On Section 2, is there any particular reason why, in the case of the Minister for Industry and Commerce it is the "Minister", while in the case of the Ministry of Commerce it is the "Ministry"?
Committee on Finance. - Great Northern Railway Bill, 1958—Committee and Final Stages.
Section 1 agreed to.
SECTION 2.
Question proposed: "That Section 2 stand part of the Bill."
Yes. I understand that in the Six Counties it is the Ministry which is the corporation and it is the seal of the Ministry which must be attached to the agreement.
Question put and agreed to.
Sections 3 to 6, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 7.
I move amendment No. 1:—
In sub-section (2), line 18, after "land" to insert "and premises", and in line 23 after "land" where it twice occurs to add ",premises".
I take it we may discuss amendments Nos. 1, 2 and 3 together?
Yes, they deal with the one matter. The Minister tried to assure me, on the Second Stage, that there was no need to insert the word "premises" or "houses" after the word "lands", where it appears in the relevant sub-sections. He said that undoubtedly when this Bill referred to the transfer of lands it included the houses or premises on the lands. In that respect can the Minister assure me that the G.N.R. Board is the owner of all the lands on which these houses are, because if they are not it could happen they might not be the owners in some particular cases and it would not necessarily mean the houses were transferred to C.I.E.? The word "lands" in that instance would not include houses or premises because the G.N.R. Board might not own the land in question?
As a matter of fact I think that the Minister for Industry and Commerce owns the land at the moment. On the particular point raised, this amendment is unnecessary to provide that the term "lands" includes houses on the lands. That is covered by our Interpretation Act. The Interpretation Act of 1937, Section 12, provides that in every Act which we pass wherever the term "land" is used it will be interpreted as including hereditaments, buildings and premises of any type.
Assuming the board owns the land underneath the houses, is the Minister——
I do not think that matters at present. This provides for the transfer of whatever lands or buildings there are to C.I.E.
Yes.
It does not make any difference who owns them, they will be transferred to C.I.E. or the Dundalk Engineering Company.
Assuming that the land on which the houses were, were owned by a body other than the G.N.R.——
Yes, I am not at all sure but I think the land and physical, unmovable property of the G.N.R. are the property of the Minister for Industry and Commerce and are entrusted to the G.N.R. for management. In any event, the intention is to transfer them to C.I.E. and they will be the owners.
It will not affect the present tenants?
That is another matter. That depends on the terms of their tenancy agreements. Whatever contractual agreement they have will then be the obligation of C.I.E.
Would the Minister mind explaining how the word "premises" appears in the Schedule while elsewhere it does not? Why put in the word "premises" there and not in this section?
That is the agreement which we made which is not part of the Act.
It cannot be altered?
Amendment withdrawn?
As long as I get that assurance, that the tenants who occupy houses at the moment, which are owned by the G.N.R. Board at present, and these tenants working on the D.E.W., will not be interfered with.
At some stage there will have to be some agreement between C.I.E. and the Dundalk Engineering Works, as to the boundaries to their respective properties. In so far as there will be a division required, there will be an absolute division. The agreement to define the exact boundaries between the two owners has not yet been made.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question proposed: "That Section 7 stand part of the Bill."
Sub-section (4) says that "the assets...of the County Donegal Railways Joint Committee...shall vest in the board as from such date as may be so agreed". The Minister, when he was speaking on the Second Stage, said there was no permanent agreement, that this railway was owned jointly by the G.N.R. Board and the British Transport Commission, and that it would need legislation to vest part of the undertaking in the Minister. Assuming that this railway would close down, would it be the intention of C.I.E. to carry out repairs or maintenance work for the rolling stock of this undertaking at the Dundalk Engineering Works? If this railway closes down would there not be additional buses required in that area which should obviously be maintained in Dundalk?
That fence is on the next circuit of the course; we have not come in sight of it yet. We did not find it possible to make any final agreement with the Minister of Commerce in Belfast regarding the half share in the ownership of the County Donegal Joint Railways Committee which the G.N.R. Board held. The effect of the provision in the Bill and of paragraph 5 of the agreement which is scheduled to the Bill, is to leave the door open for further agreement regarding the concern to which the British Transport Commission, which owns the other half of the County Donegal Joint Railways Committee, must also be a party.
