Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Thursday, 29 May 1924

Vol. 7 No. 16

DAIL IN COMMITTEE. RAILWAYS BILL, 1924. - (COMMITTEE STAGE RESUMED.) THIRD SCHEDULE.

Amendment No. 17 not moved.

On behalf of Deputy Coholan, I move:—

In provision 5 (d), line 48, to delete the words "amount of" and to substitute therefor the words "annual value of the."

This amendment really makes the sense of the section somewhat clearer, and may be accepted.

Amendment put and agreed to.

I move:—

In provision 5 (d), line 50, to delete the words "three years next before the 3rd day of April, 1924," and to substitute therefor the words "year next preceding the happening of the event which gives rise to the claim for compensation."

It is intended to meet a possible contingency. Provision 5 (d) reads: "for the purpose of the calculation of the compensation under this schedule the remuneration and emoluments of an existing officer or servant shall be taken to be the average amount of remuneration and emoluments received by him from an amalgamating or absorbed company during the three years next before the third day of April, 1924." If we consider the possibilities in respect, say, to the Railway Clearing House, whose work will be greatly increased for the next year or two, then there may be, as a direct effect of the application of the Bill, a redundancy; but notwithstanding the position a man may have arrived at by the time of his dismissal, he is only to be taken as having earned the average of the three years prior to 1924, notwithstanding that his dismissal may only have arisen after two or three or four years of extra work which directly arises out of the activities consequent on the Bill. Hence the proposal to substitute the one year next preceding the occurrence which leads to the claim being made, the year preceding the dismissal if we speak in plain terms. I think it will be apparent that there are possibilities in the case I have mentioned, and possibly in other departments, where the redundancy will not be found until a period has elapsed, perhaps in the case of the Clearing House two or three years hence.

We believe it is only just and fair that compensation should be calculated not at the date of the introduction of the Bill, but at the date when a man is dispossessed from his employment, and, therefore, compensation should be payable on the basis of the year preceding the happening of the event which gives rise to the claims for compensation. This schedule is intended with modifications to apply to Ireland the provisions of the third Schedule of the British Act. Evidently an error has been made in the drafting of the Irish Act, as in Great Britain the compensation is based on the final year's salaries and emoluments. If the Minister agrees that it is an error in draftsmanship, I hope, for the reasons stated, that he will agree to the amendment.

There is a point in the Clause which seems to have escaped notice. As drafted it was intended to meet the cases of men who have been appointed permanently after the Government had suggested only temporary appointments were to be made. To meet that particular type of case this Clause had to be drafted. You then had to take the average of three years. That would ensure that appointments made for some time back after the suggestion had been made that permanent appointments should not be made, would be ruled by this three years' clause. That was the intention of the sub-section.

Does the Minister think that the intention is carried out in the drafting?

I think it is carried out; I am not quite sure that it does not go further. I would prefer to hold this over for further consideration; it is intended to meet the particular type of cases I have mentioned. I think there will be no disagreement that it is a proper clause for a particular type of case; it does appear to me to go beyond that case, and it would rule the ordinary man and not exceptional cases. Would the Deputy consent to withdraw the amendment and to have this point considered on Report?

Will the Minister explain what would be the position of the ordinary man, the permanent official—what would be the basis of his compensation?

I am afraid that if this clause is allowed to stay as it is the ordinary man would be ruled by it, and I am seeking to avoid that. I think the clause, as drafted, goes beyond the exceptional case. We shall have to consider how the ordinary man is affected by it and what is the attitude with regard to the ordinary man, and I suggest therefore that it had better be left over for the Report Stage.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendments 20 and 21 not moved.

I move:

To add after provision 8, page 34, a new provision as follows:—

"In any re-arrangements of the staffs engaged at the passing of this Act on or about the undertakings amalgamated or absorbed under this Act, the respective officers and servants of the amalgamating and absorbed companies shall have equal claims upon the consideration of the amalgamating or amalgamated company."

It is obvious that as between the staff of the amalgamating and absorbed companies who enter the service of an amalgamating company formed by a preliminary scheme, or eventually of the amalgamated company, equitable consideration in respect of promotion, selection and other matters should be shown to all persons, without fear or favour, and this amendment is proposed to secure this. The amendment does not prevent due consideration of merit, experience, etc.; it only discontinues favouritism, as, for instance, giving preference to a Great Southern and Western Railway man over a Cork and Bandon Railway man simply because he was a Great Southern and Western Railway man.

I am not sure that this is not one of the type of amendments previously described as not expressing fully the intention of the amender. What does it all amount to? It comes to this, that certain claims shall be considered; that is the effect of it. I do not think that that advances the position very much. The fact of the matter is that appointments should be decided by merit, and if the company is not going to allow merit to weigh with it as a consideration this amendment does not advance the position one step; it leaves things very much as they were.

I think the Minister has not given any good reason as to why a direction of this kind should not be included in the Bill. There is a general fear amongst the staffs employed in the comapnies to be absorbed, and in one particular company that apparently has not agreed to be absorbed up to the present in the amalgamation scheme, that they will be placed in a rather prejudiced position because of the attitude of the directors of their companies in not falling into line with the general demand of the Government in regard to this scheme. Quite apart from that I think it would be very advisable that a direction of this kind should be given to the directors of the newly amalgamated company so that they may have this to guide them in whatever may happen as a result of the amalgamated scheme being put into operation. It is not an uncommon thing to hear since this amalgamation scheme was first mooted that so and so is to be general manager, and so and so is to be cashier, and so and so is to be accountant, and so and so is to go on the scrap heap for such and such reasons. I think if you put in a direction of this kind, although it may not have any great effect upon some of the people who will dominate the new company, still it will show that there was in the minds of the Dáil at the passing of this Act a feeling that the directors of the new company should treat their staff fairly and squarely as a result of whatever reorganisation may take place.

Another aspect of this amendment is that it may go further than the mover intended. It says: "That the respective officers and servants of the amalgamating and absorbed companies shall have equal claims." The men in the lower grade shall have equal claim with men in the high grade.

Upon what?

Upon consideration. If it is only consideration it means nothing. If you seek to give a direction or anything of that sort you could give such a foolish direction and they can disregard it. Equal claims— high and low, are to be equal. And on the point generally I come back to what I previously said. I do not start off. if Deputy Davin does, with suspicion of the amalgamated undertaking, and I do not think it is feasible to insert every possible type of direction that you can give to a body of whom you are very suspicious. I prefer to have a Bill surrounded by a general atmosphere where equitable and just claims shall have consideration, and to leave that to the company. If you start issuing directions to provide against all sorts of contingencies that may happen on the basis that the amalgamated company is not to be trusted, then there will be no end to it.

