they will make with their associate companies outside the Saorstát. But in regard to the terms and conditions under which traffic shall be carried within the Saorstát, Deputy McKenna is, I think, in order, and not merely in order, but right in raising this question as to those conditions, as to whether there may be new conditions, more attractive, shall I say, or more protective for the traders' interests. Again, I would suggest that if there are to be conditions under which traffic may be carried, whether at owner's risk or at ordinary risk, they should be standardised to cover all companies within the Saorstát.
Confining the discussion now to the section and leaving out this question of through rates, which has revealed a serious situation to Deputy McKenna, but which was always as serious as it is now, and was never protected by law, on this particular point, the section provides no change. It does not insist on a change; it provides that the amalgamated company shall submit to and publish these terms and conditions, and that afterwards the tribunal shall consider or show it has prepared and published additional terms and conditions, and after hearing a representative body of traders, shall draw up finally its terms and conditions. Deputy Johnson seems to think on that, that again the railway tribunal will go out of its way to prevent any improvement in existing conditions. I think his first argument was that these terms and conditions were actually standardised and that we should, apparently, give a direction to the tribunal to incorporate or fix again certain charges.
No, I think the Minister is misunderstanding me. I do not know whether they were unsatisfactory or not. I will assume that they were perfectly unsatisfactory, or I will assume, if you wish, that they were quite satisfactory, but the same kind of conditions were satisfactory or unsatisfactory, whether the company in question was the Great Northern, the Midland Great Western, or the Great Southern and Western. I may be wrong in that, but I am assuming that they were all the same. If so, and if there is to be any change, that change should be applicable to all the companies. That is all I am contending for, that the trading public should not be in a position of doubt as to whether, when they send traffic by one line or another line, they are running the risk of being under worse conditions regarding traffic than they would be if they sent by the alternative route, inasmuch as, if my assumption is correct, that there was a standardised scheme regarding owner's risk and regarding ordinary risk, a similar standardised scheme should apply henceforth, whether it is better or worse, and that there should not be a variety of schemes.
I do not know now whether Deputy Johnson wants an answer to the point, but I might state this, that these terms and conditions which were fixed and were standardised in Great Britain are now all under review, and this section was drafted in this fashion in order to allow of any meeting, as far as the terms and conditions were concerned, between those operating on the other side and those which it is proposed to operate here. The point, however, that I think Deputy Johnson is making is as between the companies comprising the amalgamated undertaking and those railways partly in and partly outside the Saorstát.
That is so.
Well, there does seem to be an omission in the Bill. I imagine that what Deputy Johnson requires is something relative to Section 39, just as Section 30 was relative to Section 29, in dealing with the fares, tolls, rates, etc., and I am not quite clear that a corresponding section to Section 29, having reference to railways partly in and partly outside the Saorstát, has been included. I will take that into consideration.
That is because you copied it from the English Bill, and all the British railways were brought into the amalgamation.
We did not copy Section 29 and 30 from the English Railways Bill, and consequently I do not say that is a definite ruling there.
I am grateful to the Minister for having inserted that amendment to the Railways, Canals and Traffic Act, but I suggest to him that not alone should that be done but the further amendments to that Act that were inserted in England when they started the grouping, should also be included, because a lot of time was taken up by the traders in England with the railway rates tribunal and the companies. An amendment especially that I would like to see introduced, is with regard to the three days, the time limit under which you are debarred from making your claim, and also the alteration with regard to the substitution of £100 for £50; £50 for £15, and £5 for £2, in the case of sheep and pigs. Another clause was with regard to making the best market value you could in regard to an animal injured in transit. I am sure that if the amendments that were substituted in England were inserted by the Minister in this Bill, it would please very many, because like the Siamese Twins, they are dependent on one another.
I notice in Section 42 that any time after the date when the terms and conditions are so settled representative bodies may apply for alteration. I suggest if it is not already provided for in that way, before the tribunal decides upon the terms and conditions that had to be fixed that representative bodies should have the right of hearing.
Yes. In Section 40, sub-section (1).
Will the consignment note as it at present exists remain the same until it is altered by the railway rates tribunal, or will it be altered by the passage of this Bill?
I do not know if sub-section (1) of Section 40 meets Deputy Johnson's point.
I think it does.
