Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Thursday, 30 Apr 1953

Vol. 138 No. 8

Committee on Finance. - Great Northern Railway Bill, 1953—Committee.

Sections 1 to 37, inclusive, put and agreed to.

SECTION 38.

Mr. Larkin

I move amendment No. 1:—

In sub-section (1), page 17, line 27, to delete "wholly" and substitute "or reduces".

Attention was already called to the provisions of this section in the course of the Second Reading debate and we have been asked to submit the series of amendments in our name by the representatives of the trade unions for the employees. I want to say at the outset that, so far as the Minister's statement in reply to Deputy Norton's remarks on the Second Reading is concerned there is a complete feeling of assurance on the part of the employees so far as the Minister is personally concerned. We have, however, to have regard to the possible legal consequences of the final drafting of this section and the implied question arising, bearing in mind some of theexperiences met with in respect of the C.I.E. The amendments which have been tabled have been devised to meet the particular point of view expressed by Deputy Norton on the Second Reading, namely, to deal with the wider implications in respect of the termination or the reduction of services, as and when the board takes over.

The first amendment is to try to meet the situation which appears to be probable, that on the present reading of the sub-section it does appear to imply that, in so far as the board terminates services on a particular railway line, there will be some doubt as to the possible claims for compensation on the part of any employees affected by that change; whether or not it would be possible to sustain a claim if a reduction of services took the form even of leaving only one train a day or one train a week running on that particular line. It is to clarify the position and to afford as much protection as possible within the section, as I am sure is the Minister's intention, that the series of amendments has been put down.

In the course of the Second Reading debate the Minister did make a request that, so far as possible, we would not put forward amendments which might give rise to a situation regarding the joint responsibility for the Bill, but he did indicate that, in so far as we are dealing with matters purely within the purview of our own State they were matters that could be considered. I would ask the Minister to regard the several amendments to this particular section as being wholly in line with an effort to clarify to the utmost the possible variation that may take place in regard to the change in service and the direct consequential effect of that upon the employment of any employee of the board who may or may not be directly employed on that particular line. Amendment No. 1 is the first of a series to try to deal with the position by widening the possible reduction of service so as to include not merely the termination wholly of the service but also the reduction partially or almost wholly of the service.

An Ceann Comhairle

Are amendments Nos. 2 to 5 consequential?

Mr. Larkin

They are practically all consequential and, if the Minister wishes, we can take them together.

Mr. Lemass

Amendment No. 6 deals with a separate issue.

Mr. Larkin

Yes. Amendment No. 2 is to insert before the word "thereof", in line 29, the words "or in anticipation". The board may decide at a particular date that they will terminate or reduce a particular service. In preparation for that reduction they may start to take certain measures, both in respect of the actual line covered by their decision and in respect of consequential services in other parts of the country. Again, it is felt that it is necessary to clarify the position so as to make it clear that a claim for compensation would lie on the part of an employee whose services were affected by steps taken in anticipation of the possible closing down of a line.

It might happen, for example, that a line might be closed down somewhere between Dundalk and Derry, and that, in turn, might affect through the chain of command or service employees in Dundalk or in the head office of the company. Quite clearly, if there is to be a major reduction in service, that will have consequential effects in other parts of the company's line.

In amendment No. 3, the present phrasing of the section is that the section will refer to the "retention of an officer or servant of the Board (being a person who is resident in the State and was theretofore directly employed on that service)". The phrasing there is very limited and in so far as the section is referring to the termination of a transport service on a railway line, it can quite readily be construed to imply that only a person directly employed on that particular line will be entitled to the protection of this section of the Bill. It is suggested, therefore, that the words "and was theretofore directly employed on that service" be deleted.

In the next amendment, No. 4, the position is met to some extent by the Minister, and presumably we can discussthat matter as part of the general discussion on the section.

Finally, in amendment No. 5 it is proposed to insert "or reduction" before the word "becomes" in line 32 thereby widening the present phrasing of the section so that it will apply not merely to termination but also to a reduction of services. Quite clearly a reduction can, if carried to a certain point, be just as effective in either terminating the employment of an employee or requiring his transfer to a position which represents a worsening of his conditions.

From the point of view of the Minister seeking to give ample and full protection to the officers and servants of the company, it seems to me that the amendments we propose are in line with his objective and would safeguard a position which quite clearly could arise in respect of future services on the railway.

Amendment No. 1, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendments Nos. 2 and 3 not moved.

Mr. Lemass

I move amendment No. 4:—

In sub-section (1), page 17, line 31, immediately after "service" to insert "or wholly in connection therewith".