The general atmosphere should be charged, it is suggested, with a little aroma of justice and without this general direction, if you like, that flavour may not be present. But the Minister has so faithfully followed the British precedent in the Bill in general that it might be well to inform him that the form of this amendment has in fact been inserted by the amalgamation tribunal in England in some of the schemes of amalgamation that were presented to that tribunal. This section in its actual phraseology has been transferred from such schemes as passed and were inserted at the instigation of the British Railway. Amalgamation Tribunal, and apparently it was thought necessary there, and it is believed to have had some good effect there, and because of that it is suggested it may have the same effect here and that it is equally necessary.

The Minister, referring to me, started off by assuming that I am generally of a suspicious nature in regard to everything that has been done, especially in a matter of this kind. I think it was Deputy Bryan Cooper, when speaking in the Dáil some time ago, rightly said that we were living in a country amongst suspicious people. Suspicion is created by something or other. It is created in this case, amongst the staffs generally, by a want of confidence that they will be dealt with fairly under the scheme that is to come into operation as a result of this Bill. If there is that suspicion, and if there is good reason for it, as I think there is in some cases, then I do not see that there is any justification for the Minister not putting into the Bill words of the kind suggested, although he has stated that they do not mean very much. If they do not mean very much, I do not see how there can be much objection to the insertion of particular words in the Bill. I have fifteen or seventeen years' experience in dealing with English and Irish managers, from a staff point of view, and I am sorry to have to say that nowhere have I found a greater suspicion, or one that is more justified, than there is in Ireland as between the staffs and the railway companies. I am sorry to have to say that. I hope, as a result of the passing of this Bill, that a new atmosphere will be created, and that the new Railway Lords, charged with the responsibility of making a success of this scheme, will create a greater spirit of confidence than has existed hitherto between the staffs and the companies. It would be well if we could start off with that new spirit, and if any advance has to be made in that direction, I say it must come from the top and not from the bottom.

I approach this subject with no suspicion of the good intentions of Deputy Davin in putting forward this amendment. I unwillingly say, in connection with this Bill, that I intend to support the Government against my friends on the Labour benches. The Schedule appears to me to afford complete protection of the rights of the staffs connected with all the amalgamating companies, and I do not think, unless the element of suspicion which Deputy Davin introduced into the matter arises, that the amendment is of any particular importance. You know that Labour men and labour generally are not above making use sometimes, to their own advantage, of particular sections, and I can quite imagine certain disgruntled employees making a lot out of this amendment. I do not think it adds anything to the protection of the servants or employees of the company as a whole. I do think its introduction might work against what Deputy Davin is advocating: the spirit of harmony that he proposes to introduce when this Bill is passed. I am not so clear that this Bill will do anything in that direction. However, I hope that my anticipations of the Bill as a whole will be disappointed.

Amendment put.
The Committee divided: Tá, 13; Níl, 35.

  • Seán Buitléir.
  • David Hall.
  • Connor Hogan.
  • Tomás Mac Eoin.
  • Risteárd Mac Fheorais.
  • Risteárd Mac Liam.
  • Tomás de Nógla.
  • Tomás O Conaill.
  • Aodh O Cúlacháin.
  • Liam O Daimhín.
  • Eamon O Dubhghaill.
  • Domhnall O Muirgheasa.
  • Pádraig O hOgáin (An Clár).

Níl

  • Richard H. Beamish.
  • Seoirse de Bhulch.
  • Próinsias Bulfin.
  • Séamus de Burca.
  • Máighréad Ní Choileáin Bean
  • Uí Dhrisceóil.
  • Patrick J. Egan.
  • Desmond Fitzgerald.
  • John Good.
  • John Hennigan.
  • William Hewat.
  • Alasdair Mac Cába.
  • Liam T. Mac Cosgair.
  • Pádraig Mac Fadáin.
  • Pádraig Mac Giollagáin.
  • Eoin Mac Néill.
  • Seoirse Mac Niocaill.
  • Liam Mac Sioghaird.
  • Liam Mag Aonghusa.
  • Pádraig Mag Ualghairg.
  • Martin M. Nally.
  • Peadar O hAodha.
  • Mícheál O hAonghusa.
  • Criostóir O Broin.
  • Seán O Bruadair.
  • Próinsias O Cathail.
  • Aodh Ua Cinnéidigh.
  • Partholán O Conchubhair.
  • Séamus N. O Dóláin.
  • Peadar S. O Dubhghaill.
  • Pádraig O Dubhthaigh.
  • Aindriú O Láimhín.
  • Fionán O Loingsigh.
  • Pádraig O Máille.
  • Seán M. O Súilleabháin.
  • Liam Thrift.
Amendment declared lost.
Question proposed: "That the Third Schedule, as amended, be added to the Bill."

I should like to have from the Minister a statement for the purpose of reassuring some of those railway employees who are suspicious that "officers and servants" does as a matter of fact include not only clerical staffs and the higher grade officers but employees in general. It seems so obvious that it should not be necessary to make a pronouncement on the matter, but I invite the Minister to make quite clear that this term, "officers and servants," means officers and servants.

Following what I said last night on the subject of the shopmen, I had in preparation an amendment to make this matter clear which I had hoped to have ready for the Committee Stage and which the Minister is ready to keep open for the Report Stage. The trouble, I understand, is that shopmen say that, according to usage, the term "railway servant" does not include them. Here the phrase is "any existing officer or servant," and their fear is, if the matter came to be construed by a court, that the established interpretation of the expression "railway servant" might be held to exclude them. I understand that is not the intention. There is an amendment in preparation for the Report Stage which I understand the Minister will favourably consider and which will make it quite clear that shopmen are included in the Schedule.

The explanation given by the Attorney-General will, I think, meet the point raised. It seems to be generally accepted that the word "servant" means every employee in a railway company. Such is not the case. "Railway servants" applies simply to those who are employed in the running of trains, such as drivers, firemen, etc. Shopmen are distinct, and apparently are not included in the Bill in that respect. Shopmen are the men employed in the manufacture and maintenance of railway rolling-stock and roads. As to the roads, there is a section of men, such as chairmen, who would also require to be included within the term "shopmen." If that were provided for I think it would satisfy the employees in the various railway works that they are being included.

The chairmen and permanent-way men referred to by Deputy Doyle are, without doubt, included within the scope of this particular Schedule. If it will ease anybody's mind that I should make a statement now, irrespective of what the Dáil may afterwards pass on the Report Stage, I may say that it is my intention to have "employees" in the widest sense taken as the basis of this Schedule. The words "officers and servants" were put down because it was thought that they included all types of employees. However, if an amendment is coming forward to make explicit what I believe to be implicit in this Schedule, it will be favourably considered on Report.

Question put, and agreed to.
Fourth Schedule ordered to be added to the Bill.

I beg to move:—

To delete form Part I. and to substitute in lieu thereof as follows:—

PART I.

GOODS AND MINERALS.

