I move that the Committee agree with the Seanad in the said amendment. That is very much on a footing with amendments 3 and 5. The amendments are necessary owing to the date at which we have now arrived. It will not be possible under the old date, 31st July, for the companies to comply with the statutory obligations which the Bill imposes on them to have the agreed scheme submitted.
DAIL IN COMMITTEE. - RAILWAYS BILL, 1924—FROM THE SEANAD.
In Section 3 (1) the word "July" deleted in line 50 and the word "August" substituted therefor.
I understand the preliminary schemes were all cut and dried from speeches made during the Committee Stage of the Bill in the Dáil. Does this mean that a further month is to be given to the tribunal which will deal with the preliminary revision of rates? Does it postpone them for a further month?
No, it does not.
Amendment put and agreed to.
AMENDMENT 2.
In Section 4, immediately after the word "office" in line 46, the following words inserted: "or who resigns office consequent upon his being appointed a standing members of the railway tribunal, but in the latter eventuality his remuneration as such standing member of the railway tribunal shall be taken into account in fixing the amount of any such compensation."
I move that the Committee agree with the Seanad in the said amendment. This is on a footing also with amendment 4. These two amendments provide that if a director of an amalgamated or absorbed company is appointed to be a member of the railway tribunal then he shall be entitled to compensation for the loss of his office as such director, but the proviso makes it clear that his salary as a member of the railway tribunal must be taken into account so that he does not get paid for both.
This is an amendment which the Minister agrees to, and as far as I am concerned I have not any serious objection except in so far as the principle of the Bill is concerned. Under the Bill the directors of the companies may be remunerated; I do not think it is "shall be." I think it is a case of "may" subject to the shareholders agreeing that their services have merited the payment, which will be made out of the funds of the amalgamated company. This seems to me to imply that a directorship is a pensionable job. Now, the principal exception I have to that is, I think the clause in the Bill has operated—I would not like to say exactly "operated"— but we assume for instance that no such clause or provision has been made in the Bill. I rather think the attitude I have taken up in this House would have been considerably strengthened; in other words, that the intention of the Executive, not necessary deliberate, is in the nature of a bribe.
I feel that the matter of remuneration to the directors is one as between the shareholders and the directors themselves, and the introduction of any such provision as this is, in my judgement, objectionable. The amendment, that if one of the directors is put on the tribunal his remuneration from the shareholders shall be taken into consideration, seems to me to recognise the extraordinary change that the Bill puts into operation. It is not for me to say that the directors who are being remunerated are not entirely worthy of that remuneration, or that the remuneration they are going to get is in any way excessive, but I do say, whatever the effect may be, that it is wrong in principle and practice to recognise it in this way in the Bill. The same thing has operated in this Bill in connection with the employees. Rightly and properly the Labour Party in the Dáil has striven to get the best arrangement possible for the employees, but in so far as this is a quid pro quo——
Is the Deputy putting the director in the position of a labourer now?
Otherwise the labourer is out of order at this stage.
I was rather recognising that. I am afraid enthusiasm for the argument was carrying me a bit further than I intended. I have made the point I wanted to make.
It is very difficult to understand where Deputy Hewat's argument is leading us. Deputy Hewat, as well as the Minister, I am sure, realises that there are no powers given to the tribunal in the Bill which can prevent the shareholders of any of the absorbed or amalgamated companies from giving to their directors by private arrangement anything which they think fit. But I think it is quite right and proper, if the director of a railway company becomes a member of the railway tribunal, that the compensation so given should be taken into consideration, in the same way as any person pensioned under Article X. of the Treaty will be treated if he returns to the service of the State. It is quite possible that the shareholders, provided a good bargain is made on the transfer, may decide to give five or ten years' fees to the directors, and there is nothing in the Bill under which the Government, or the tribunal, could interfere with the wish of the shareholders if they so decided.
I think Deputy Davin must recognise that the Bill contains a provision which authorises the amalgamating companies to provide for the directors in this way. In other words, it is suggested what they ought to do.
Question put and agreed to.
AMENDMENT 3.
In Section 5 (1) the word "July" deleted in line 63, and the word "August" substituted therefore.
I beg to move:—
That the Committee agree with the Seanad in the said Amendment.
Question put and agreed to.
AMENDMENT 4.
In Section 6, immediately after the word "office" in line 35 the following words inserted: "or who resigns office consequent on his being appointed a standing member of the railway tribunal, but in the latter eventuality his remuneration as such standing member of the railway tribunal shall be taken into account in fixing the amount of any such compensation.
I beg to move:—
That the Committee agree with the Seanad in the said amendment.
Question put and agreed to.
AMENDMENT 5.
In Section 10 (1), the word "July" deleted in line 22, and the word "August" substituted therefor.
I beg to move:—
That the Committee agree with the Seanad in the said amendment.
Question put and agreed to.
AMENDMENT 6.
In Section 10 (2), immediately after the word "Act" in the line 26 the words "and prior to the 31st day of August, 1924," inserted.