With regard to the various suggestions put forward by Deputy McKenna, these are all matters to be put forward by the representative body of traders who may desire to be heard before the tribunal. It is not for the Dáil to go into all the details of consignment notes, and the various circumstances upon which the different risk conditions are built. That is a matter for the tribunal after hearing the representative body of traders. A big change has been made, as Deputy McKenna is aware, in regard to the revaluation of animals. That has been incorporated, and is insisted on, and goes before the tribunal as a matter on which they have to base decisions, and to take into consideration. Everything else applicable to owners' and companies' risk conditions are matters for argument before the tribunal. With all respect I suggest that is a matter that could be much better discussed before the tribunal than in the Dáil.
I would not agree with the Minister on one point, and that is with regard to through rates. I would like to point out that from 1913 up to very recently the railway companies in the Saorstát discontinued their through rates.
I think the Deputy has already made three speeches.
I move:—
To delete the section and to substitute therefor the following new section:—
The amalgamated company shall be entitled to charge for the conveyance of merchandise as for a minimum distance of such number of miles, or alternatively such minimum sum as the railway tribunal after hearing all parties interested and who are desirous of being heard may determine, but such minimum distances shall not vary according to whether charges for station terminals are or are not made.
The real difference between this amendment and the section is that it incorporates words which the Minister has already agreed to incorporate in another clause. I refer to the words "after hearing all parties interested. and who are desirous of being heard." That is, that it is essential under the clause, as I propose it, before these minimum charges are fixed that all parties who are interested and are desirous of being heard shall be heard. I think, as the Minister has already seen his way to incorporate these words in another section, it is unnecessary for me to lay further stress on it, or to take up the time of the Dáil further.
The Minister did rather suddenly accept the last amendment, but it occurs to me that may be he is compelling the tribunal to hear any crank that might turn up and ask for the right of hearing, and I am not quite sure whether that is wise. I think it is rather unwise, for I have in my mind certain people who are sure to be at that tribunal. I could name three persons whom I can guarantee will be heard at that tribunal as often as possible. They are interested, of course, and the tribunal under this section will not be able to say they are not interested, for they will be able to show that they are, and the desire to be heard will certainly be evident, but as to whether they are serving any public interest—and as to whether the tribunal ought not to be allowed to have a little discretion—I am very doubtful. I do not think it would be serving the public interest in the case I have in mind, and I think the tribunal ought to have some discretion as to whether they should be heard or not.
The answer I propose to make is one, unfortunately, that will not answer Deputy Johnson, for if Deputy Johnson's three crank friends are inclined to be present and are going to force their way in under this amendment, I am afraid they will have power to force themselves in under other sections. This section deals with minimum charges. Minimum charges are portion of the standard arrangements. Section 27 states that, "the Railway Tribunal shall consider the schedules of proposed standard charges so submitted to them, and any objections thereto which may be lodged within the prescribed time and in the prescribed manner, and, after hearing all the parties interested and who are desirous of being heard." I would ask the Deputy to consider whether it was worth while to include words which are already in Section 27, inasmuch as Section 27 operates with this particular section.
Deputy Johnson, a few moments ago, referred to the fact that this Bill is based on the English Act, though the Minister did not exactly agree with that. I may inform him that the words I suggest to incorporate are in the English Act, and as the clause stands it appears to us that it is unnecessarily restrictive, and might, as the Minister recognises, give rise to cases of hardship. I think it is in the interests of all parties that the rights of those who appear before these different tribunals, when such important matters as minimum charges are being fixed, shall appear in the section, so that there may be no question as to the right to interfere and be heard, when these particular matters are being considered. I would press on the Minister to accept this amendment. There is nothing in it that will weaken the Bill. These people have already got the right in another section of the Bill to appear before the tribunal. We, commercial men, are not lawyers, and like to have on the face of a section exactly what it means, and what our rights are, and not have to refer from one section to another.
Supposing I admit that I am impressed by the argument that these words are used in a corresponding section of the English Act, may I enquire if Deputy Good's point is that the words are so included in the corresponding section of the British Act to this section?
I am so informed. I have not seen them.
I have the section of the Act here, and I cannot see the words in it. On the matter of the amendment, I ask the Deputy again does he agree with me that the minimum charges are portion of the standard arrangement; that Section 27 imposes that persons interested in and desirous of being heard must be allowed to appear when the standard arrangements are being made, and if Section 27 does not include, taken in conjunction with Section 44, all that he desires to introduce here?