Class in respect of Merchandise to which charges are applicable

Standard Rates for Conveyance

Standard Terminals

For the first 50 miles or part thereof

For the remainder of the distance

Station Terminal at each end

Service Terminals*

Loading

Unloading

per ton per mile, minimum charge.

per ton per mile

per ton

per ton

per ton

1

2

3

4

* Service Terminals not to be charged when work is performed by consignor or consignee.

I am afraid the Minister will rule this out of order as being technical, but the object is to simplify the rates so that the ordinary public may know exactly what they are being charged for the carriage of goods. In the Schedule itself there is a charge first for so many miles, which is not specified, then for the next so many miles, and so on. What I wish is that the charge be stated for the first 50 miles, so that a trader will be able to calculate without going to the railway company to know what the carriage on his goods will be. If my amendment be adopted it will be possible for Deputy Hewat and Deputy Good to be in a position to say exactly what the carriage will be on any goods they may be selling. If they rely on the railway rates they will always be in a mist. As nearly every article which is being sent by rail will be going a distance of 50 miles or over, I think there is a good deal to be said for the amendment. With regard to the animal classes, I wish that the farmers should know what they are being charged per head, per half truck or per truck for the carriage of animals. If we have to go on the Schedule in the Bill it would be difficult to know what is being charged.

Will we take the two amendments, 23 and 24 together?

Yes, the same idea is underlying both. The second amendment is as follows:—

To delete form Part II. and to substi tute in lieu thereof as follows:—

PART II.

ANIMAL CLASS.

Description

Rate for Conveyance per mile

Station Terminal at each end

Service* Terminals

Minimum charge as for animals

For the first 50 miles or part thereof

For the remainder of the distance

Loading

Unloading

per head

part truck

truck load

per head

part truck

truck load

Pigs

Lambs

Sheep and Goats

Calves

Store Cattle

Fat Cattle

Horses

Asses

Ponies

Mules

* Service Terminals not to be charged when work is performed by consignor or consignee.

I am rather amazed to find that I have been ruling things out of discussion. I suppose what the Deputy means is that there are certain things which I have refused to consider because they were highly technical, and I urged that they were matters for the Tribunal which is to deal with these technical things, and not for this Dáil, intelligent as its members are. I do urge that argument here. This is a very technical matter. I go further and say the amendment is going to defeat certain objects that the Party, of which Deputy Wilson is a member, has set before it. He is going to rule out a very important principle upon which these charges depend, what is known as the tapering principle. That decides that the charge per mile decreases as the distance increases. Deputy Wilson's amendment would make the same rate for the first fifty miles, or part thereof. That is to say, he would not have this graduated application of the tapering principle. If Deputy Wilson will look at the Schedule which he seeks to defeat by his amendment he will see that the mileage is left blank. That is to say, we have left an opportunity for Deputy Wilson's Party to go before the Tribunal and argue this point. We have not in any way prejudiced any application that may be made by giving directions to the Tribunal, and we do not ask the Dáil to express any opinion. These are specimen forms in the Bill, and are to be implemented as a result of argument before the Tribunal by interested parties. No doubt Deputy Wilson will make his case there with great vehemence. It is not for the Dáil to determine technical matters of this kind. These are specimen forms to form the basis of discussion, and it is for the expert tribunal to decide the point which Deputy Wilson puts forward for consideration now.

Is not the main consideration that a man when paying freights should know what they are based on? He should know that the freight would be so much per ton per mile. If a person goes into a shop to buy goods there is no such thing as a tapering rate. On the score of simplicity, I maintain that merchants who are members of the Dáil ought to support this amendment, as it will enable them to know railway charges and rates.

Deputy Wilson has put forward his amendment on the grounds that he aims at a simplification of the tables submitted in the Schedule. There is not very much difference between Deputy Wilson's form and the one in the Schedule, except that in his there are less columns. The general outline aimed at is one of elasticity in connection with the control and management of railways. The Committee ought to be quite clear that the handling of goods by railway companies does not necessarily, nor as a rule, depend on mileage at all. There are various considerations operating in connection with the fixing of a rate. Supposing you take a distance of 50 or 100 miles, and that the consignor was prepared to send large loads, say hundreds of tons, which is usual in many cases, it is certainly to the interests of the railway company that a large volume of traffic should be sent, and the inducement is often made by the railway company in the form of concessions for long hauls and heavy loads. When you come to stereotype tables on the basis of mileage, such tables do not appear to me to deal with the big question at all. That is largely my criticism of the working of this Bill. I suppose the tribunal must have latitude in coming to decisions in matters of this sort as regards the different rates for different articles, but when the tables are compiled they will be very complicated, and much more so than in the case of the individual railways that operate at present. The individual railway has a very considerable amount of latitude to-day in dealing with the volume of trade in which it is particularly concerned. I think this proposal is not going to help traders very much when there is no real latitude for meeting special cases in a special way. It may be said that it is not desirable that there should be special cases and that the charges should be operated on a sort of flat rate where no one is going to get an advantage over his neighbour. Business cannot be carried on on these lines because the volume of traffic must not only be beneficial to the man able to handle the big volume of traffic, but also beneficial to the railway company that arranges to carry it. Economy of working is very necessary. The Minister for Finance deplored recently the number of small parcels that came into the Free State. In the same way, if a railway is going to operate on a basis in which it does not matter whether a man sends a big or a little parcel, as he is going to be charged pro rata, that is bad for the railway company and bad for trade generally.

I was hoping we would hear from Deputy Wilson or Deputy Hewat the reason for the recommendation in respect of the fifty miles radius, which is taken as the standard, and I take it there would be a gradual reduction in the price. We have heard no reason why that should be done. I do not know whether either of the Deputies has ever seen the rates book belonging to the railway companies. I understand it is exceedingly complicated, and I observe that Deputy Good, who is supposed to be the last word in wisdom, in this matter especially, nods his head in a sort of mute acquiescence in what I say about that. He has, apparently, some experience of it. With regard to this question of stereotyping, in a way different from what we propose that the tribunal should do, I should certainly deprecate that. The tribunal will certainly require to be expert, expert in its knowledge of the subject itself, expert in its analysis of the charges that should be made, and expert in its comprehensive survey of the needs of the country. I think Deputy Wilson, having regard to the amendment that was down previously and which would seek to give advantage to that particular profession or calling he represents here so ably, would defeat his own purpose were he to press this amendment, or at least he would endanger the purpose of the previous amendment which sought to give a preference to agriculture. The economic condition of the country is one of the considerations the tribunal will require to have in its mind. I do not know if one fixed the fifty mile run as a standard that that would suit the precise interests of the agricultural communities. I learned, in the matter of housing, that there was always a mean in the matter of the size of a house, and below that size one did not get value for the money, and above it one had to pay a little more than might otherwise be charged. That is what is sought to be set up in this matter of the fifty-mile run. Has it been considered from the point of view of the mean? If so, I would have no objection to accept that part of the amendment, but I think in the absence of expert information on this point that the Dáil would be ill-advised to accept the amendment.