The position is that this railway undertaking in Donegal is jointly owned now by the G.N.R. Board and by the British Transport Commission. It is, like all our railways, operated at a loss; and of course that is the problem because the loss has, up to the present, been shared equally by the two owning bodies. However, the railways, as Deputies know, are almost entirely situated within our territory. The original share capital of the undertaking was converted into British transport stock and a statutory annual interest charge of £10,000 is payable by the joint committee to the British Transport Commission who, in turn, pay out to the shareholders. That interest charge was also shared equally by the two owning bodies in common with the operating losses. In 1957, the losses, after charging interest, amounted to £27,000.
There is another railway there, the Letterkenny and Strabane Railway, which, although it has a separate legal existence, is operated by the joint committee, who own the entire capital, with the exception of guaranteed shares amounting to £17,500 held by outside shareholders and guaranteed by Donegal County Council and Letter-kenny Urban District Council. Under the scheme of apportionment drawn up under the 1953 agreement, provision was made that the G.N.R. share of the interest charge, that is to say, £5,000 a year, should be shared equally by the North and South and that operating losses, excluding the interest charge, should be shared on the ratio of the mileage of the lines in the two areas, which left us with 97 per cent. of the losses. No provision was made for the apportionment of the Great Northern half share of capital expenditure which, since 1953, amounted to £14,000 and which represents expenditure almost entirely upon road services which operate in our territory.
The people in Belfast take the view that they should not be required to contribute anything to the undertaking which is outside the Six Counties and outside their control. They realise, however, that the interest charge upon the stock is a statutory one and will have to be a joint responsibility until permanent arrangements can be made in agreement with the British Transport Commission. That would probably require legislation both here and in Britain, and possibly in the Six Counties also. Meanwhile, the Ministry of Commerce will continue to bear half of the Great Northern share of the interest charge. They are also prepared to bear half of the Great Northern share of capital expenditure up to the transfer date. After that date, C.I.E. will bear the Great Northern half share of the operating losses, excluding interest. We have hitherto met 97 per cent. of the Great Northern share. C.I.E. will also bear the Great Northern half share of capital expenditure after the transfer date, which will almost exclusively represent expenditure on the road services within our territory. This provision of the Bill is identical with the corresponding provision which has appeared in the Belfast Bill.
I only wanted to have my word in, if and when it ever happened.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 8
Amendments Nos. 2 and 3 not moved.
Question proposed: "That Section 8 stand part of the Bill."
As it says, the section arranges "for the definitive transfer of the Dundalk works to the Dundalk Engineering Works Ltd." This transfer has been brought about to enable that company to carry on certain engineering activity. I should like to stress at this stage some relevant points about this proposed transfer. In previous statements in the House, the Minister expressed a very strong, confident hope that employment would be more or less maintained in Dundalk, subsequent to the amalgamation with C.I.E. I should like to impress on the Minister the importance of one fact, that is, that assuming the Heinkel car project and the foundry project were in full stride at present, it would, possibly, provide employment for only about 350 workers in Dundalk. That leaves a balance of about 650 for whom work must be found.
I admit that the amount of railway work which will be done in Dundalk according to the Minister will provide a fairly substantial amount of employment, but it is doubtful whether it will fill the gap, whether it will absorb the balance of 650 men looking for employment. I should like to take this opportunity of asking the Minister to do what he can to exhort and advise other State concerns, such as Bord na Móna, the E.S.B. and maybe the Sugar Company, to get as much work as possible done in the Dundalk Engineering Works. As I see it, as the men see it and probably as the Minister sees it, there will be a terribly uphill fight to maintain full employment there. I venture to say it will be impossible to maintain full employment, but naturally, for obvious reasons, we all want to keep unemployment and dismissals at a minimum. It will require the combined efforts and co-operation of everybody, both workers and management, to save this concern.
I should like to ask the Minister could the word "chattels" in sub-section (1) of Section 8 by any stretch of the imagination include lorries? For its future operation, this company obviously needs a number of lorries. The nature of its work suggests that such will be the case. It may be that the G.N.R. Board and, subsequent to the passing of this Bill, C.I.E. may find a surplus of lorries on their hands. It may not be so, but if it is the case, would it not be possible to include lorries in that word "chattels"? It would help in some way; it would be a gesture; it would relieve the company of spending money on buying a new fleet of lorries which they will eventually need.