I beg to move:—
That the Committee agree with the Seanad in the said amendment.
It will be remembered that these words were put in in Section 10 (1), and if Deputies will look at the Section they will see that they are left there with July amended by the last amendment to August. This is a corresponding amendment in Sub-section (2).
Should there not be an amendment to the preliminary scheme as a consequence of this, to say that the preliminary revision of rates should take place within two months?
The Deputy has not read the section.
The amendments were only handed to me when I came in this afternoon.
Not the amendments but the Bill. Section 25 is the section referred to, and the date there is three months after the passing of the Act. It has nothing to do with the 31st July or the 31st August.
Question put and agreed to.
AMENDMENT 7.
In Section 12 (1) immediately before the word "result" in line 8, the word "direct" inserted.
I beg to move:
That the Committee agree with the Seanad in the said amendment.
Amendments 7 and 8 go together. They deal with Section 12, which has reference to the employees of the Irish Railway Clearing House. I am sure Labour Deputies will be glad to notice that the members of the Seanad have prevailed upon me to put in five years instead of three, with the compromise that the word "direct" has been introduced before "result."
I am not sure whether we should congratulate the Minister or the Seanad upon this. I am inclined to think it was the overbearing eloquence of the members of the Seanad, who were not tied, as I anticipated, by the Party machine, in the same way as Deputies here are tied. At any rate, I recognise that my eloquence is not equal to that of the members of the Seanad, who are interested in this matter. In any case, this as well as several other amendments, are welcomed from this side of the House as they will confer the same privileges on the staff of the Railway Clearing House as have been conferred on the servants, or direct employees, of the amalgamating companies. Whether they are due to the generosity of the Minister, or to pressure, or the eloquence of Senators, I do not know.
I wonder would the Deputy be annoyed if I suggested that the amendment was due to Deputy Peadar Doyle, of whom he complained on another occasion?
Question put and agreed to.
AMENDMENT 8.
In Section 12 (1) the word "three" deleted in line 9 and the word "five" substituted therefor.
I beg to move that the Committee agree with the Seanad in the said amendment.
Question put and agreed to.
AMENDMENT 9.
In Section 30 (2), immediately after the word "local" in line 25 the words "or by" inserted.
I beg to move that the Committee agree with the Seanad in the said amendment. This is merely a drafting amendment, as the grammar of the section was not considered quite proper by the Seanad. We agreed to these words.
Question put, and agreed to.
AMENDMENT 10.
In Section 55 (1), all after the word "between" in line 54 deleted and the following words substituted therefor: "the trade unions representative of such employees of the one part and the railway companies and other persons by whom they are respectively employed of the other part."
I beg to move that the Committee agree with the Seanad in the said amendment. This is an amendment over which a certain amount of heat was generated in the Seanad, and on account of which I suffered certain misrepresentation. The real effect of the amendment is to cut out the words "or other representatives" in line 55 of Section 55, sub-section (1). It was pointed out that the whole trades union procedure had been, to a certain extent, weakened by the omission of these words. There were certain objections, that with these words individual agreements might have to be made with men not members of a trades union, and it was eventually decided that the risk of these men coming forward in large numbers was small. It was thought better to introduce the latter phrase, which is the result of a compromise on the arguments that took place in the Seanad.
Question put, and agreed to.
AMENDMENT 11.
In Section 56 (1) the words "Irish shall be a compulsory subject at such examinations" added at the end of the sub-section.
I beg to move that the Committee agree with the Seanad in the said amendment.
I think this amendment is somewhat extraordinary; extraordinary in so far as it comes from the Seanad to the Dáil, extraordinary in so far as an amendment of this importance could be slipped into a Bill of this sort; and in my judgment extraordinary that it should have been accepted in this way. This is a Railways Bill and the amendment proposes to depart from, I think, the ordinary regulation of trading companies, and to insert a section that Irish shall be a compulsory subject at such examinations. I feel that I am not the proper person to raise the matter in the Dáil. But I feel that I would like to raise it because of its importance, not necessarily in connection with this Bill, but because it is introducing a proviso that at the examinations for railway clerks, Irish is to be compulsory within a comparatively short time. Really, I do not see why candidates for railway clerkships should be selected for this posture. I imagine that that is a large national question that would have to be decided on broader lines other than that of a Railways Bill. While still in the incubation stage, this Bill lays it down that a knowledge of Irish is essential for a candidate going forward for examination as a railway clerk. Why introduce it in this way? Why is it more necessary for a railway clerk to know Irish than it is for a railway porter, or, for that matter, a railway director? True, it is a relatively easy matter for brilliant students such as we have in the Dáil to absorb a new language readily.