I have not the English Act before me, but I understand that these words appear in Section 31 of that Act, which refers to the same matters as are referred to here in Section 44.
Section 31 of the British Act is, to all intents and purposes, our Section 27, and that is the only place in which these words appear.
As I understood, they appear in that section in reference to the matter which we have under consideration in Section 44.
I take it the Deputy will be satisfied that the section dealing with the Schedules and with the standard charges includes these words. We have included them in Section 27. They do not appear in the corresponding section in the British Act dealing with minimum charges, and apart from what the British Act does, there is no reason why they should be introduced in Section 44.
Do the words "schedules of charges" not include minimum charges? Section 31 of the English Act says: "The rates tribunal shall consider the schedules of charges (I take it that schedules of charges includes minimum charges) so submitted to them, and any objection thereto may be lodged in the prescribed time and in the prescribed manner, and after hearing all parties interested and who are desirous of being heard."
Section 27 of this Bill says: "The railway tribunal shall consider the schedules of proposed standard charges so submitted to them and any objections thereto which may be lodged within the prescribed time and in the prescribed manner, and, after hearing all parties interested and who are desirous of being heard, shall" settle the said schedules. Exactly what has happened in the British Act has happened here. The words are included in the section dealing with the standard charges. They are not included in the special section dealing with minimum charges.
Does the Minister exclude from consideration minimum charges?
Not at all. My point is that people interested and desirous of being heard must be heard under Section 44, because it is governed by Section 27, which has these words in it.
I take it then, that everything that one hopes to achieve under this amendment is already included?
Exactly.
If that is so, I am satisfied.
I beg to move—
In sub-section (1) to add, in line 18, after the word "railway" the words "in Saorstát Eireann."
That is included in the title of the Bill.
It is a little ambiguous here because it refers to "collection and delivery." In the first portion it says: "On and after the appointed day the amalgamated company may collect and deliver by road any merchandise which is to be or has been carried by railway." There is an ambiguity about it there that ought to be cleared up. I think the Minister will agree that it will make the section clearer.
I would like to know would Deputy Good prevent the railway company delivering merchandise which has been carried by a railway outside the Saorstát? Supposing goods were put on rail at Belfast and were delivered in Dundalk for transmission to some point in the County Louth or Meath. Why should the railway company be prevented from transmitting such goods by, say, motor? If Deputy Good's amendment were accepted unless they have been put on the railway within the jurisdiction of the Saorstát they will be precluded from such delivery. I do not see that there is any point in the plea that there should be a restriction in the way suggested.
I am sorry I cannot agree with Deputy Johnson. I think the section is quite obvious. If the goods are not carried by any railway in Saorstát Eireann, is it intended that the railway company should become a sort of delivery agent? That is really what it means. The goods may be delivered by the amalgamated company even though they may not travel on any of the lines included in that group. There is no objection whatever to delivery if they run on any of the lines on Saorstát Eireann.
As far as I can understand it now, the amendment seeks to provide that the amalgamated undertaking should not run, say, a motor service from Mullingar to Dublin. If that is the point, I think it is met by the Bill, as the amalgamated company has to make reasonable charges for certain things, in addition to the charges for carriage by rail. It is only where there was a previous charge for carriage on the undertaking itself that there would be allowed, in addition, a small charge for collection and delivery.
As to the point Deputy Johnson raised, we want to prohibit the amalgamated company from delivering goods that had not travelled over their line. We do not want to stop the amalgamated company from collecting or delivering goods. Surely, it is reasonable to expect the goods must run over their line. We do not want them to become delivery agents alone.
I think I did meet that by pointing out that the charge is one in addition to the charge for carriage by railway. If the amalgamated company has power to make a charge for carriage by rail, it must be for a line under its control.
They might take the goods and make a charge for delivering. It might be a forwarding charge.
The eventuality that Deputy Good thinks of is not likely to arise, but if it does, consideration can be given to it. The amendment can be reserved for the Report Stage.
I beg to move—
To delete paragraph (i) of sub-section (3) and to substitute therefor the following new paragraph:—
(i) the chargeable distance by every alternative route from that station or place of every place to which they book.
The object of that amendment is to provide that information about alternative routes shall be available at each station. If a person goes to book stuff at a station that person should be able to ascertain the different routes by which it could be sent. The provision of that information might cause trouble, but it is valuable for the consignor, who for some reason or other may wish to send goods not necessarily by the shortest route, but by a route that, from his point of view, would be the best one.