The Minister also referred to other subsidiary companies which will be operating within the confines of the Dundalk works and if possible at this stage I should like him to give more details about their prospective operations. I should also like to know what he meant when he said that a sum of about £1,500,000 might possibly be invested in the whole concern.
The Deputy quoted me as having expressed the hope that all the workers formerly employed at the Dundalk works when controlled by the G.N.R. would continue to be employed in the future. I do not think that is an accurate quotation.
I did not quote the Minister's words.
I expressed the intention, which is being fulfilled through this Dundalk Engineering Works organisation, of endeavouring to procure the establishment at Dundalk of a series of commercial operations which would be adequate in their scope to employ the same number of workers as were formerly employed there. Obviously no individual is being guaranteed work for the rest of his life but the board are reasonably confident that the plans they have made will be adequate to ensure that there will be carried on at Dundalk various commercial activities which should develop to a stage at which an equivalent number of workers will be employed.
I mentioned that the original idea of one company carrying on a number of operations has been departed from and the intention now is to have subsidiary companies set up, each of which will be concerned with a particular aspect of these activities. The Deputy mentioned three of these: the production of Heinkel cars; the operating of a commercial steel foundry and the general engineering activities. There are two other projects, about which I am not in a position to make a statement and relating to which the Deputy and people interested in Dundalk must await an announcement from the board which they will make when they deem the time to be appropriate.
I said that the plans, as I know them, will involve an investment in equipment, stocks, buildings and working capital to an extent which is now estimated at about £1,500,000, but that investment will be spread over different activities and will enable operations to be carried on by each of the separate organisations there. It is difficult to make any precise statement, as the Deputy will appreciate, because there are matters that are going on at present and we are in the middle of the transition period and we can only talk about plans which have yet to be finalised. As soon as things are definitely fixed and arranged precise details will be made known.
The Bill, of course, provides for the transfer of the land including the buildings at Dundalk to the Dundalk Engineering Works. It also provides for the transfer of chattels, that is to say machines, stocks of materials and lorries, the movable equipment generally which is there at the workshops, to the board, but for that they will have to pay and the payment will be made to the former owner, namely the G.N.R. Company, and will be part of the assets of the G.N.R. which will be subsequently divided. The amount of the payment has yet to be determined and if there is any disagreement between the board and the company as to the chattels to be transferred and the payment therefor the Minister comes in under the terms of this Bill to settle the question. But the term "chattels" as used covers all equipment utilised at Dundalk Engineering Works except the buildings and land.
It does not cover rolling-stock?
The rolling-stock there for the purpose of being repaired belongs to the G.N.R. but the materials held by the Dundalk Engineering Works for the purpose of doing that work would be part of the chattels to be transferred.
The Minister previously expressed the opinion—with which we all concurred—that the success of the Dundalk Engineering Works depended largely on its ability to secure large contracts from outside the country and said that they were actively pursuing that policy. When he was questioned on the matter previously he was unable to indicate whether they were meeting with any success in that direction. Would he now like to indicate what the prospects are?
The Deputy understands that, so far as the Heinkel car company is concerned, the scale of operations will require that some 90 per cent. of the production must be exported and I believe that orders for substantial numbers of these vehicles have already been secured. So far as the steel foundry is concerned, I think that will be mainly interested in internal orders initially because of course there is no commercial steel foundry in the country and it represents a substantial addition to our industrial equipment. But it will also be available to do work of that character for anybody abroad who wants it done where they can quote competitive prices. The general engineering works will be engaged to a substantial degree in doing for C.I.E. that part of the activities which were always done at Dundalk for the part of the G.N.R. organisation which C.I.E. will take over, and that will represent a substantial amount of business for them but to keep that section of the works fully employed they will obviously need more than that business. They will get it wherever they can get it, inside or outside the country. I know they have tendered for various contracts outside the country but I have not heard that they have succeeded in getting any contract yet.
On the Second Stage the Minister said the public would be invited to subscribe for the purpose of buying shares in this company. It is hardly likely that the public will subscribe for a while until they find out how the company is faring. Does the Minister intend to come to its assistance with extra finances?