Unfortunately, I do not know Irish, and I think it would be with great difficulty I could acquire it at my time of life and with all my occupations. At all events it strikes me as out of place in this measure, not that I have any sentiment in the matter. I think it must be recognised that the addition of a subject like Irish to an examination is very heavy for the mass of the young people of this country. It means that where in the past one language was sufficient, or was at least considered sufficient, two languages will have to be acquired in the future. I am not sufficient of an educationalist to discuss that particular point. I think it is an important point and so large that I submit to the Dáil that it is not right that it should be dealt with piece-meal, as it is dealt with in this Railways Bill. That is my protest and it is confined within the area of what I have said. I must not be taken in any way as being against the introduction of the Irish language in any shape or form. I do think, however, that its introduction should be well ordered, and that a provision of this sort, in such a Bill as this, and within such a short time, may act very unfairly against candidates who have to acquire this knowledge before they go for examination.
I rise merely to relieve the mind of Deputy Hewat. He makes this plea because he feels that some wrong is inflicted upon the youth of Ireland in this matter. I can assure him from the experience of an examiner that there are no grounds for what he fears. Fully 20 years ago the principle of appointing railway clerks as a result of competitive examinations was put into practice here. In the beginning, and until now, a knowledge of Irish was included as one of the optional subjecte. At first some 7, 8 or 9 out of, say, 20, 40 or 50 candidates took the subject and displayed a very indifferent knowledge of it, just as a few occasionally, in some of the examinations that permitted them, took French and presented themselves for French with woeful results. In recent years the situation is completely changed.
My experience is that forty-seven out of fifty-five candidates present in Irish, and go through the requirements of the programme wonderfully well. It consists in part of a dictation exercise in Irish, and the translation of a difficult piece of English into Irish. What is now going to happen through the operation of a compulsory clause is that something like seven to ten per cent. of the candidates will be obliged to take the subject. As regards the rest, compulsion is not required, because they take and have for years taken the subject voluntarily and have qualified in it. That, I think, ought to relieve the Deputy's mind to a considerable extent. In recent years the schools are better equipped for training these candidates in Irish. There is no difficulty whatever in getting lessons regularly in these schools, but there was in the past. Deputy Hewat's plea would have been well founded, and it would be a plea raised against what would operate unfairly if it had been made twenty or twenty-five years ago. But it is wholly out of date now. The idea is that proficiency in a language is a test not merely of ability, but is also an indication of the type of schooling generally which the candidate has received, and so it has become a practice, and is a wise practice on the part of candidates, to take up all the subjects which their schools provide them with facilities for taking up. It rarely happens that any of these candidates present a subject of which they have only a smattering. Even in the case of French, and in Latin, which is a subject in the Midland Great Western programme, I might say that it has not infrequently happened that while candidates did well in Latin, they only did fairly well in French. In my opening remarks I spoke of French and said that the results in it had been woeful in the extreme as compared with the marks secured by candidates who had taken Irish instead.
I desire to point out that under this Section two examinations are provided for. I do not know whether Deputy Professor Magennis is aware of that fact. There is an outside competitive examination, and there is also what we may call an internal competitive examination. The outside competitive examination is open to all residents in the Saorstát, but the internal examination is limited to persons in the employment of the amalgamated company, or the children of such persons.
The section says: "May be, with the consent of the Minister."
I am reading Sub-section (3) of Section 56, and the word there is "shall." I take it that the same restriction would apply to both examinations; that is to say, that the candidates for either examination would have to pass the qualifying test in Irish. I am anxious to know whether that applies to the internal examination as well as to the external one.
I could not undertake to give an interpretation of the section, but that would appear to apply to Sub-section (1). The sub-section says "All appointments to any office."
Perhaps the Minister could explain what it means.
I am afraid there is nobody competent to say, not even the Minister. It is a matter for the Judges.
The point is an important one, and I would like to have some definite information on it. I am anxious to know, in the case of a servant who shows ability in one Department, and desires to be promoted to another Department, whether a proposal of this kind would stop him from graduating in the service, or whether this proposal only applies to applicants who enter the service by open examination. If it only applied in the latter case, there would not be the same objection at all to it, though I do not think it is desirable to make Irish compulsory. The point I want information on is whether this proposal applies to the limited examination?
I listened to Deputy Hewat in a previous debate on this Bill, and if I remember his words rightly he said he agreed that this Bill was a stepping-stone to nationalisation. I am prepared to agree that that is the position. I am prepared to say that nationalisation would be easier and more beneficial to the community by an immediate step on the part of the Government to nationalise from the thirty-two companies rather than to adopt the methods outlined in this Bill.
I did not say that this was nationalisation, but I accepted Deputy Davin's statement that it was a step towards nationalisation.
I am glad that the Deputy accepts something I say as being true. However, if it is, as I believe it is, an easier method to the end I have in view, then I say that if we are to have railway nationalisation, or a nationalised railway system we must make provision by examination that those who enter the clerical grades of the service shall thoroughly understand the Irish language. That is why I welcome this amendment, and I welcome it all the more because it has come from the Seanad. I would have thought, in the ordinary course of events, that Deputy Hewat would agree to any amendment, without question, that would come from the Seanad to a Bill, even a Bill of this kind.
You do not understand me.