After the speech of Deputy Hewat, which professed to help me but left me worse than I was in the beginning, and after the President's remarks also that it is a technical matter, I have only to say that the outstanding feature I had in my mind was the mean of an average run, and it is calculated on that, but as it is so technical it might not be a very good thing to tie the hands of the tribunal, and I am willing to withdraw the amendment.

I am always thirsting for information, especially over this Railway Bill. I have been all along impressed by the President's eulogy of the powers and abilities of this tribunal that is going to be set up, this Pooh Bah arrangement. What I wanted to ask the President, but I see that he is not in his place, is what do they want with directors or general managers in this new scheme, for the tribunal seems to be everything?

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Agreed that the fifth, sixth and seventh Schedules stand part of the Bill.
EIGHTH SCHEDULE.
GRADES TO WHICH PART IV. OF THE ACT APPLIES.

Section

Group

Grades Embraced

1

Station Masters

Station Masters, Goods Agents, Yard Masters, Assistant Yard Masters, Passenger and Parcels Agents.

Clerks

Clerks (Male and Female).

Supervisors

Traffic Department Inspectors, Goods Department Inspectors and Foremen, Permanent Way Inspectors, Signal and Telegraph Inspectors, Locomotive Foremen, Locomotive Running Inspectors, Carriage and Wagon Inspectors, Ticket Inspectors.

2

Signalmen, etc.

Signalmen, Crossing Keepers.

Guards, etc.

Passenger Guards, Goods Guards, Ballast Guards, Passenger Shunters, Goods Shunters, Yard Foremen.

Traffic Staff

Cloakroom and L.P.O. Attendants, Excess Luggage Collectors, Station Foremen, Porters, Parcels Foremen, Parcels Porters, Ticket Collectors, Head Porters, Messengers.

Goods Staff

Checkers, Callers-off, Porters, Working Foremen, Head Porters.

Cartage Staff

Carters, Road Motor Drivers, Working Foremen.

Carriage and Wagon Examiners.

Carriage Examiners, Chargemen, Wagon Examiners, Carriage and Wagon Oilers and Greasers.

3

Drivers, etc.

Engine Drivers, and Rail Motor Men, Firemen, Cleaners.

Shed Staff, etc.

Chargemen Engine Cleaners, Barmen, Boilerwashers, Callers-Up, Coalmen, Cranemen, Fire-droppers, Gland Packers, Pumping Enginemen, Sandmen, Shed Labourers, Steam Raisers, Stores Issuers, Timekeepers (Non-clerical), Tube Cleaners.

4

Gangers, etc.

Gangers (Permanent Way), Platelayers, Inspectors, Timekeepers, Labourers, Toolmen.

Signal and Telegraph Linemen, etc.

Chief Linemen, Chargemen, Linemen, Gangers (Signal and Telegraph), Installers, Labourers, Wireman and Fixers.

I move:—

In line 7, before the words "traffic department inspectors," in the group "supervisors," 3rd column, to insert the words "traffic controllers."

I may be asked if I could point to any particular place where traffic controllers are at present employed, and to be quite candid, I say I cannot. But the designation of railway officers and servants, and their classification, is so difficult to determine and so often changed, that if it is more convenient or cheaper for a railway company to designate one of its employees who to-day may be a stationmaster or supervisor, a traffic controller, then we have no doubt the officials of the company would do so in order to lighten the burden of their finances. It is thought desirable that this particular body of traffic controllers should be catered for, and in the absence of any good reason to the contrary, I hope the Minister will see his way to accept the amendment.

The only reason to the contrary is that indicated by Deputy Davin that I do not know of any such class as traffic controllers. I suppose it is no harm to give way to Deputy Davin's imagination, and as he believes there is such a thing as a traffic controller we will accept the amendment here.

Amendment agreed to.
Question—"That this Schedule, as amended, be the Eighth Schedule of the Bill"—put and agreed to.
NINTH SCHEDULE.
PAYMENTS IN RESPECT OF BARONIAL GUARANTEES.
PART I.PART II.PART III.

Amount to be Paid by the Minister to the Amalgamated Company in each of the following years.

Amounts to be Paid by the following County Councils to the Minister in each year from 1925 to 1934, inclusive.

Amount to be Paid out of the Local Taxation A/c. to the Minister in each year from 1925 to 1934, inclusive.

Year.

£

£

£

1925

48,688

Cavan

666

1926

48,688

Clare

4,320

1927

48,688

Cork

4,823

1928

48,688

Galway

802

6,804

1929

48,688

Kerry

4,200

1930

47,288

Leitrim

4,221

1931

47,288

Mayo

866

1932

47,288

1933

47,288

Amount to be Paid by the undermentioned County Council to the Minister in each year from 1925 to 1929 inclusive:

1934

47,288

Tipperary, South Riding

£1,400

I am afraid Deputy Good is endeavouring to increase enormously the expenditure contemplated by the Money Resolution in making the Minister pay £29,000 a year for nearly 100 years. I do not think it could be done.

Amendment 28, I take it, is governed by Section 60, subsection (2).

I think one failed yesterday as I was not able to explain it.

The amendment was ruled out of order yesterday.

No, it was not ruled out of order.

Amendment 28 not moved.

I move:—

"To amend Part II. by altering the figures ‘1934' where they first occur to ‘2023.'"