The intention is that there will be a public issue of shares. I think the Deputy is probably right in forecasting that, at this stage of the undertaking, the public is not likely to come forward with sufficient capital to meet all the requirements of the undertaking and that means a proportion of these shares will remain in the hands of the underwriters. The shares will be underwritten and that ensures that the Dundalk Engineering Works will get the capital, but the shares will be held by the underwriters and will be retained by them so long as they think that the prospect of a successful sale to the public does not exist. As soon as they believe an opportunity of disposing of them presents itself, because of the success of the Dundalk works and its ability to earn a profit, they will sell.
The reason for adopting that procedure rather than advancing money is to emphasise, in the first place, the private enterprise character of the undertaking and make quite clear that this is a company which is to be financed by share capital and that the return on that capital will depend on the commercial success of the undertaking, and secondly, because it is thought likely that in the case of some of these subsidiary companies, private interests may be associated with them. I think there is little doubt some private capital will be forthcoming, and will represent the association with the undertaking of commercial interests that can contribute to its success.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 9.
Question proposed: "That Section 9 stand part of the Bill."
On a point of clarification, sub-section (5) of Section 9 says:—
"The board shall stand in the place of the Minister under paragraphs 1 to 6 and sub-paragraphs (b) and (c) of paragraph 7 of the scheduled agreement."
Sub-paragraphs (b) and (c) of the scheduled agreement do not contain the word "Minister" at all. The relevant wording there is: "the party of the area". I wonder why it states the board shall stand in the place of the Minister in this section when the Minister's name does not appear in sub-paragraphs (b) and (c) of the agreement?
I do not know if I get the point. The agreement provides for the division of the G.N.R. undertaking, including all its assets and liabilities, between the Minister for Industry and Commerce here and the Minister of Commerce in Belfast. The Minister for Industry and Commerce here therefore assumes all the liabilities of the G.N.R. Board which are apportioned to us under the agreement, but the effect of the sub-section is to set out these liabilities in so far as they concern the part of the undertaking which is being transferred to C.I.E., and hand them over to C.I.E. I do not know if that makes the matter clear to the Deputy.
The word "Minister" does not appear, whereas it says, in place of the word "Minister", the word "board" shall stand.
It is paragraphs 1 to 6 of the agreement.
I am referring to sub-paragraphs (b) and (c) of paragraph 7.
The Minister is surely referred to in these paragraphs?
Not in paragraphs (b) and (c) on the last page of the Bill.
The Minister is specifically mentioned as party to the agreement.
He is not mentioned in the sub-paragraphs I have referred to on the last page.
I am "the party of the area" which is mentioned there.
The Minister probably is.
The Deputy might not recognise me under that description.
Question put and agreed to.
Section 10 agreed to.
SECTION 11.
Question proposed: "That Section 11 stand part of the Bill."
This section says that any public service vehicle licence shall stand transferred to the board. As the Minister knows, there are a number of buses operating from Newry, which is across the Border, and which belong to the outgoing board.
That is right.
They ply between Newry and Dundalk. How will the licences in relation to those buses stand? Will they be transferred to C.I.E.?
All the road services of the G.N.R. will be transferred to C.I.E.
Whether they are, at the moment, in the North or in the South?
Yes.
Question put and agreed to.
Sections 12 and 13 agreed to.
SECTION 14.
There are a series of amendments on this section. Amendments Nos. 4, 5, 8, 10 and 11 stand together.
I move amendment No. 4:—
In sub-section (2) (a) to insert "or servant" after "officer" in lines 8 and 10.
Salaried staff only are eligible for membership of the Railway Clearing System Superannuation Fund. The G.N.R. Board queried whether the term "officer", as it appeared in the draft Bill, was sufficient to include all staffs who are members of the fund, particularly female clerks, typists and so forth. The position of foremen was also doubtful and the Parliamentary Draftsman thought, in view of these questions, it would be prudent to extend the provision to include both officers and servants and that is the purpose of all these amendments.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 5:—
In sub-section (2) (b), line 16, before "shall" to insert "or servant".
Amendment agreed to.
Is Deputy Casey satisfied that amendment No. 13 meets amendment No. 6?
Yes.
Amendment No. 6 not moved.
I move amendment No. 7:—
In sub-section (2), page 6, line 17, before "board" to insert "board and, after the dissolution of the outgoing board, shall bind the".