I should perhaps begin by making it clear that the provisions of this Bill relating to the compensation of employees in certain circumstances are not entirely a matter of concern for us alone. The Bill provides that compensation will be payable on the basis of residence and not on the basis of the area in which the employee worked. If an employee resident here loses his position by reason of the termination of a service in the Six Counties his right to compensation and the rate at which he would be compensated will be based upon our law here. It was necessary therefore to have all these provisions relating to compensation agreed and made uniform in both measures. The House may be aware that in the Six Counties it has not been the practice to provide for compensation on the termination or the reduction of train services. It was a matterof negotiation to arrange for the provision in our Bill here and in the cor responding Bill in the North for this departure from the normal practice in Six-County legislation. The inclusion in legislation of a provision for compensation was a concession to our point of view on the part of the Six-County authorities. In those circumstances I am anxious not to raise that issue again if it can be avoided. The viewpoint of the Six-County Parliament in this regard appears to be fairly definite and it may be a matter of some concern there if the case for giving road transport services back to private enterprise should be pressed.

The provisions in this Bill, however, in relation to the position of employees on dismissal due to the termination of railway services are precisely similar to those which were embodied in the 1950 Act in relation to C.I.E. The question of redundant staff, should it arise, will, of course, be a matter within the competence of the board subject to the provisions of the Bill. I am sure that whenever a question of redundancy arises, whether by reason of the closing of branch lines or otherwise, the board's first concern, even in the case of employees who may be eligible for compensation under this legislation, will be to see whether alternative employment can be found for them in other sections of the undertaking.

In the 1933 Act we tried to make provision for compensation in the case of employees who were dismissed in anticipation of an Order for the closing of a branch line, but experience showed that it was an impossible provision to operate, and it was not repeated in the 1950 Transport Act. Deputies who are concerned to ensure protection for employees must, I think, rely generally upon the goodwill of the board and its desire to avoid any situation in which the services of an employee would be dispensed with if it could be avoided.

When Deputy Norton questioned the wording of Section 38 during his speech on the Second Reading, I stated that it was the intention to provide that where an employee lost his employmentby reason of the closing of a branch line, he would be entitled to compensation whether or not he was directly employed on the operation of the branch line. A reconsideration of the section by the draftsman indicates that the intention, in fact, was not implemented by the section as it stood. That is the reason why I have introduced this amendment, which, I think, goes as far as it is possible to go to meet the point made by Deputy Norton. It provides for compensation where the employee was engaged in the operation of the line or wholly in connection therewith. Because of the circumstances to which I have referred, it was necessary to seek the agreement of the Belfast authorities to that amendment, which has been received. I understand that a similar amendment may be introduced by them.

In view of the fact that the inclusion of any provision for compensation in the agreed Bills was a concession by the people of the North and that these provisions are, in any event, precisely similar to those that operate for C.I.E., I prefer to leave the Bill as it stands, subject to amendment No. 4.

Mr. Larkin

The Minister has aroused certain fears in my mind, though I think it is only proper that we should pay a tribute to him in so far as he has been mainly responsible for including in our code forms of compensation for employees affected by our legislation which are superior at least to the viewpoint of our neighbours up North.

I think the Minister has reasonably met the position in regard to the consequential effect of the closure of a branch line so far as the amendment is concerned, but he has not dealt with the other aspect of the matter which we have raised, namely, the partial suspension of services. Sub-section (1) of Section 38 begins: "Where the board terminates wholly a transport service ..." The Minister has made the point that the provision in the Bill is exactly the same as that contained in the 1950 Act, but if you compare them you will find an essential difference. Section 39 of the 1950 Act startsas follows: "Wherever the board under Section 55 ceases to provide a service of trains ..." That is open to very wide application compared with having in mind only the complete termination of a service on a particular line.

If, for argument's sake, there is a service of ten trains a day on a particular line, and if that is reduced to a service on three days a week, it will affect employment. While I think that both the employees of the company in this part of the country and myself would be quite willing to depend on any assurance that the Minister might give, there is the difficulty that there is a marked difference in the approach of the two parties to this legislation. It is from that point of view that, frankly, I find myself in a difficulty. I can appreciate that the Minister had a problem in securing agreement on the actual drafting of the Bill and on subsequent changes. Whether or not we are raising questions which are beyond his competency or power to settle, I do not know.

I think, however, it would be helpful if he would express a viewpoint on the interpretation I have placed on these sections and the comparison I have made with the 1950 Act. Could the Minister indicate, even now, that it might be possible to take into account the interpretation I have placed upon it? I am prepared to go a good deal of the way with him if he feels that it would be impossible to secure a redrafting of the section on the line of the amendments. However, even if we had an expression of the Minister's own viewpoint as to the desirability of applying the sub-section so that it would be to a complete termination of the line, it would be helpful.