I hope that the Minister will answer the points raised by Deputy Good, whether Irish is going to be a compulsory subject for the examination of any limited number of individuals, say the sons of railway men or others who may enter the clerical service of the future amalgamated company. The Minister has power, under sub-section (3) to approve or to disapprove of the method and of the number of those who may be allowed to go for what is known as the limited competitive examinations. I hope that the present Minister, or any Minister who may succeed him, will see that this limited competitive examination will not be used as a back-door method for getting into the railway service. We had back-door methods, as well as some front-door methods, for getting into the service in the past, and I hope that an end will be put to them. If there is one thing more than another that I look forward to in connection with this Bill, is is that entrance to the clerical service of the future amalgamated company shall be by open competitive examination. If Deputy Good stands for efficiency and for good business methods he should support in this House, and outside it, the men who enter the public service, the railway service, or indeed any big business concern, by ability alone and not by any other method.
Yes, but promotion should not be debarred. Otherwise we would not have had the pleasure of hearing Deputy Davin in this Dáil.
It was only as the result of years of agitation and of pressure brought to bear on railway shareholders and others that the principle of competitive examination for entrance to the railway service was established. I would like to impress upon the Minister the necessity of seeing that if Irish is made compulsory for railway examinations that even those who may be allowed to enter for this limited competitive examination, and I hope the number will be few, will have to take Irish as a compulsory subject.
As we have gone on with this discussion, I think it well to draw attention to Article 4 of the Constitution, which says that: "The national language of the Irish Free State (Saorstát Eireann) is the Irish language, but the English language shall be equally recognised as the official language." In addition to what Deputy Professor Magennis has said with a view to relieving the fears of Deputy Hewat as to the strain that will be put on candidates who have to take Irish for these examinations, I think that when Deputy Hewat sees the results of what has been done in our primary and secondary schools for the national language that he will admit the strain will be very little indeed. It was remarked, I think, during the progress of the discussions on the Education Estimates, that some of the publications with regard to the programme of work that is being done in our primary and secondary schools had not been placed on the Table of the House. When they have been so placed and when Deputies have had an opportunity of examining them, I think that any fears that Deputy Hewat may have as to the difficulties and the strain imposed on candidates at these examinations by reason of making the national language compulsory, will be removed.
I am not in a position to determine the point raised here. That will lie for determination elsewhere. The phrase that Irish shall be a compulsory subject at such examinations is put in at the end of sub-section (1), and it might, in that way, be considered to have application only to open competitive examinations. I do not think that the point raised that all appointments shall be made by means of open competitive examinations would have the effect of bringing compulsory Irish down immediately to the limit of competitive examinations, because the clause starts with the words "save as hereinafter in this section provided," nor do I think Deputy Davin is right in thinking that the Minister has power to approve of the special regulation, as well as of the proportion of the vacancies to be left to the limited examination. All the Minister has power to approve is the proportion of the vacancies. I think that gives the Minister a considerable lever over the companies.
He may, for instance, if not satisfied that the examination was going to be of a suitable type, limit the proportion to such a small number that it might be entirely useless, and, consequently, although I think the amendment moved in the Seanad intended to apply to all examinations, that was not made clear, but if so intended it might have come better as a new sub-section by itself, or as an introductory remark with regard to the whole examinations.
I think sub-section (3) as drafted will give the Minister sufficient power to have Irish made compulsory in all examinations, open or limited, for entrance to the clerical service. With regard to Deputy Hewart's fear, the point has been well stressed by Deputy Mulcahy and Deputy Magennis regarding how Irish has been made compulsory for most examinations in the country. I want to stress one other matter, and it is this: that candidates for these examinations are likely to have plenty of time to prepare, because with the cutting down of staffs rendered necessary by this Bill there does not seem to be much hope of vacancies for years to come, and there will be plenty of time for candidates to readjust themselves to the new conditions.
Question—"That the Committee agree with the Seanad in the said amendment"—put and agreed to.
AMENDMENT NO. 12.
In Section 56 (3), immediately after the word "in" in line 23 the words "or who have been in" inserted.
The effect of this will be to extend the benefit of the limited competitive examinations to the children of men who have been in the service of the railway companies, the privilege which the clause at present gives to the children of men already in the service. It carries it a little bit further to those who are in, or have been in, and their children.
Question—"That the Committee agree with the Seanad in the said amendment"—put and agreed to.
AMENDMENT 13.
Section 59 (1), immediately after the word "Minister," in line 25, the words "Or, on the application of a railway company for enabling such company to make and provide any alteration, extension or improvement mentioned in Section 45 of the Railway Clause Act, 1845," inserted.
Section 59 (I) explains the provisions of the section of the Act which gives power to the Minister to hear applications from the railway companies upon a particular matter, and that particular matter is to enable the company to make and provide for any alteration or extension or matter mentioned in Section 45 of the Railway Clauses Act of 1845, which enabled the railway company to contract with any parties willing to sell land whenever the railway company require to make additional stations, yards, banks, etc., or convenient roads or ways to the railway.
Question—"That the Committee agree with the Seanad in the said amendment"—put and agreed to.
AMENDMENT 14.