I take it that amendment No. 7 and amendment No. 12 can go together.
Amendment No. 12 is met by amendment No. 13 as well.
The purpose of amendment No. 7 is to ensure the existing obligations of the G.N.R., under the Railway Clearing System Superannuation Fund in respect of staff who are members of that fund, will be binding on C.I.E. when the G.N.R. Board is dissolved, and when C.I.E. become a special subscriber to the fund. C.I.E. have decided to become a special subscriber to the fund in respect of G.N.R. staff and existing pensioners who are members of that fund as soon as the necessary British legislation can be secured. I understand from the Railway Clearing System Superannuation Fund Corporation that if British legislation is initiated before the autumn of this year, it will be possible to have it enacted before 1959. The corporation is prepared to co-operate with C.I.E. in becoming a subscriber to the fund and in securing the necessary British legislation. The insertion of this amendment will avoid further transport legislation here next year when C.I.E. becomes a special subscriber. The cost of the British legislation will be borne by C.I.E., but, I understand, it is not likely to be more than a few hundred pounds.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 8:—
In sub-section (2) (c), line 20, before "shall" to insert "or servant".
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 9 not moved.
I move amendment No. 10:—
In sub-section (2) (d), line 23, before "so" to insert "or servant".
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 11:—
In sub-section (2) (e), line 27, after "officer" to insert "or servant" where it twice occurs.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 12 not moved.
I move amendment No. 13:—
To add to the section a new sub-section as follows:—
(3) (a) The obligations, whether obtaining legally or by customary practice, of the outgoing board under the Railway Clearing System Superannuation Fund in respect of every person who, immediately before the transfer date, is entitled to benefit under that fund and who was resident in the State when he first became so entitled shall continue to be binding on the outgoing board and, after the dissolution of the outgoing board, shall bind the board.
(b) All moneys from time to time required by the outgoing board to discharge its obligations in respect of any such person shall on demand be paid to it by the board.
Perhaps I should say a few words on amendment No. 13 to help Deputies to understand the problem. The amendment has a twofold objective. Firstly, it ensures the statutory and customary obligations of the G.N.R. Board, in respect of existing pensioners of the Railway Clearing System Superannuation Fund, will continue to be binding on the G.N.R. Board between the transfer date and the ultimate dissolution of the G.N.R. Board later on. Secondly, it provides that these obligations will be binding on C.I.E. when C.I.E. become a special subscriber to the fund, after the dissolution of the G.N.R. Board.
Obligations in respect of existing pensioners arise in section B. of the fund. Section B. covers members, including existing pensioners, who were members of the fund prior to 1941, when the fund was reorganised. Improved benefits were then introduced and contributing bodies with employees or existing pensioners in that section of the fund have guaranteed the solvency of the section for a period of 60 years from 1941 and must make good by way of annual payments any actuarial deficiencies arising following on periodic actuarial valuations.
There is, therefore, a continuing liability of the G.N.R. Board, in common with other contributing bodies, to that section of the fund, in respect of existing pensioners as well as serving members. The existing provision in Section 14 (2) (b) of the Bill covers liability in respect of existing members only. It does not cover the liability in respect of existing pensioners.
This amendment is made at the request of the Railway Clearing System Superannuation Fund Corporation, who were consulted to ensure that the terms of the Bill were in order, so far as the corporation is concerned. The existing statutory and customary obligations of the G.N.R. Board in respect of existing pensioners of the fund will bind C.I.E. when the G.N.R. Board is dissolved and when C.I.E. become a special subscriber to the fund.
Amendment agreed to.
Question proposed: "That Section 14, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
Sub-section (1) says that every person who, immediately before the transfer date, "was then resident in the State," shall on that date become an officer or servant of the board. What would be the position of G.N.R. workers living in Newry?
That was the agreement we made with the people in Belfast, that we take responsibility for the people resident in our territory and they take responsibility for the people resident in theirs; so the G.N.R. worker resident in Newry becomes the responsibility of the Ulster Transport Authority.
A number of those workers who live in Newry are natives of Eire who, in the course of time, have gone to live in Newry.
That was the agreement we made and while I might have argued that it was not quite the fairest from our point of view, I accepted it as the only practicable one.
Will they be entitled to transfer to U.T.A. or to compensation in the same way?