We are anxious to co-operate with the Minister in this matter but we have certain responsibilities to our own people whose interests we must safeguard. We do not ask the impossible in the present situation. At the same time, an expression by the Minister of his view on the significance of a sub-section and a comparison of the sub-section with the drafting of the reledraftinvant section in the 1950 Act might be of very considerable help in the future.

Mr. Lemass

The Deputy will appreciate that there is a difference between this Bill and the 1950 Act in this regard. Under the 1950 Act, C.I.E. was given power to reduce or terminate services subject, in certain cases, to the approval of the Transport Board without the Minister having any powers in the matter at all.

Under Section 24, so far as local services are concerned, the board cannot terminate a service without ministerial authority. The Minister comes into the picture and is, therefore, liable to be questioned in the Dáil as to his decision.

As regards the common services, it is clear that the approval of both Ministers is required. The wording of sub-section (1) of Section 38 begins as follows: "Where the board terminates wholly a transport service ..." That is not the same thing as saying: "Where the board closes a line ..." The termination of a transport service might, for example, take the form of the withdrawal of passenger services from a branch line though the line might be kept open for goods traffic— in which case the provisions of the section would operate to the benefit of any employee affected.

Under the 1933 Act there was provision for compensation to employees who lost their employment by reason of reduction of services but under that Act also there could be no reduction of services except with the authority of ministerial Order. I think it would be very difficult to relate the possible disemployment of an individual employee to a reduction of services—that is, a mere lessening of the frequency of trains, but if it takes the form of termination of passenger or goods services on the line, then compensation would be paid.

I should like to put on record my view that it should be the concern of the board, if at all possible, to deal with redundancy, if it should arise, without the disemployment of staff. I think they should make that effort even in the case of employees whowould be entitled to compensation under the Bill. I am sure that any reasonable board will, in fact, approach the problem from that viewpoint.

Mr. Larkin

In view of the position I do not think we can press the amendment beyond the present point. I think the Minister's personal assurance will be of help. I still feel that there are many gaps in the sub-section as it stands. It is a pity that it has not been possible to follow in the present Bill the headline which has been set in our legislation. Possibly at a later date, when we may have a wider area of the country under our control than we have now, we can do so but until such time we have got to rely on the Minister's expression of viewpoint in this House and on the sense of responsibility of the members of the board.

Amendment put and agreed to.

Amendment No. 5 not moved.

Section 38 put and agreed to.

SECTION 39.

Question proposed: "That Section 39 stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Larkin

I move amendment No. 6:—

In page 18, before sub-section (2) to insert a new sub-section as follows:—

(2) Where a superannuation scheme is submitted to the Minister under this section—

(a) the board shall publish in such manner as the Minister may direct a notice intimating that the scheme has been so submitted to the Minister and that any person may during a specific period (not less than twenty-eight days from such publication) make to the Minister objections and representations in relation to the scheme;

(b) the board shall during such period keep at its head office a copy of the scheme open for inspection by any interested person at all reasonable hours;

(c) the Minister shall before confirming the scheme consider any objections or representations in relation to it which have been made to him before the expiration of the said period.

The purpose of the amendment is very plain, that is, to ensure that the preparation of a superannuation scheme should not take place, as it could under the section as it stands, without the employees or their representatives being properly aware in due course of the preparation of the scheme, and being afforded reasonable opportunity of making representations. The main argument in favour of the amendment is that it is taken, word for word, from the 1950 Act which was passed in this House. However, I find myself in this difficulty as far as the Minister is concerned. He would find it hard to argue against the amendment but I am not quite clear as to what particular position he is in in respect of the agreed draft of the Bill, whether that will create trouble.

Mr. Lemass

I would have preferred even in this respect also if we could have kept this Bill in accordance with the provisions of the 1950 Act, but I found that the Six-County authorities were unable to agree that superannuation schemes for new entrants could be introduced immediately. The position is that no schemes have been introduced for new employees of the Ulster Transport Authority and there was a natural reluctance to afford more favourable conditions to the Great Northern Railway employees than those at present applicable to the Ulster Transport Authority employees. In the course of negotiations it was found that agreement could be reached only on the basis of putting into our Bill a simple enabling provision, and that is what Section 39 does.

It will be appreciated that consultation between the authorities in both areas will be necessary if regulations are made in the North or if new schemes are being made here. Both parties would have to consider whether a common scheme could be introduced. In view of that position, the procedureprovided in the amendment would not be suitable in the special circumstances. However, I think I can meet the Deputy to this extent by saying that consultation with the unions will take place here prior to the confirmation of any scheme by the Minister and that undertaking given here and put on the records is as binding as a clause in the Bill.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question put and agreed to.