In moving this I feel I am at a disadvantage, because when the amendment of mine referred to by Deputy O'Sullivan was under consideration yesterday I had to be elsewhere, and I asked Deputy Hewat to be good enough to move it for me. When I came back I asked him what success he had met with, and he said that he got up, but he did not understand it, and he added that neither did the President understand it. I am sorry that I was not here to try and make the Dáil understand it, though when two such expert accountants as the President and Deputy Hewat could not see the object of it, I am afraid my poor efforts would have been unavailing. However, the point arises to some extent under this amendment. It proposes to amend Part II. by altering the figures 1934 where they first occur to 2023. Now, the object of that amendment, A Chinn Comhairle, is that instead of limiting the contribution of the baronies which will be paid to the Minister, and by the Minister to the amalgamated company —instead of limiting that contribution on the part of the baronies to ten years as the Bill proposes, this amendment seeks to extend that liability on the part of the baronies up to a period of 99 years. When we were discussing in the early stages of this Bill the liability of the baronies it was pointed out that in addition to limiting this liability to ten years, as I have pointed out, the whole amount of the losses accruing from the working of the baronial railways was estimated by three of the amalgamating companies; and in their statement they say that it is only an estimate, but that it is a carefully considered estimate; and they estimate the losses on these undertakings at £90,000 per annum. Of that loss the Government proposes to contribute £48,000 for a period of ten years; and the balance of £41,000 is to be made up by the amalgamated company, and that after the period of ten years that contribution from the Government of £49,000 and the liability for it practically ceases, and the whole liability is then to be borne by the amalgamated company. Now, that strikes one as being rather unfair to commercial interests, because it is obvious that liabilities which should in the ordinary way be borne by the ratepayers concerned are transferred at the end of ten years to the backs of the amalgamated company. I have yet to understand why it is fair in the first place to burden commerce to this extent. No reason has been given why it is a reasonable attitude to adopt. But apart from any question of reasoning, it appears to me to raise a rather important and dangerous principle—that is, the lifting of the liability off a series of areas and transferring that liability on to the amalgamated undertaking. These liabilities were undertaken by these baronies with the full knowledge of their responsibility; and if these enterprises have turned out unsatisfactory in these areas, that is no reason why they should not be called upon to carry on the burden arising out of an unsatisfactory enterprise in which they are engaged. Yet, that is the principle that this Bill sets up. Now, arguing from that point of view yesterday afternoon in connection with the Dublin and Blessington Tramway, or Railway—I am not sure which it was called—I am not sure that it was not called both—Deputy Johnson pointed out, and I think very properly, that you had done certain things for certain baronies, and that you had done nothing for others. That is a fair argument, and that is a fair inference to draw from the principle that this Bill sets up. There is no reason if you are going to relieve liability in one barony why another barony should not come forward and say to you: "What are you going to do for us?" And once you enter upon that line of argument there is no reason why it should be confined to baronies, why it should not go to other areas. There is no reason why people in the municipal area in which we live at the moment should not come forward and say: "Why don't you do something for us? Why, for instance, don't you take off us the liability that we are under for losses in connection with the Stanley Street Workshops?" Once you get to this argument there is no end to which it could not be applied and applied with reason. Therefore, I hold that it is unfair to relieve these baronies of this burden at the end of ten years and, as I said, cast the burden on to the backs of the amalgamated group. Therefore, I propose this amendment that the baronies should continue to give their contribution for a period of 99 years, and that instead of the liability becoming extinct, as the Bill proposes, at the end of ten years, it should continue altogether for a total period of 99 years. And I move accordingly.

I think I owe Deputy Good an apology for some of the insinuations I uttered yesterday in connection with the motion standing in his name. And I must say that, for my part, I realise the ability with which Deputy Hewat dealt with it. I think Deputy Good did not give him any instructions, and I relied upon my memory, which is not perhaps the last word in reliability, in the matter of figures. I understood that the amendment yesterday proposed to increase the payment which we have set out in the Bill by 50 per cent. I believe I may have misled Deputy Hewat, and I want to apologise to him, because I assured him yesterday that the amendment would not effect the purpose that he had in mind. But I think now that it would, and it is due to him that I should say so. We should deal with the merits of the proposal in the Bill, and to some extent this amendment enables us to do that. We fixed, for many reasons, on the 1913 burden which was borne by these baronies. It was taken as a sort of standard year. It was accepted as a standard year by the British Government in the period of control. And, generally speaking, it would be difficult to get a more normal figure in considering this question of liability. Two years ago the loss on these undertakings was something in the neighbourhood of £107,000. Last year that loss was down to £30,000. That is a very remarkable reduction in loss in one year. The figure which is circulated by the three companies mentioned by Deputy Good is only an estimate after a careful examination. I do not think any businessman would accept a figure surrounded with such terminology as that. I think one would be prepared to say that is was "more or less." Deputy Good does not agree with that. I should like to know what his opinion would be, if he were the person immediately concerned, about taking an estimate of that sort, if he was selling these baronial lines. The Deputy does not shake his head at that, and therefore I take it that I have scored a point there. These baronial lines were constructed with the guarantee of the persons in question. And all these persons who were in a position of authority to give that sanction anticipated, I am sure, that there would be some sort of efficient management both in the construction of the lines, in their management, and in their working, and that their liability, although they were prepared to guarantee some sums on the capital and on the working, would never be called on to the extent to which it has been called. Now, those lines under the Bill assume a new character. They become part of a unified undertaking. Yesterday I had to resist from Deputy Hogan a most ingenious amendment, which I think a good deal could be said for. That amendment suggested that separate accounts should be kept, and that if the losses were reduced, the baronies in question would get the advantage of the reduction, and be called upon to pay a lesser sum.

I take it the new unified undertaking would scarcely subscribe to that proposition, because of the expense involved in getting the exact figure. The expense of management, the fact that they were separate undertakings, and all the circumstances of the case, must be viewed in relation to this particular loss of £30,000 last year, which, in the opinion of experts, will gradually become less and disappear. In these circumstances, and bearing in mind the fact that the baronies have uncomplainingly paid their share in respect of these losses for a great number of years, we think that ten years is a fair measure of time to determine this particular liability on the part of those baronies.

The success or the non-success of the Stanley Street workshops does not come into this except to this extent: In the case of the Stanley Street workshops there are overhead charges of a variety and number which would appal Deputy Good.

I am sure.

In my time an effort was made to find out the cost of each article. No business man would do it, because of the expense. That is what, to some extent, was suggested in Deputy Hogan's amendment yesterday—this intensive method which would give us particulars of balances and charges and so on, and so enable us to form a correct picture in ten years' time. The year 1913 was a fair year to fix on. These liabilities were borne long before 1913. The advantages to be derived from amalgamation, and the cutting off of all incidental expenses inseparable from the management of thirteen or fourteen or fifteen companies, would unquestionably enable these undertakings to present a very different picture at the end of ten years than they do present to-day. In any case I think the baronies themselves still regard with horror such an idea as that. They do serve a purpose to the unified undertaker. They are feeders. That could not be said for the undertaking we discussed yesterday. They do contribute some quota to the general advantage of this unified undertaking.

It is unnecessary to go into the question of whether they benefit any concern at all. Those concerns do bring business, and they do bring advantages to the other railways. I think that particular advantage was not in mind at the time when the proposition was put up that these particular lines should be constructed. It is a question of a bargain, a question of weighing up the advantages and disadvantages on both sides, the general trend of affairs, and the fact that these particular out-of-the-way places ought not to be placed at a still greater disadvantage by reason of isolation from big industrial or business centres. There had to be some consideration for them, having regard to that.

On the whole. I think the proposal in the Bill is a fair and most equitable one which will not burden commerce. Commerce must remember that this Bill has been entirely designed in the interests of commerce and the business of the country. I think an examination of the return that is being issued by the Minister, showing the relation of their working expenses to receipts, will indicate that there is room for much more efficient management, and the doubts of Deputy Good with regard to the management of these lines under the unified undertaking will be removed in time, and they will show a better relation to the costs, even though no actual figures are submitted at the end of five or ten years to prove that.

This is a rather knotty problem, but the amendment as now explained by the originator takes a very different form to what we were considering in another amendment which I passed by as not being quite comprehensible to me. Deputy Good's amendment objects to relieving the baronies within ten years of the liability which accrues to them under the amalgamation of the railways. One has to ask why should they be relieved? Any one of the railways was built for a specific purpose on specific terms, and if this Amalgamation Bill was not before the Dáil, as an ordinary business transaction any one or other of the bigger railway companies might reasonably be expected to absorb lines running with their systems into a bigger system. That is what has been in operation all over the country for a number of years. Why have they not done so?

