Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Tuesday, 25 May 1926

Vol. 15 No. 19

ESTIMATES FOR PUBLIC SERVICES. - VOTE 58 (RAILWAY TRIBUNAL).

The PRESIDENT

I move:—

Go ndeontar suim ná raghaidh thar £5,412 chum slánuithe na suime is gá chun íoctha an Mhuirir a thiocfidh chun bheith iníoctha i rith na bliana dar críoch an 31adh lá de Mhárta, 1927, chun Tuarastail agus Costaisí eile an Bhínse Bhóthair Iarrainn a bunuíodh fé Acht na mBóthar Iarainn, 1924.

That a sum not exceeding £5,412 be granted to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1927, for the Salaries and other Expenses of the Railway Tribunal constituted under the Railways Act, 1924.

Mr. McGILLIGAN

The moneys which are estimated in this Vote are, of course, all statutory. They are all under the various heads of the Railways Act, 1924, and very little need be said about them at this stage. It will be noticed that the increased expenditure which is estimated for under sub-head A definitely arises from increments to the Registrar and the lower executive officer, and some slight increase in the case of shorthand typist, and the bonus, also, makes a corresponding increase. Under sub-head B there is an increased estimate of £120 due entirely to the estimated increased expenditure that will be likely in connection with the standard charges. Sub-head C is only varied by £10. The cost of the telegrams is the same. The telephones this year have been increased by £10. Last year the Estimate was rather short of what it might have been. This year is based upon the result of experience. The increases in this Vote are accordingly purely automatic, except so far as sub-head B is concerned. Sub-head B is on account of the increase in the advertising for the following year. It is to be noted of course, in connection with this Vote that the nett sum required is only £4,150. The Estimate that was put down, £8,162, is decreased by payments by the Amalgamated Company under Section 15 (4) of the Railways Act, 1924, of £4,000. There is also a small appropriation-in-aid of £50.

Mr. DAVIN

I do not wish to put the Minister to any great trouble in connection with this Vote. But I think he might give to the Dáil something in the nature of a brief history of the work of this particular Tribunal during the past twelve months, and how far they have gone to complete the classification which is the principal work engaged in during the past year. I would like also if he would let the Dáil know what is the present position in regard to the preparation of the standard charges. I understand that a good deal of the work of this Tribunal has been carried on in committee, in camera if you like, and that possibly the people who might benefit by the knowledge, if they were in the position to gain some idea of the work performed, have got no information as to what is being done; that there is practically nothing on record that will be available for the future so far as any body within the country, appealing to this Tribunal in the future, will be concerned with.

I raised a question here before as to the reason why a verbatim report of the proceedings was not being made available. I quite realise that it would probably mean the expenditure of a fairly large amount of money, but seeing that the Tribunal is now engaged upon the preparation of the first classification, which is the foundation and will be the foundation for future classifications of goods and merchandise, I think that the provision of the money for supplying a verbatim report, and printing and circulating such report might be a very useful expenditure. For instance, the farmers' and co-operative societies who may think it wise and right to go before the Tribunal in regard to appeals, will not have at their disposal the grounds on which the Tribunal decided that such-and-such a class of goods was provided for under such-and-such a classification. Presumably the work has gone on too far now to rectify this particular matter, but the Minister might tell the Dáil how far the Tribunal has gone in regard to the work of classification and how soon it will be possible to have the classification in its final form sanctioned by the Railway Tribunal.

Mr. BAXTER

There is a point which I want to raise in connection with this Vote. I am not quite clear whether it would come under this Vote or the Vote of the Minister. It arises out of the appointment of a panel, the members of which were to be brought into consultation with the Tribunal in fixing of charges in the carrying of specific products. I want to ask the Minister why it is that representatives of agriculture nominated to this panel have never, up to the present, been called into consultation by the Railway Tribunal. It seems, to say the least of it, an extraordinary procedure that where the Tribunal was to fix charges, in an agricultural country, where by far the greater part of the traffic would be from that industry, that the representatives of the industry, nominated on this panel, were never called into consultation by the Tribunal. I want to know in how far the Tribunal are responsible, or what authority has the Minister in this matter or has he any authority whatever.

I want to draw attention to the fact that although in 1924 our organisation nominated certain representatives on this panel, they have never been called into consultation by the Tribunal. Although they have been ignored we have the "Irish Trade Journal," in December, 1925, writing deploring the fact that the farming community and those interested in the live stock trade have taken no part in the proceedings before the Railway Tribunal. Now, the first act of the farming community was to nominate certain representatives who were to be called into consultation when the rates to be charged were being fixed. These representatives have never, up to the present, been called into consultation, and before the "Irish Trade Journal" rushed to a conclusion and deplored the fact that nothing has been done they should have looked round to see what part those responsible played in inviting opinions from people who were appointed to assist when the charges on agricultural products were being fixed. I want to hear from the Minister if he can give a reason why these men were never called into consultation, and if he will tell us who was responsible for writing in the "Irish Trade Journal," the official organ, that it was regrettable that the farming community had taken no part in the proceedings before the Railway Tribunal? How is it expected that they would when their representatives were not consulted?