In Section 59 (2) all after the word "notice" in line 34 deleted up to and including the word "order" in line 35, and the following words substituted therefor: "to be published once in theIris Oifigiúil and once in each of three successive weeks in some one and the same newspaper circulating in the county or counties in which the land is situate.”
This amendment was one over which there was considerable discussion in the Seanad. As the sub-section left the Dáil, Deputies will see that where an order was about to be made for the acquisition of land the provision was that the Minister shall give public notice in such manner as he may consider best adapted for informing the persons likely to be affected by the order. It was moved to amend that by providing that the Minister should give notice to all persons having an interest in the land about to be acquired, but the argument was urged that it was notoriously difficult to trace and it would be almost impossible to provide that nobody was left out, and, consequently, that there might be any amount of legal actions following, piling up afterwards where any power to acquire land was sought. Reference was made to the Railway Clauses Consolidation Act of 1845, and I was asked to incorporate in this Bill the provisions as to notice in the 1845 Act, but when I came to look up that Act I found that there was express provision excluding from Ireland or from the railways in Ireland, the requirement as to notice on the acquisition of land; but under a later Act of 1851 I found the form of words which are pretty well those now in the amendment before us, that is to say, that notice should be published once in the Gazette (now replaced by the Iris Oifigiúil) and once in each of three successive weeks in some one and the same newspaper circulating in the county or counties in which the land is situate. That amendment moved to the previous amendment met with the acceptance of the Seanad, and as it does seem to provide for better notice being given to those whose land may be acquired and does not, at the same time, seem to entail the enormous number of objections that might have arisen from the other amendment as moved, I would press the acceptance of this amendment on the Dáil.
Question—"That the Committee agree with the Seanad in the said amendment"—put and agreed to.
AMENDMENT 15.
In Section 59 (3), in line 41, immediately after the word "may" the word "incorporate" inserted, and in line 42 the word "incorporate" deleted.
This is a drafting amendment.
Question—"That the Dáil agree with the Seanad in the said amendment"—put and agreed to.
AMENDMENT 16.
In Section 61 (2), immediately after the word "Locality" in line 21 the following words inserted: "or"—"(e) of a railway company or other transport undertaking affected by such agreement or arrangement."
This has reference to 61 (2), and it gives the railway or transport undertaking affected by agreements the right to appear before the tribunal in regard to any no-statutory agreement.
What was in the mind of the Minister that persuaded him to accept that?
It gave the railway company the right to appear before the tribunal.
The railway company?
The railway company or other transport undertaking.
Question—"That the Dáil agrees with the Seanad in the said amendment"—put and agreed to.
AMENDMENT 17.
Immediately before Section 68 a new section inserted as follows:—
"The amalgamated company shall, as soon as may be practicable, replace all public notices and signs (including names of stations) which are now in the English language only by notices and signs in both Irish and English, and shall within one year from the 1st January, 1925, submit to the Minister a scheme for the printing of their Passenger Card Tickets for journeys within the Saorstát in both the Irish and English languages and the Minister shall, unless he is of opinion that the adoption of the scheme would jeopardise the standard revenue and result in increased rates and fares, order the amalgamated company to put such scheme into operation: Provided that existing stocks of tickets may be used until exhausted."
I move: "That the Committee agree with the Seanad in the said amendment." This amendment, I am sure, will be accepted by the Dáil without further delay. It provides for the use of the Irish language in public notices and signs.
I suppose the Minister could not give us an idea of what the cost will be?
I am afraid I cannot oblige the Deputy in that way. In the Seanad I threw out the suggestion to some of those who seemed to represent the railway companies there, that they might be in a position to supply the information and to give me some indication of the likely cost of this. And I did say that if the adoption of this proposal seemed to throw an undue burthen on the company, then we might have to seek to limit the scope of the amendment. I got no answer from those who were supposed to know and to have information about these matters. I could not obtain the information.
In view of the very excellent suggestion from the Seanad can we hope that the Executive Council will consider at an early date how the Irish language can be assisted in a systematic and general way?
Amendment agreed to.
AMENDMENT 18.
Immediately before Section 69 a new section inserted as follows:—
(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in Section 10 of the Companies Clauses Consolidation Act, 1845, it shall be lawful for the amalgamated company to substitute for the Shareholders' Address Book provided for under that section a card or other index (of a type to be approved by the auditors of the amalgamated company) containing the names and addresses of the several shareholders of the amalgamated company and that section in its application to the amalgamated company shall be read any have effect accordingly, and when such card or other index has been so substituted Section 34 of the Regulation of Railways Act, 1868, shall cease to apply to the amalgamated company: Provided that the charge made for a copy of such card or other index shall not exceed the sum of £2 10s. 0d.
(2) If the amalgamated company act in contravention of Section 10 of the Companies Clauses Consolidation Act, 1845, as varied by this section, they shall be liable for each offence to a penalty not exceeding twenty pounds, which shall be recoverable and applied in the same manner as penalties imposed by the Railway Clauses Consolidation Act, 1845, are for the time being recoverable and applicable.