I presume it is that the terms that could be arranged as between the two companies were not satisfactory to the bigger concerns, taking everything into consideration as feeders to the main line, etc. At all events, if it is necessary for the Government to come along and say to the railway companies: "No matter what you think of this proposition, you must shoulder it," you are calling upon them to shoulder a burden which, commercially, they are not bound to undertake at all. You place these unsatisfactory baronial railways on the amalgamated railway. That according to your Bill does not matter to the amalgamated companies because of the financial arrangements which provide for their receiving a revenue. Consequently, as Deputy Good says, you are throwing the burden on the traders to pay for the loss that accrues on these railways. The President has said that there is hope, under more efficient management, of these railways doing better. I quite agree with that. In connection with the amendment that was proposed from the Labour benches yesterday, they seemed to anticipate that with better management the lines would do better, and they claimed that returns should be given to them of better results from the better management. I ask, why has not that better management been put into operation long ago, and who is responsible? As far as these baronially-guaranteed lines are concerned, I think the people who pay the piper have representation on the railways. If the loss is due to bad management, surely the baronies, through their representatives, must take the blame for that loss fully and completely. Now, what happens to any undertaking that does not pay its way? Is a railway company, because it is a railway company, in any different position from any other commercial concern? For years the electricity undertaking in Dublin was chargeable on the rates. If it continued to be a charge on the rates, would it be reasonable for them to call upon the Government to take it over, or get somebody to take it over by compulsion? I do not think that would be sound, and it would not be entertained at all. Therefore, the proposition compelling the amalgamated company to take over those railways, must be based on some particular aspect of the question, applying to them only, and not on a general principle. Supposing I built a railway and ran that railway at a loss, commercially, what would happen? I would come to the end of my tether, and in the ordinary business course of events I would go into liquidation. Somebody would buy the railway company, and somebody, I suppose, would get it at a price at which it would pay them to run it. In this case, what we are doing is: we are compelling the amalgamated company to take over those baronially guaranteed railways, run them at a loss, whether it is £90,000 or £30,000 does not affect the principle. It is only a different figure. At all events, it appears that the prospect of making a profit out of the railways is very remote, and we are going to make not the whole of the country pay but the commercial community. You are going to make the commercial people pay for it. Obviously the amalgamated company are not going to pay it out of revenue.

Whatever the charge will be, it is going to affect the rates at which our goods will be carried through the country. It does seem to me that that needs a very special case made out for it. I fail to see that there has been a special case made out for it. Certainly it is a hardship on the baronies to be made pay for what they guaranteed. It is a hardship on any of us to pay debts. I find it a hardship to pay rates, and I do not see that there is anybody coming along with a kindly spirit that would relieve me from the necessity of paying them. I do not see where the argument comes in when you say, "You big railway companies amalgamate; we are going to saddle you with this, but you are not going to be at a loss, you are to get back the money from the traders, and meantime we will give you a sop towards the expenses of these railways." I think it is unsound, and, carried to its logical conclusion, would mean a very big thing for the country generally. I think it would go very far on the road to the Socialism that our friends on the Labour Benches look forward to as the happy climax in which we would all be happy. We are going to relieve the baronies; we are really going to rob Peter to pay Paul, and do not make any mistake about that.

Deputy Hewat says that the amendment objects to relieving the baronies. But what does it propose to do? To fix the burden on the baronies for ninety-nine years, to pay so much for ninety-nine years to the amalgamated company. If the loss is decreased, that does not matter. The burden must continue for ninety-nine years. If, as a result of the increase of trade, there is improvement and a gain in the running of the line, and on all that particular portion of the line, the baronies derive no benefit, and they must pay. This is the moral argument that has been put up by Deputy Hewat, that we have listened to now. They are quite safe when the baronies are paying for ninety-nine years, notwithstanding the fact that for the past few years there has been a decreasing loss. If you keep to the strict letter of the law, there is only one real alternative, and that is the one that Deputy Hogan put forward yesterday, namely, the setting up of a costing system. What will be the result of that? It would be an inducement to continue the inefficiency in the working of the lines. That would not be good for the amalgamated companies, and certainly not for the baronies. It would be no use for the management to do that. Why should they trouble to make an effort at greater efficiency, because they need not do it, being already guaranteed? What the amendment now proposes to do is not to continue that old system. What it does is to fix a certain loss on the baronies, no matter what the trade is. The baronies must pay that for ninety-nine years.

Deputy Hewat seems to have a false conception of the reason the management did not work wonders on the baronially guaranteed lines. He talks about representation on these baronially guaranteed lines. But it was the majority that was responsible for the management. The representation was as three to five. The five were responsible for the management of the line and for the loss. I expect they were businessmen, seeing that they were securing a dividend of four per cent. upon the money that they, or the people they represented, had invested in these lines. Of course, as Deputy O'Sullivan has pointed out, there is also another reason why the management was not good. The four per cent. was guaranteed, and the rates had to bear the burden of the loss and also the burden of the dividends.

Deputy Good is horrified at the idea that any burden should be put upon the unified company. He does not seem to think that there was anything horrible in putting a burden upon the ratepayers for 40 years, and to add on another 99 years. They have borne a severe loss for 40 years, and that burden, as I pointed out yesterday—and it cannot be repeated too often—was put upon them by people who were nonrepresentative, absolutely non-representative. If you take the opinion of the people who now do represent the districts through which these lines pass you will find that the concensus of opinion is in favour of taking this burden off. I disagree with the Government's proposal to keep it on for ten years; it will be unnecessary, because these lines ought to pay for themselves in a shorter time, and that should be found out early, but to impose it for ninety-nine years is a great absurdity.

I think the Deputy does not clearly understand the situation. He talks about the burden having been placed on these baronies, but surely the obligation to undertake this burden on their part was a voluntary one. If it were not, who could have placed the burden on them?

The Grand Juries.

Does he mean to argue that the burden was placed upon them in spite of their own desire?

Mr. HOGAN

There was very little "voluntary" when the Grand Juries existed.

With all respect, these were voluntary obligations undertaken by the baronies, and during the whole discussion on the Bill no point to the contrary has ever been put forward.

Mr. HOGAN

Does the Deputy hold that the Grand Juries represented the small ratepayers?