Yes, they come under the Bill as passed in the Belfast Parliament.
It is appreciated here that the section, as amended, now appears adequate to safeguard the rights of the staff in regard to superannuation and pension, particularly in view of the fact that a phrase is brought into it referring to their entitlement by customary practice. I take it that this section also endows on transferred members other rights they have, outside pension or superannuation rights. I may help by giving this example. In the clerical grade of the G.N.R., there is the special executive staff who are catered for by a particular trade union which is recognised by the G.N.R. Board. The board has always recognised that this trade union has the right to negotiate as far as grades of pay and salaries for these special class clerks are concerned.
Their counterpart in C.I.E., the special and executive clerks, although belonging to the same trade union, have not the same rights. That has been denied to them by C.I.E. C.I.E. has consistently declined to recognise the trade union as the negotiating body for that category of salaried employee. I think it may be taken that the C.I.E. Board will be rather inclined to adopt the same attitude towards those special class clerical staff who are transferred from the G.N.R. Now, those people enjoy this right under the G.N.R. Board and I take it that this right, which arose out of customary practice, is safeguarded in this section and that they will bring with them into C.I.E. that right of their trade union of negotiations with the C.I.E. Board, as far as their rates of pay are concerned?
That is a situation about which I do not know anything and consequently I am not prepared to express an opinion. The general law requires that the C.I.E. Board shall arrange the conditions of employment of its workers in negotiation with trade unions representative of the workers. I do not think I need go any further than that. If any question arises about the representative status of the trade union, they would have to establish it themselves; and I should imagine that in the circumstances described by the Deputy, they would not have any difficulty. So far as the law is concerned, there is a general obligation on C.I.E. to arrange conditions of employment of workers in negotiation with trade unions representative of those workers.
I hope that there will be a general desire to facilitate the introduction of arrangements which will be workable in the future. It is quite clear that there will be a great deal of detailed negotiation required to carry out this amalgamation of the two organisations and ultimately get a coherent system working for C.I.E. I am sure that everybody concerned will be approaching that task with the desire and intention of getting over any difficulty of that kind that may arise.
Then I may take it, without referring to a specific case as I did, that the Minister's view on this section is that it is designed to ensure that transferred employees from G.N.R. to C.I.E. will carry with them whatever rights they had?
Yes, whatever rights in regard to pay and conditions of service—and if they suffer any worsening, they will become entitled to compensation.
They will have the same rights to seniority?
That is a matter which clearly must be settled between the C.I.E. management and the trade unions. Some Deputies may be aware that a rather difficult problem arose in that connection following the termination of the Sligo and Leitrim Railway, where some workers formerly employed on that railway were taken in by C.I.E. and there were divergent views held as to how they fitted in and what seniority they brought with them. It is quite clear that, in this particular instance, in the amalgamation of these two concerns, the problems of seniority will have to be adjusted by agreement between the company and the trade unions. I would not attempt myself to lay down rules which should guide them in doing that.
May I take it from the Minister's previous remarks that all the foremen and all the salaried staff at present employed by D.E.W. will be seconded or transferred to C.I.E., but will stay where they are, while continuing to work with D.E.W.?
Yes, that is right. All the salaried staff now employed by D.E.W. and seconded to the G.N.R. Board will become employees of C.I.E. after the amalgamation.
Seconded to the D.E.W.?
They are still, in theory, employees of the G.N.R. although seconded to D.E.W. They will become, in theory, employees of C.I.E. Presumably C.I.E. will not want them. They will continue to be employed by the D.E.W. and their compensation will be abated so long as they are. I hope I have made the matter clear. It is rather complicated.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 15.
I move amendment No. 14:—
In sub-section (1) (a) page 6, line 33, before "to" to insert "or seconded".
The purpose of this amendment is to safeguard the position of staffs who have accrued rights in any of the pension funds listed in the scheduled agreement on page 12—members of these funds who are not transferred to the C.I.E. but who are seconded under sub-section (2). I may help the Minister by quoting an example. There are at the moment some female clerks who were originally members of the Female Clerks Provident Fund and who subscribed to that fund and who are entitled on retirement to benefits from that fund, but who at a later stage of their career with the transport concern transferred to the Railway Clearing System Superannuation Fund when that was thrown open to female staff. These people are not being transferred but are simply being seconded for duty to C.I.E. because of their membership of the R.C.S. fund. On that account, they do not appear to be covered by the section as it stands at the moment. I would ask the Minister to accept the amendment.