Speaking of the first portion of the amendment—the second portion being left out by Deputy Hewat, being consequential on certain amendments previously defeated—the alternative routes will, of course, be shown in the rate book. That book will be open for inspection, but it would be impossible to show the alternative routes, say, from a station in the interior of Ireland to some station in an eastern county in England. There might be 30 or 40 different routes. Does the Deputy want to insist that the distances in each case should be shown?
I would like the Minister to consider the point. I would not think it an unreasonable concession to have information available at the point from which the traffic starts of the different routes available. Of course, the distance would affect the charges.
"The chargeable distance . . . . . shall be the actual shortest distance." If that is provided for, why load up the book or books by giving the various alternative routes and distances, when you have it definitely provided that the shortest distance is to be the chargeable distance?
A man wants to know what he is saving. He thinks it is so much gained.
It is not the shortest route you adopt necessarily. There might be an alternative route which would be quite practical with a certain additional mileage.
The Bill seeks to provide that the chargeable distance shall be the actual shortest distance with certain additions provided by Statute. What is the good of loading up the books with information about alternative routes and particularly the distance by alternative routes, when it is going to mean nothing?
The distance is well known in most cases.
You have had a good deal of discussion during the consideration of this Bill on the difference between consigned and unconsigned traffic. Except a man is going to get some facilities when he is consigning traffic and knows his liabilities, it is obvious that he will send it as unconsigned traffic. Whether that is the desire of the framers of this Act, that they will facilitate those who leave traffic to them to consign in any way they like and will not facilitate those anxious to consign their traffic, I think the amendment turns on the question of giving certain information to the consignor to enable him to say that he will send the traffic as unconsigned traffic, or whether he will consign it via a certain route. If you do not facilitate the man and enable him to decide when forwarding the traffic as to the way he is to forward it, and you refuse to give him facilities, he will probably send it as unconsigned in order to avoid certain liabilities. That appears to me to be the real principle underlying this amendment.
The second part of the amendment says: "For the purpose of this sub-section the expression ‘alternative route' shall be deemed to be every route, the distance by which route to the place to which the company book does not exceed the distance by the shortest route by more than fifty per cent." Clearly the whole thing hangs together. We want to preserve the alternative routes when they are within a certain measure of distance to the shortest route. The whole thing is coupled up with the various other amendments, which means really, so far as the ports are concerned, that they wish to safeguard their routes so far as they possibly can. This Bill is tieing the railways up into a unified group, and the ports are concerned in the matter, and this is simply to leave open an alternative route that does not exceed the shortest route by fifty per cent. I think the Minister will recognise that it is not such a voluminous thing as he makes out, and that there will not be so many cases arising at all.
It is just exactly that point that weighs with me. The work will be voluminous. You have to get the distance of any one route from any point in Ireland to any point in England, and you have to give an alternative list. I am told that the work was so complicated that the railway company did not make up the books in several instances, but sent them to the Railway Clearing House to have them made up. It is because of this voluminous work that I object to the amendment.
They must have the information available, because otherwise they could not decide what was the shortest or the best route.
The Minister pointed out at an earlier stage that every consignor had a right to consign traffic any way he liked. Now it is obvious that he is only to get information about a certain route, and he will not get information as to whether the alternative route is suitable to send traffic by. It means that he is only going to get information about one route.
The amendment does a great deal more than what Deputy Good suggests. It will compel the company to have particulars at every station of every possible through route from that station to practically every station in Great Britain. I do not believe, if effect were to be given to the amendment, that you could stock all the books required in such circumstances in the station office.
The amendment does not aim at any such elaboration, and I would ask the Minister to consider the question of embodying the principles of the amendment in some form in the Act. It is not that there are so many alternative routes. The traffic is through traffic, between the towns and the stations in Ireland, going to Great Britain, and in those cases the alternative routes are not numerous. They are very well defined and clear, and the Minister need not hestitate about the extent or volume. It will all be covered within a reasonably small amount of space.
Amendment put, and negatived.
I move.
I move the following amendment:—
"To add in line 57 (page 21) after the word "determine," the words "after hearing all parties interested and desirous of being held."
This amendment deals with a very important matter. Section 49 deals with matters very largely of classification, and such matters are very important. I do not know that we have, next to the question of rates, a more important question than classification, and it is very necessary, in fixing the question of classification that the interests of all parties should be heard when questions of such importance are being considered. This amendment, therefore, proposes to incorporate in this section what the Minister has already agreed to incorporate in other sections, namely, that all parties interested and desirous of being heard shall have an opportunity of putting their views forward.