Mr. McGILLIGAN

Deputy Davin has inquired as to the doings of the Railway Tribunal. A report was tabled some time ago giving a survey, covering the period of a year of the activities of the Railway Tribunal. That was placed on the Table and I presume it is in the Members' Room. In that the Deputy can get an account up to date of all the activities of the Tribunal. That, of course, is produced in accordance with the 1924 Act, which provides that there is to be laid before the members of the Oireachtas such a report, and the report was duly filed. The Deputy raised a question as to a verbatim report of the proceedings. I gave previously, I think, a fairly lengthy and what I considered was a reasoned answer, that the cost seemed to be out of all proportion to the value that could be got from it.

Mr. DAVIN

When the Minister gave that reply had he any approximate estimate of the cost?

Mr. McGILLIGAN

I did not give any estimate in the answer, but there was a sufficient estimate given to enable me to form the conclusion that undoubtedly the expenditure would be far in advance of any value that could be derived from it. The classification question was also raised by Deputy Davin. That matter has just been completed. I believe that as far as the Tribunal are concerned they have finished their report. It is in the hands of the printers, but it has not yet made its appearance. Deputy Baxter talked of the panel, and wanted to know who was responsible for the farmers not taking a better interest in the doings of the Railway Tribunal. The farmers themselves are, of course, responsible ——

Mr. BAXTER

I did not say that. I asked why the nominees put forward were not called into consultation.

Mr. McGILLIGAN

They have no right to be called into consultation——

Mr. BAXTER

Then what is the object of having them?

Mr. McGILLIGAN

Let me finish the sentence. They have no right to be called into consultation except in so far as the panel is set up under Section 17 (1) (a), and Section 17 (1) (a) gives what is called the general panel, as opposed to the railway and canal panel. If the Deputy remembers what was said in the Railway Act debates on (b) he will recall that it was declared that the difference between these panels was that one was the general purposes panel and the other was for particular business. To get people appointed or to nominate people to serve on that when they are called upon, is what the farmers—I do not know whether it is the Farmers' Union or some farmers' representatives—have done. They have established their four, the four whom they would like to be called.

But as to when these people are to be called, that is set out in Section 17, which states that whenever "the Railway Tribunal either upon application by any of the parties or otherwise so request, or the Minister thinks it expedient there shall be added...." The Railway Tribunal made no application to me to put these people on. Presumably that was because the parties concerned in this case did not make application, and in the absence of that application I certainly did not think it expedient that people who were not alive to their own interests should be called up by me to serve. There is nothing inconsistent in people not being summoned when they could themselves have set that summons in motion by application for the purpose of the panel; and with regard to the complaint that was made in the "Trade Journal" that the farmers as a whole had not taken any part in, or any interest in the matter, there are other ways in which the farming community could show an interest in the doings of the Railway Tribunal. A question was raised by Deputy Heffernan when the 1924 Act was going through, and it was later raised to me in a Supplementary Question put on a Question set down by some other Deputy with regard to the matter of classification. It was with reference to that particular point that the "Trade Journal" made the comment, and that comment, that the farming community had not shown any interest in the proceedings of the Railway Tribunal, was perfectly sound. So that there is no dereliction of duty on anybody's part, as far as I can see, except on the part of the parties interested, in not making application for the purposes of the panel. Whether that application, if made, could have been acceded to in the particular case would have been a matter for the Railway Tribunal, because the general panel, the second panel set out in paragraph (4) was a panel with which the farming interests had nothing to do, and it would be very difficult to take a person from one group of four and fill that single place on the Tribunal for some general question, such as classification, in which a great many more interests had to be represented than the farming interests. However that may be, in so far as there was failure, the failure was on the part of the people themselves, who could have raised the matter by making application.

Mr. BAXTER

Is it the Minister's point that after we received an invitation to nominate people to act on this panel and forwarded these names to the authority, the Minister for Lands and Agriculture, we had to follow that up by requesting the right to be put on that panel?

Mr. McGILLIGAN

Certainly. If the Deputy thinks that whatever Party nominated these people had fulfilled their duty with regard to the Railways Act by nominating four people and then simply washing their hands of the whole proceedings, that is not what I imagine should happen. I do not think that the Deputy will make the case that his Party, having got rid of this tremendous labour of nominating four people, should not keep a watchful eye on the Tribunal.

Mr. BAXTER

If these people are ignored——

Mr. McGILLIGAN

Where is the ignoring? All that the Deputy can say happened is that four people were nominated.

Mr. BAXTER

Will the Minister point out where the Act says that?

Mr. McGILLIGAN

Section 17 deals with the panel.

Mr. BAXTER

Where is it pointed out that these are to make application?

Mr. McGILLIGAN

Section 17 (4).

Mr. DAVIN

Is it not a fact that the Farmers' Union actually ignored the work of the Tribunal with regard to classification?

Mr. McGILLIGAN

Yes, completely.

Mr. BAXTER

Yes, following the action towards the nominees that were sent forward to act on the panel.

Mr. McGILLIGAN

The Deputy has got it wrongly. But if the Deputy thinks that by performing the herculean labour of making four nominations the rest lay on the Tribunal——

Mr. BAXTER

Not at all.

Mr. McGILLIGAN

—and because none of these four were called upon, the fault lay with the Tribunal, he is wrong. Obviously until to-day the Deputy did not know what was in the Act.

Vote put and agreed to.