I do not intend to discuss the question of Grand Juries at all. If we were to do so we would need to start earlier in the day. We are dealing with those obligations that were voluntarily undertaken by the baronies. I do not like to call this matter a blot; it was called yesterday by a member of the Government "a blister placed on the back of the amalgamated company." When this blister is exposed we hear other things with regard to these obligations that we have not heard before. As I understand it, and I have to be convinced to the contrary, these obligations were voluntary, undertaken by the baronies in order to get these railway enterprises established. When these enterprises have turned out commercially unsatisfactory, they want to get out of the burden. It would be delightful for every commercial man, for other local bodies if you like, to enter enterprises of this character and if they did not turn out satisfactorily, to come to the Dáil with a poor mouth and say: "Oh, you must take this burden off us; we went into the enterprises with the best intentions, but unfortunately they have turned out badly." Then the President comes along as a result of such ad misericordiam appeals, and by means of a Bill like this transfers this blister from the baronies to the back of the amalgamated company, and from the back of the amalgamated company on to the unfortunate commercial community.

The President has dealt, as he did on a previous occasion, fairly fully with this question of the estimates. This estimate of £90,000 is a figure that has been troubling the President; in fact, I think it was troubling him before the Bill was introduced, and it has been a serious trouble to him all the time that the Bill has been under discussion. We are informed by three companies, three responsible companies who are parties to this document—I will give you the whole paragraph so that there shall be no doubt about it: "The annual liability"—speaking of the baronially-guaranteed lines—"including interest on capital and loss on working involved in the ownership of the 19 undertakings in question amount, according to a careful estimate, to approximately £90,000, and but little reduction of the charge can be counted on with any degree of certainty as the result of amalgamation." Then they go on to say, in case it should be alleged that I had not read the essential parts of this document: "The amalgamating companies are quite willing to undertake the operation of these lines as part of the amalgamated system on behalf of the Government and without profit, but they contended and still urge strongly that in the public interest"— those unfortunates engaged in commerce—"that in the public interest as well as that of the shareholders they should not be called upon to shoulder an actual loss." These are people who have been engaged all their lives running railways and who know what they are talking about, and when people such as they send out a statement of that character I think we must recognise the knowledge and experience that they have in these matters.

So much for the estimate. I pointed out that we were entering on a dangerous and slippery slope in setting up a precedent of this character whereby we removed the liabilities from certain areas and put them on to the backs of commerce. The President has not given us any reason whatever for embarking on such a dangerous precedent. I hold that it is a most dangerous precedent. He has told us, and I quite agree with him, that the baronies would be horrified at my proposal. Naturally, if the baronies are going to get rid of this blister at the end of ten years, and my amendment proposes to continue that blister for a further period of 89 years, I would say the baronies would be lunatics if they would not be horrified at my proposal. It is a natural consequence and there is nothing new in that, I think; in fact, I think that if a similar proposal were put up to the Dáil, sensible men as we believe ourselves to be, we would even be horrified at it. But because certain areas are horrified it is no proof whatever that the principle is a wise one. I say the principle is a most dangerous one. We heard from Deputy Johnson last night, one aspect of it; I am sure in the weeks and months to come we will hear from other Deputies other applications of the same principle, and if we acceded to them in one case how could we refuse them in other cases? I warned the President that in opening the door to relieve these baronies he is establishing a principle that may lead us into considerable difficulty. The President says that this will not burden commerce; the President is usually exceedingly logical in his remarks, but I certainly cannot follow him on this occasion, when he says that by placing this blister on the back of the amalgamated company he is not burdening commerce. Is the inference of that that there will be no blister? If there will be no liability attaching to these baronial lines, why touch them at all? In the opinion of those who are competent to form an estimate on that matter, they are going to be a blister for all time. They hold that the proposals will be uneconomic, and if they will be —and nobody has argued to the contrary as far as I have heard except Deputy O'Sullivan, who could see sunshine in the distance—

Would the Deputy discuss his own amendment? That is really the only point.

My amendment is to extend the burden on these baronial railways from 10 years to 99 years, and I was pointing out that before the 99 years had expired, Deputy O'Sullivan was arguing that these lines which are uneconomic at the moment, would be economic and producing a profit, and that we had not taken that into account. I think that was quite in order. Some of us can possibly only see a number of years ahead, and we see during these years no likelihood of these losses being turned into profit. But Deputy O'Sullivan, with that longer sight of his, can see away into the dark distances where we cannot see, and see those profits that we hope for but cannot see. The President told us that certain economies were to be looked for. Doubtless there may be certain economies achieved in certain departments, but where are the economies that are going to set aside £90,000 a year? Here we have a burden of £90,000 a year placed on the amalgamated companies. Where are there economies on the other side to cover that additional liability of £90,000? I want to give as fair a view of this measure as I can. I have listened very carefully to all the discussions, and we have heard the views of different sections of the Dáil. Deputy Johnson told us in no unmeasured terms that we need not look for any reduction in railway rates as a result of this Bill; that we need not look for any economies. The farmers were not so pessimistic, but they were not very optimistic; they told us that things were so bad at present that the Bill could not make them any worse. We amongst the independents did not keep our light in any way under a bushel. We told the Dáil plainly that from our knowledge and experience we were quite sure no reductions would follow as a result of this measure, and it is only on the Government benches that there has been any optimism at all.

I will try to be brief. Either Deputy Good is standing on the basis of the present agreement or he is not. If he is not, what is the high moral tone that he has assumed right through about undermining the foundation of society? If he is, what justification has he for ignoring the present agreement and permanently fixing this burden on baronies for 99 years. You cannot stand with one foot on the agreement and with the other foot ignoring it.

That is the essence of the matter. We are depriving the baronies of any right to have their accounts audited for 10 years. That is number one. I will now proceed to give the knock out entirely to this amendment. As I understand the amendment, if passed, it will come to this, that the Minister for Industry and Commerce gets for 99 years a sum in excess of the amount down in this Schedule by 50 per cent. from the baronies, but where he is to put it has not transpired. It does not go into the pockets of the new undertaking, and where that infirmity can be corrected, if it is passed on the Committee Stage, I do not know.

That was an infirmity I was unfortunately let into yesterday for which the President is partly responsible.