I am very glad to get the statement from Deputy Good that this is an amendment to the section which deals with classification. Section 25 also deals with classification and provides that all interested parties shall be heard by the tribunal. This is already provided for, but if Deputy Good insists on having it inserted here I will not object.
We business men are lay men and not lawyers, and I think that the addition of the words would make the wording much more clear.
I have not read the succeeding sub-sections, but the Minister picked up Deputy Good and assumed that this amendment had reference only to classification. I am not opposing it, but I want to draw attention to the fact that if any person is interested in the sub-paragraphs a, b, c, d, e, f, g, h, i, he will have the right to be heard. Passengers, joint committees representing traders, may want the institution of new, or the continuance, or the cancellation of existing group rates. They may all warrant the right of hearing, but they do not merely confine the right to questions of classification.
One of the most important matters under Section 49 was the question of classification, and it was therefore essential that the views of all interests should be considered when that was under consideration. Deputy Johnson's views on this and other sections with regard to the exclusion of certain rights rather surprise one. I always thought Deputy Johnson was representative of democratic interests, but he appears in a different form this evening.
I am not objecting to this. I only want to suggest that this phraseology may allow a looseness which might by other phraseology be avoided. I am only calling attention to what may be a little losseness. On the section as a whole we have in sub-paragraph (c) this word "modification" again, and we have passed "modification" already in an amendment when we meant "reduction."
No; we have inserted "modified" previously, where previously we had "increased" or "reduced."
I think the intention of the House was that the word "increased" should be substituted for the word "reduced." If it was as the Minister says, it gives point to my objection to the original use of the word "modification," which may mean either reduced or increased. If the House is going to pass a Bill with the word "modification" it may mean increase. In the main I think the House assumes that the word "modification" implies a reduction.
It is a question of who is going to get the modification.
I have agreed to consider Amendment 43.
No; Amendment 43 is agreed to.
Then, I am agreeing to the section as amended.
This amendment seeks to define the route.
These amendments are clearly consequential to amendments 22 and 23. One of them was completely knocked out and the other was defeated in so far as it related to the later definition. Consequently the later definition to section 22 goes out and the definition of "natural route" falls with amendment 23.
I beg to move on behalf of Deputy Bryan Cooper the following amendment:—
In sub-section (1) to delete in line 34 the figures "1914," and in lines 45 and 55 to delete the figures "1913" and to substitute therefor in each case the figures "1916."
I do not know the arguments which Deputy Cooper intended to bring forward, but I shall point out what appears to me to be the effect of the amendment. I understand that the figures for the three years ending 1913 accepted by the Minister, in putting forward this Bill, upon a certain basis did not commend themselves to the railway company, and they suggested that instead of the year 1913, which was the year of maximum amount of revenue received in a certain number of years, the average for the years 1911, 1912 and 1913 be taken. That did not commend itself to the Minister, and this suggestion of Deputy Cooper seems to me to be put forward as a compromise between the two points of view. I think if you take the figures in the White Paper you will see that the average of the three years specified in the Bill would be a figure of £1,088,000. That would be the nett profit to be taken as the basis in fixing the standard revenue. If you take the figure that was advocated by the railway company, £1,147,000, the two figures differ by £59,000. If you take the figure advocated by Deputy Bryan Cooper you will get the figure coming in between those two. There was a falling off in the year 1914-15 from the big figure of 1913, but that was no doubt due to war conditions.
If you take the average of the three years it seems to work out at £1,115,000, which is very nearly halfway between the two other figures I have quoted. I think the difference that would accrue to traders from the choice of the figure laid down in the amendment, as compared with the figure laid down in the Bill, would be exceedingly small, whereas it would mean a very important thing to the railway company if they were allowed to have the larger figure in that it would enable them to commence their operation in a much stronger position. Therefore, without elaborating the matter any further, and in order to draw the Minister as far as I can, I will move the amendment which stands in Deputy Cooper's name.