I move that the Committee agree with the Seanad in the said amendment. This long amendment is actually one which appeared here before the Dáil in the name of Deputy Bryan Cooper, but, owing to his absence when the clause came on, that amendment was passed over. It was, however, understood that it would be raised in the Seanad. It is a quite acceptable amendment. This amendment relieves the company from the necessity of printing a shareholders' address book, and substitutes for it a card index of the shareholders. They are the only people who have the right to obtain the address book. The printing of the address book put a considerable expense on the company which was not met by the number of copies sold. In the case of one particular company, the cost of printing a particular address book was something approaching £250, and the revenue from the sale of the copies was £2 10s. This amendment provides for the preparation of a card or other index containing the names and addresses of the shareholders, a copy of which may be obtained at a cost not exceeding £2 10s.
Does this amendment interfere with the obligation of the company to supply a list of shareholders to the Registrar?
No. That would be governed by a different provision altogether—by a provision under Company Law.
Amendment agreed to.
AMENDMENT 19.
In the First Schedule, immediately after the words "Cork and Muskerry Light Railway Company, Limited," in column 2, the words "Cork City Railways" inserted.
This amendment has reference to the Cork City Railways, which, I think, Deputy Johnson sought to include in the Bill on the Committee Stage. I took objection to it at the time. I think I did say at the time that there was an obvious wish to include the Cork City Railways with other railways in the list for absorption or amalgamation. But it was not possible to include them at that time. But since that time a certain arrangement has been made between the Great Southern and Western Railway Company and the Great Western Railway Company of England, and the result of that arrangement is that the Cork City Railways may be included in the Bill. If I am asked here to state what is the scope of that arrangement I cannot say what it is, but I can say this, that full details of it will appear in the absorption scheme. It will then be revealed.
After it is passed.
I do not think that this amendment should be allowed to pass in its present form unless the other proposals will also be accepted, such as the proposal to include the Blessington and the Lucan Tramways. The same arguments apply to them as to the Cork City Railways. I do not know if the Minister is able to say anything about the possibility of any absorption of these two County Dublin railways. Before we agree with the Seanad amendment in the case of the Cork City Railways, I should like to know what are the possibilities of any absorption of the Lucan and Blessington Railways. It is a pity to allow this Bill to go through without something being done for County Dublin, and I should like to ask the Minister if he can say anything at all about any negotiations that may have taken place in regard to the Lucan Railway and the Blessington Railway.
The Minister said that it had been decided to include the Cork City Railways as a result of some agreement that has taken place between the time when the Bill passed the Dáil and the present time. Has the Minister seen the agreement between the Great Western Railway Company of England and the Great Southern and Western Railway Company in this matter? And does he consider it necessary, in order to persuade the Dáil that this is a good and proper amendment, that some information as regards the terms of the agreement should be revealed now and not after the Bill has become law?
Deputy Johnson has made a mistake if he thinks that the Cork City Railways were included in any amendment with the Dublin and Blessington or the Dublin and Lucan Railways or Tramways. As I remember, the Cork City Railways were included in his amendment with the Fishguard and Rosslare line. In their inclusion there were many objections, and these objections still persist. But there has been a particular arrangement, the details of which I am not going to enter into here and now—an arrangement which makes it possible to include the Cork City Railways. I do not say that there has been an arrangement to take over the Cork City Railways on a particular basis, or on certain terms.
Are we to understand therefore that the Minister has seen the details of the preliminary scheme and that he approves of it to the extent of accepting this amendment?
I am not answering, and I do not intend to answer the question whether or not I have seen this scheme. It does not arise. All I have to say is that here has been a certain arrangement made to include the Cork City Railways under the Bill. How they will be brought in and the terms under which they will be brought in will be defined by the absorption scheme, and that absorption scheme will, if not agreed to, come before the tribunal. The Dublin and Lucan line and the Dublin and Blessington line could always have been taken in if there was not some obstacle in the way of their being taken in. But it was not thought advisable to take them in. The object of the Bill was not to gather in all the bankrupt concerns and to load them on to the amalgamated undertakings. The idea was to get amalgamated all the transport undertakings where economy seemed likely to be affected as the result of the amalgamation. The Dublin and Lucan and the Dublin and Blessington undertakings did not come under these conditions, and have not yet made their way into the Bill. If certain arrangements are arrived at afterwards, there is power under Section 60 to take them in. I do not suppose that it is the intention of the Deputy to include the Dublin and Blessington or the Dublin and Lucan lines. All I am asking the Dáil to do is to agree to the inclusion of the Cork City Railways and to insert the words "Cork City Railways" after the words "Cork and Muskerry Light Railways Company, Limited."