Sections 40 to 51 put and agreed to.

First Schedule put and agreed to.

SECOND SCHEDULE.

Question proposed: "That the Second Schedule be the Second Schedule to the Bill."

Mr. McMenamin

On the Second Schedule, I would like to know if the present directors of the board are to be nominated on the new board. I am assuming that the new board being asked to balance its accounts implies that owing to the failure of the old board to run the company efficiently and economically and the fact that it lost over £1,000,000 last year, none of them will be competent to sit on the new board.

Secondly, I wish to ask what are to be the qualifications of the new directors nominated by the Minister? Thirdly, they are to act on the board for six years. Is it prudent to have the entire five members nominated by the Minister retiring at the end of that period and another five men coming in then? Would it not be better to have an in-between period when a portion of the board would retire instead of all going out together?

While I do not wish to censure severely the old board, I must say I have used that railway very extensively over the last 50 years and I feel that the losses that were incurred in that concern need not necessarily have been lost. Any person having some business training and experience could not overlook the fact that economies could have been secured without any effect on the efficiency of the railway.It is about time we called a halt in this matter. I do not want to refer here to the economies I would suggest, but I want to know what the Minister is going to do about this. The implication that the new board is to balance its accounts is a severe vote of censure on the existing board, having lost over £1,000,000 in what is a very small organisation. The railway system from here to Derry and to Belfast is quite a small affair and to lose £1,000,000 seems to me to be drawing the bow a little too far.

It would be very wrong of us to take over this railway, much as the case is made for maintaining it, and call on the taxpayers to make up any loss that might be incurred due to the inefficiency in the management of the board. I for one wish to say I am not prepared to do that and that the Minister will have to take some steps to ensure that the taxpayers are not to be mulcted when they need not necessarily be. I want to emphasise that I cannot see how over £1,000,000 was lost on a small concern of this kind. I do not wish to go into details now as to how it was lost or why it should not have been lost or why the major portion of it should not have been lost but I would like to hear the Minister on that because it is rather a serious matter.

Mr. Lemass

There is, of course, no obligation whatever to appoint any of the present directors on the new board. The existing company will go out of existence and the undertaking will be handed over to this joint board. In choosing members for the joint board concern will have to be given not merely to securing the services of people who are competent to direct an undertaking of this kind but who will have the realisation that they will be acting on a joint board and will have, over and above the general management of the undertaking, the special duty of looking after the interests of this area and the portion of the undertaking in this area. So far as the future of the undertaking is concerned, I would like to say we have put in the Bill as a statutory obligation on themthe duty of so conducting it as to avoid losses arising.

I said speaking to the Bill on Second Reading that I recognised that that happy situation would not be produced merely by putting a section in the Bill but I should like to make it clear that it is not put in merely as a gesture either. It is intended to be there as a direction to the board so to operate the undertaking that the possibility of losses will be at least minimised and if possible avoided altogether.

Mr. McMenamin

Will the Minister insist on that?

Mr. Lemass

I was interested to note that Mr. McCleery speaking on the corresponding Bill in Belfast to-day also gave expression to his intention of exercising his powers to get the same results, so that there is one matter at least on which there is complete agreement. Whether our intentions can be made effective is another question. If, however, losses do arise, the matter will come before the Dáil because, of course, no money can be provided to meet such losses without a vote of the Dáil. Deputies will have ample opportunity of expressing their views on the situation then and of putting forward any suggestions that they may think will help to improve the position.

Question put and agreed to.

Third and Fourth Schedules agreed to.

Question proposed: "That the Fifth Schedule be the Fifth Schedule to the Bill".

Mr. McMenamin

Before the Second Schedule was agreed to I should have mentioned the anomaly of having two head offices, one in Dublin and one in Belfast. By agreeing to that proposal is the Minister not committed to the continuance of waste in an institution that is already losing money? These offices will have to be staffed. When you do come to an agreement in matters of this kind, why not go the manly way about it as any businessman would? This is a petty compromise, a sort of play-acting, to tryto placate partisans in the North and in the South. Surely, it is not a business transaction.

Mr. Lemass

I do not think the Deputy should read into that section any intention of duplicating staffs. It is a legal provision necessary in the special circumstances.

Mr. McMenamin

I think that the Minister will agree that, certainly on paper, it looks a pretty "punk affair". This is an undertaking that is losing more than £1,000,000 but yet they want two head offices. That is mere play-acting, not an attempt to run the undertaking in a businesslike manner.

Question put and agreed to.

Sixth Schedule and the Title agreed to.

Bill reported with amendment.

Fourth Stage ordered for Thursday, 14th May.