I do not think a good case can be made in respect of this amendment. It was originally intended that the average should run for five years. The fact that 1913 was a big year is an advantage as far as the shareholders of all the concerns are concerned. To bring in 1914 and 1915 would bring in unquestionably very peculiár circumstances, the circumstances of the war and the fact that 1913 was a big year I think should satisfy any fair-minded person that a real attempt was made to deal fairly with them in this matter. 1914 and 1915 were abnormal years, and the question which we ought to ask ourselves in that connection is, how does the state of business at the present moment compare with 1913, 1914 and 1915? I think an examination of almost any returns in connection with business will show that the bulk of business is not transacted now that was transacted in those years. The actual receipts may be somewhat different, owing to the different values of money and other matters of that sort, but the facts are that we are scarcely in a position to say that the business which was done in 1913, 1914 and 1915 compares very favourably with the business of to-day. If, then, we were to accept those three years, or the average of them, as a standard by which we would measure the earning capacity of the new company, we would be setting a higher standard than the business of the country could afford. We had that in mind when we fixed the average three years. I do not know what the views of the business community are in a matter of that sort, but I do think, apart from their views, that we must take into consideration the whole circumstances of the country at the present time, and if you seek to get from the new company a sum that it is impossible for it to earn without making its business gilt-edged as against everything else in the country, I think much more harm than good will result from it.
I do not think the business community have any particular partiality for any term. I should say the only argument we could advance in favour of the amendment would be that if it is more favourable in the sense of being likely to give us cheaper rates in the one case than in the other, we would naturally support the one that would give us the lower rate. It is not very clear how the operation of the amendment would work in that direction.
If the Deputy would take into consideration the fact that the profits that will be required to pay this dividend are in excess of the profits that are required to pay the dividend we put down, I think he will have the answer to his question very simply.
I beg to move this amendment on behalf of Deputy Heffernan. If this Railway Bill will not effect a reduction in rates, I certainly hope it will not allow an increase of rates. It is to guard against an increase we have put this amendment down. I do not know what reasons Deputy Heffernan would advance if he were here, but I beg formally to propose the amendment.
I think there is no likelihood of this particular amendment ever being called upon to do duty. There is not a great likelihood, but in such an eventuality, it would mean that we would have to introduce an Act amending this particular Bill in regard to any war, greater, perhaps, in extent than the last war, which would have the effect of raising prices. But, when one takes into consideration the circumstances prevailing at the time that permission was granted to increase rates and charges, and that we have now reached a period when the justification for the continuance of those charges cannot be made, then I think it is obvious that there is no likelihood whatever of an increase in charges. There might possibly be a case for an increased rate in respect of certain classes of goods—I mean such things as explosives and dangerous traffic of that sort. It is most unlikely that a railway tribunal, taking into consideration the circumstances under which permission was granted to increase the charges before, and bearing in mind the cost of living now and the changed circumstances of the times, would give any occasion for the operation of this amendment.
In view of the fact that there is no necessity, I think the President had better accept this amendment to provide against such a thing occurring. It would re-assure the public, and it would, I think, be a very wholesome thing.
I am surprised at Deputy Gorey proposing this amendment. Suppose the railway tribunal wanted to decrease the charges on agricultural produce, it might think that one of the ways of doing it would be to increase the charges on other commodities.
Such an idea did not occur to me.
I know it did not.
There is one point Deputy Gorey probably has overlooked. I think power is taken in some clause in the Bill to review special rates that have been quoted. Certain people may have got certain special rates. If they are not economic rates, apparently somebody else must make up the difference between the uneconomic rates in question and the actual amount that might come in. In that case, any privileged person—granted there be such person, which I do not know—would have his position strengthened and consolidated by the amendment of the Deputy, and I do not think that is the Deputy's intention.
The amendment is to prevent any increase in charges, and it does not deal with special rates at all.
If I am charged for sending a ton of diamonds to Cork at a specially-quoted rate below the ordinary rate that is a charge.
It is a "special charge." This is not dealing with "special charges" at all.
"Any charge" I think is mentioned in the amendment. There might be a particular privilege granted and the railway tribunal would not be in a position to review that privilege. Suppose there was an immense trade in diamonds—a most unlikely thing—the diamond merchant I mentioned would have an advantage over every other merchant, and coal— a much more useful commodity—would have to bear in its charges the uneconomic incidence of the diamond charge.
If the President has convinced himself that the reasons he advances are sound, I will not push the matter further.
I am opposed to this section. I protest against the plan adopted of guaranteeing this net revenue for those three years. In these circumstances, I will simply divide the House without further argument.
I move to report Progress.
Agreed.