This is the position. The passing of this amendment now is no relief to an unfortunate commercial man who is groaning under the heavy rates he has to pay at present, and which three or four years of intense intellectual agitation has not managed to reduce by one per cent. He has produced and evolved a measure which finds no response in the sympathetic hearts of businessmen. He is going to do for them what their activities on their own behalf could not do for themselves. Yesterday, at the Chamber of Commerce meeting, they blazed forth on these and other matters. I have not had time to read the report, but in my spare moments I am quite sure that I might possibly be able to amuse myself with the criticisms of the Bill. What does the proposal come to? It comes to this. In equity are we entitled to fix a burden such as this, supposing the infirmities of the amendment were rectified, and it were made fool proof, without knowing what the possible effects on those undertakings will be ten years from now? Are we entitled to saddle the baronies in question for ninety-nine years with the burden they bore in 1913? I do not think so. I do not think it would be just. As to my reference a short time ago to bad management, I would like to correct that to this extent, that the very existence of fourteen of those undertakings, situated, as they are, in various parts of the country, run as public companies, lends itself to a management that cannot be looked upon as perfect, but when they are linked up with one big unified undertaking, which does not mean separate staffs for various matters of management, I think there will be bound to be some savings and limitation of the excessive costs that these companies are the heir to, and that are inseparable where there are fourteen or fifteen undertakings, all away from one another, having no interest in one another, and all having different boards of management, however good the management might be. Deputy Hewat said if he were the proprietor of one of those undertakings, and did not succeed in making it an economic proposition, he would go out of the business. That is exactly what is happening here, they are being put out of business. Is it suggested for a moment that they should be scrapped, that we should close them? I think that would not be in accordance with modern methods of business. What is the contribution we are making? The Government is making its maximum contribution. The baronies are asked to pay that which they paid in 1913, which they were asked to pay during the war period, and which was generally looked upon as a fair figure. The new unified undertaking is to be given the average of its receipts for three years, the three years being 1913 and two other years. Are we entitled as businessmen to subscribe to giving the shareholders a return on an average of three years, of which 1913 is one, and to refuse the same liability in respect of baronies at the same time? If there were a marked line of difference between these two there should be some grounds for it. With regard to the estimate of £90,000, £30,000 was lost last year in addition to this £38,000, that is £78,000 in all. £90,000 is mentioned, and it is mentioned after a careful estimate. I put it to any member of that great community in the country which contributes 75 per cent. of the wealth of the country, if he is selling a cow, a horse, or any other animal, is he not going to put its virtues and qualities to a stranger at a much higher valuation than if he were speaking about it to his wife or son?

If he is going to buy something does he not reduce the value of it, and is not that always done according to a careful estimate? I take it that if Deputy Good were buying these baronial lines he would have carefully estimated that there was a loss of about £90,000 on them. If he were selling them a very different picture would be set forth, and that is really the case in this business: that the unified company naturally discounts the value of these concerns. It has no interest in them, and it puts the losses at a much higher figure than what they are. Even those who issued that statement will admit that the careful estimate prepared is an over-estimate, and they will admit further that bringing these baronial railways into the new undertaking is a very different proposition to leaving them outside; that it is a fair bargain—a ten years' contribution of £48,000, and that at the end of ten years the loss that will have to be borne by the unified company will not be a dead loss. There is one other thing I wish to say, and it is this: on the Benches opposite there are people sitting who have as much interest in a reduction of rates as the commercial people. The commercial people have heard the oft-repeated statement of the Minister for Agriculture, and I am sure they accept it as correct, that 75 per cent. of the wealth of this country is produced by those represented on the Benches on the far side. I was considering that point of view a few moments ago in my own mind, and certainly the impression left on my mind was this—that the two representatives of commerce in this House have much more the appearance of millionaires than the gentlemen who represent 75 per cent. of the wealth of the country.

I hope that the President, in coming to that conclusion, is not following the example of taking the book by the cover.

The President, I think, has spoken to Deputy Good's amendment and, inferentially, to Deputy Good himself in the language of the market place. In view of the very high-principled argument that Deputy Good used, I think it is worth following on the same line. Deputy Good disclaimed the insinuation that he was talking the language of the market place, and he feared that the adoption of the proposal in the Bill, and the rejection of his own amendment, would lead to destruction, and that it would lead to the road which he feared Deputies on these Benches would desire to get on to. He suggested that this proposal in the Bill was something new, because the baronies had, whether with a full sense of their responsibilities or by irresponsible authority or what not, entered into an arrangement to build railways and to give guarantees to the shareholders in these railways. The Deputy says that they must be kept to their bond, and that if you decide by legislative action to interfere in any way with that bond then you are getting on to the road which leads to national destruction, as though there had never been at any time a coming to the relief of a locality or of a community or part of a section of a community, because of a change in social or economic conditions. The facts are that these baronies entered into arrangements at the instigation of the Legislature at the time, and those engagements were entered into in view of certain economic and social conditions. Those conditions have changed radically since. Relatively, the conditions of railway transportation and local economic conditions in the baronies concerned have changed so much that a great gap has been created and it has to be bridged over by the method contemplated in the amalgamation of these railways.

The State is now coming to the relief of these baronies, not as something new, not as instigating a new principle at all, but following out a well-established principle. Deputy Good, I think, will not dissent from the proposition that the congested areas in Ireland have had to be relieved to some extent, or to be specially legislated for, because of special conditions.

That is a different case altogether.

It is exactly the same case as far as the legislative action goes. Deputy Good may say that if people chose to live in congested areas they should be left there. But he will answer that by saying, if the State is to come to the assistance of the baronies, let it do so by direct taxation, and not put a burden on the amalgamated company. But the amalgamated company is getting very considerable and, as I think, excessive State protection in this Bill. They are not asked to take over these burdens from the baronies for nothing. The shareholders of these companies are going to be guaranteed a net revenue equal to the best that they have ever earned. That is what they are getting for taking over these guarantees on these railways. Again, the Deputy may answer that the companies in taking over the burden will transfer it to the commercial community, and it is on behalf of the commercial community that he objects to this transfer. I think it would not be difficult to find quite a number of instances where Deputy Good has pointed out that the commercial community, if it has to pay higher charges to the railway companies, will have to transfer those charges to the consuming public. Inasmuch as pretty well everything that is consumed in Ireland has unfortunately, to be transferred by the railways this new burden that the Deputy speaks of will inevitably have to be borne by the consuming public on his own argument, so that the difference between asking the State to bear this burden, or transferring it by direct taxation, instead of via the amalgamated company, via the commercial community in the price of commodities, is not very great.

at this stage resumed the Chair.

The fact remains that the principle on which Deputy Good has made his argument is not a new one. The State does relieve local authorities in view of changed circumstances, and the burden undertaken has not been found impossible to bear. One might indicate very many examples of a similar kind, but it is unnecessary to go into details. The arguments of Deputy Good in support of his amendment were in fact an argument against the intervention of the legislature for the purpose of relieving over-burdened baronies in consequence of what he alleges were bargains made in years gone by. I assert that it is quite a well-established principle that the State shall come to the assistance of localities in special circumstances in relief of burdens which were entered upon in entirely different circumstances. Therefore, we are entitled to do it in this case, and there is no undue hardship on the company because the company is making an especially good bargain by means of this Bill.

Amendment put and declared lost.
Question—"That this Schedule be the Ninth Schedule of the Bill"—put and agreed to.
Amendment 30 not moved.
Tenth Schedule ("Enactment not applying to amalgamated company").
Question—"That this Schedule be the Tenth Schedule of the Bill"—put and agreed to.

We will now take Section 1, which was postponed as being a definition section.

Question—"That Section 1 stand part of the Bill"—put and agreed to.
TITLE.
"An Act to provide for the Reorganisation and future regulations of railways in Saorstát Eireann, and otherwise to amend the law relating to railways."
Question—"That this be the title of the Bill"—put and agreed to.
Barr
Roinn