I submit that it is not fair—I should not like to say that the Minister is unfair—to say that certain information will be revealed after the terms of this Bill have gone beyond any hope of redemption. If the Minister has information at his disposal I submit that the right and proper time to give that information to the Dáil is now, if he wishes the Dáil to accept, without any further opposition, the amendment which he has moved. He does not give any good reasons to the Dáil to justify his refusal. I must come to the conclusion that the Minister has seen the preliminary scheme. It may be that, with the great deal of other work that he has to do, he has not at the moment time himself to dive into this scheme, hidden in some cupboard in the Government offices. To that extent he has assumed for the time being the place of the particular tribunal, or of the work that that tribunal at a later stage will have to perform. Perhaps he has at his disposal the names of the hidden geniuses who will appear in the near future as the members of this tribunal, and perhaps this will be the proper occasion— I do not think I can press for this— for him to announce the names of the supermen, as Deputy Hewat would call them, who are to control the destinies of the Irish railways in the future.
Deputy Davin rightly says that the Bill at this stage has gone beyond redemption.
I did not say that.
If it has gone beyond redemption Deputy Davin is much to blame in the matter, but in bringing forward now a proposition which would open up all these questions as to who is to be on the tribunal and all the rest of it, I think he is asking for a larger day's work than I am prepared to sit out. I would suggest to Deputy Davin that if there is anything in the Bill he objects to, to let him take his medicine. He only called for it.
Some of it would be taken with relish.
That is right.
Amendment agreed to.
AMENDMENT 20.
In the Third Schedule, page 34, before the first paragraph (line 34), a new paragraph inserted as follows:—
Every person who on the 3rd day of April, 1924, was for a period of less than five years an officer of servant of any amalgamating company or absorbed company, and who shall not, prior to the amalgamation or absorption of such amalgamating or absorbed company have voluntarily retired or have been removed from the service of any such amalgamating or absorbed company by reason of misconduct or incapacity and who does not become an officer or servant of the amalgamated company, shall be entitled to a gratuity calculated on the basis of one-sixth of the amount of his annual salary and emoluments for every completed year of his service.
I move that the Committee agree with the Seanad in said amendment. This is one to which I am sure Deputy Davin will raise no objection. The Schedule still has reference to people who were on the 3rd day of April, 1924, officers or servants of any of the amalgamating or absorbed companies for a period of five years, but this amendment provides for those who were less than a period of five years, that to such officers or servants a gratuity may be given, and the gratuity is set out in the end of the amendment.
Would the Minister indicate what amount of money is involved in this? It is one of those things which may not cost much, but which might cost a whole lot; but I think it is against the practice of the Ministry to give us any information of that sort. They generally tell us they have not got it, or something of that sort, or that it is not their business to provide it, but perhaps he could give us some approximation as to what it might cost.
I thought until now that Deputy Hewat was a business man, but if he read the Bill rightly how could he ask the Minister to give the amount that would be involved in the acceptance of this amendment, when the Minister himself, and perhaps the future directors of the amalgamated company, do not know the number of men who would be declared redundant?
A pig in a poke.
Perhaps the Minister can give it, but I fail to see how he can get it for the reasons I have given. I tried when a similar amendment was moved in the Committee Stage in the Dáil to have this done, seeing that Deputy Hewat had already voted for a similar provision for the superannuation of officers who had retired from the Local Government Department on the same basis as is now proposed in the case of railway officials. That was accepted in the Dáil in the case of redundant officers with service under five years. It may be news to Deputy Hewat to know that arrangements have been made for one company, provided these arrangements are ratified by the shareholders, that the directors of this company will get a retiring allowance, or pension, if you like, based on a salary of five years. I fail to see why Deputy Hewat should object to giving the same concession to any members of the staff of the company who may be retired as a result of the creation of this new amalgamated company. However, as I pointed out, the same thing had been accepted by the Minister for Local Government in the Bill introduced, giving the same terms to the Local Government officials who might be declared redundant under that Bill. There is every reason for this amendment, and I congratulate the Minister that as a result either of the pressure put on him by the Seanad, or of his own wisdom, he has brought forward this amendment. I am sure Deputy Hewat will not oppose it now.
I do not oppose it. I am in good humour to-day. All I say on the question raised by Deputy Davin is that here is a Bill supposed to be a business Bill, and everybody is out for his mess of pottage.
Including the directors.
I do not exclude the directors, and I spoke on that already to-day. That is a matter between the shareholders and themselves. But in a simple question like this I ask is this proposal in the interest of economy, and I would like to know what this amendment means in the way of money. According to Deputy Davin, I cannot get the information, but I hardly expected to get it in any case.
Amendment agreed to.
AMENDMENTS 21 AND 22.
21. In the Third Schedule, page 35, line 16, immediately after the word "service" the words "with the amalgamated company or any amalgamating or absorbed company" inserted.
22. In the Third Schedule, page 35, line 61, immediately after the word "receipt" the words "from the amalgamated company or any amalgamating or absorbed company" inserted.
I move that the Committee agree with the Seanad in the said amendments. These are really drafting amendments, if Deputies will look at the relation to the section, line 16. In one case his annual allowance shall be calculated at the rate of one-sixtieth of his remuneration or emoluments for every completed year of his service with any amalgamated company or any absorbed company, and, amendment 22, line 61, has reference to "the annual value of the remuneration and emoluments of which he was in receipt" from the amalgamated or absorbed company. They are merely drafting amendments.
I suggest that is more than a drafting amendment. I believe this applies to certain higher officials. I am not taking exception to it now, but the Minister I am sure, if he has made inquiries would find out what would be the effect on the finances of the amalgamated companies if certain officials who would get the benefit of this drafting amendment became redundant. That is the way I read the amendment. It gives continuity of service to the person in the amalgamated company for service he may have had in some companies that may have to be absorbed.
If there is any change to be made in the position it is simply bringing into line what is always intended.
It is more than a drafting amendment. It means money.
Amendments agreed to.
AMENDMENT 23.
In the Third Schedule, page 35, immediately after the word "promotion" in line 63, the words "other than promotion within any of the grades dealt with in the agreements between the railway companies and the trades unions)" inserted.
This amendment has reference to one of the most difficult points with which we had to deal in this Schedule. It will be remembered that, as at first brought forward, the amendment went much further than the intention. The intention was to exclude from the provisions of the Schedule officials who had received promotion since the Government warning went out with regard to a likely amalgamation or a grouping scheme. It was then pointed out that it did exclude men who had received promotion in the ordinary way. I think Deputy O'Connell brought up that at first, and I introduced an amendment on the Report Stage, which made it have reference to the word promotion, and not increase of pay. I thought that amendment would have met the case. But Senator O'Farrell raised the further point that as it then stood the section would cut out from the provision of the Schedule any official who received promotion in the ordinary way in this period, and this amendment is now put in to protect the cases of those mentioned. The amendment, it is felt, and it was argued, and is still believed will meet all the cases raised either here or in the Seanad.
Amendment put and agreed to.
AMENDMENT 24.
In the Third Schedule, page 35, the words "within one year before the 3rd day of April, 1924, in lines 63-64, deleted, and the words "subsequent to the 3rd day of April, 1923," substituted therefor.
This amendment is a provision quite the other way. As the section now reads, it excludes people who received promotion within one year before the 3rd day of April, 1924. It was pointed out that these unauthorised appointments might be made on the 4th April, 1924, and would come within the Schedule. This amendment is to carry out our own intentions with regard to this. It definitely excludes the people we intended to exclude. It limits the beginning of the period and leaves the end indefinite. The other left the end as definite as the beginning.
Would the Minister be good enough to define what he means by "unauthorised appointments?" I ask that for the purpose of saving future disputes.
I wonder is that question a serious one?
It is.
If I were to enter into a long definition now and give a learned judgment as to what "unauthorised" meant in my opinion, it would have no effect whatever on the railway tribunal afterwards.
Amendment put and agreed to.
AMENDMENT 25.
In the Third Schedule, page 35, the following words added at the end of sub-paragraph 5, line 67:—"In the event of an existing officer being appointed a standing member of the railway tribunal he shall be regarded as an existing officer whose office is abolished as from the date of amalgamation and shall be entitled to be compensated accordingly, but during the period for which he acts as such standing member of the railway tribunal his compensation shall only be the difference (if any) between his remuneration as a standing member of the railway tribunal and the annual allowance granted to him under paragraph 5 (a) of this Schedule."
This amendment is rather lengthy. The purpose of it can be stated quite briefly. It provides that if an official be appointed a standing member of the railway tribunal he shall not lose his pension from the railway company. He will not, however, draw it during the period of his appointment as member of the tribunal. That is very much on the lines of amendments 2 and 4, but is to meet a slightly different case, and it meets it in a slightly different way.
It is quite possible that in all cases people do not get a pension from the company, but from the fund, which is not completely controlled by the company.
Amendment put and agreed to.
AMENDMENT 26.
In the Fifth Schedule, Part IV, Division I, page 37, to delete the figures in the headings of the first six columns.
It was pointed out in the Seanad on the Report Stage that in Parts I, II and III of this particular Schedule the mileage was left blank, but that in Part IV certain distances were put in—50, 60, or 70 miles, and so on. It was suggested to me that it would be better to leave the mileage to the railway tribunal, and that was agreed to. It simply succeeds in omitting the words definitely put in in Part IV of that Schedule.
Amendment put and agreed to.
AMENDMENT 27.
In the Seventh Schedule all after line 61 deleted.
Amendments 27 and 28 are consequent on amendment 18. That deals with the card index instead of the shareholders' address book. I now move amendment 27. It omits that particular provision of the Regulation of Railways Act, 1868, in so far as it was sought to be amended by the Bill as it now stands. It is really consequential on the new compulsory provisions of the card index instead of the old shareholders' address book.
Amendment put and agreed to.
AMENDMENT 28.
In the Tenth Schedule the following words and figures inserted at the commencement of the Schedule:—
|
31 & 32 Vict. ch. 19 |
Regulation of Railways Act, 1868. |
Section 34. |
This is approaching the Bill from a different angle to the last amendment, and it is consequential on amendment 18.
Amendment put and agreed to.
Ordered that the Bill, with amendments, be reported to the Dáil.