I will accept the amendment.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 15:—
In sub-section (8), page 7, line 28, before "board" to insert "outgoing".
This is only a drafting amendment to correct an error.
I was wondering what was wrong.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 16:—
In sub-section (9), line 30, to delete "not".
The meaning of this sub-section as it stands is that officers or servants of the G.N.R. Board, when they are transferred to C.I.E., will not be eligible to become a member of the C.I.E. pension scheme, if they are at present members of the G.N.R. scheme. I do not think it is wise or right that there should be such discrimination between the present C.I.E. staff and the new recruits, shall we call them, who are being transferred. I assume that in the C.I.E. pension schemes, as in the G.N.R. schemes, there is an age limit under which a person is debarred from joining a particular scheme, if he is over a certain age. If the Minister's reason for framing this sub-section is to safeguard the C.I.E. funds, that age limit would suffice. We must remember that these officers and servants who will be transferred next September or October will become C.I.E. employees. I think they should be entitled to the same rights as the present C.I.E. employees enjoy. It says they will not be eligible to become a member of a superannuation scheme established before the transfer date. What about after the transfer date?
That is the point. The effect of the provision is to preclude a member of the G.N.R. staff who is a member of an existing superannuation scheme from becoming a member of C.I.E. pension scheme established before the transfer date. The effect of the Deputy's amendment would be to make a member of a G.N.R. scheme transferred to C.I.E. eligible for membership of a C.I.E. scheme also and thus qualify for both the G.N.R. and the C.I.E. pension, which would, indeed, make him more favourably circumstanced than existing C.I.E. employees; but while sub-section (9) of Section 15 is designed to preclude members of G.N.R. schemes from membership of existing C.I.E. schemes which would, as I have said, make them more favourably circumstanced than existing C.I.E. employees, the next sub-section empowers C.I.E. to introduce an amending scheme for G.N.R. workers transferred to them. C.I.E. will thus be in a position to bring about parity in the schemes applicable to the former G.N.R. workers and to existing C.I.E. workers.
C.I.E., therefore, have the right to level up?
Exactly.
Could the worker not transfer out of the one into the other and agree to pay the respective contributions?
The method proposed is that he comes in with his existing superannuation rights until C.I.E. make an amending scheme which will bring about parity. That will avoid anomalies between the conditions of former G.N.R. workers and C.I.E. workers.
Another question to be resolved by negotiation.
C.I.E. will submit an amending scheme to me for approval, and, following statutory publication and notice, it will be implemented.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question proposed: "That Section 15, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
Sub-section (4) says:—
"Subject to the provisions of this section, every existing superannuation scheme and the management thereof shall on and after the transfer date, continue in being."
That, of course, speaks for itself. It means that there will not be any merger with the C.I.E. schemes. It is related to the other amendment. The Minister on the Second Stage said that there would be a freezing of the superannuation rights of employees.
No, that was not quite correct. I mentioned that we had been considering that possibility, but it did not prove to be practicable on the lines we had in mind. What will emerge in the negotiations which will now take place, I cannot say. The result of these negotiations must be confirmed by legislation.
Is it confined to the salaried class?
It applies to officers and servants.
Will they be compulsorily frozen?
I cannot say.
Sub-section (6) says:—
"The obligations, whether obtaining legally or by customary practice, any existing superannuation scheme of the outgoing board in respect of and in respect of every member of the said existing superannuation scheme shall be binding on the board."
I assume that would include the extra 10/- I was speaking about as an ex gratia payment.
Whatever was paid by customary practice.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 16.
I move amendment No. 17:—
In sub-section (1), page 7, lines 49 and 50, to delete "superannuation scheme" and substitue "pension or staff fund".
This is a drafting amendment which the Parliamentary Draftsman considered to be desirable in the interests of clarity. Section 16 provides, in the case of staff transferred to the Dundalk Engineering Works, for the continuance of the funds listed in the scheduled agreement. These funds are more appropriately described as pension or staff funds. That is the phrase which is set out in Section 15, sub-section (1) of the Bill and in paragraph 7, sub-paragraph (a) of the agreement. The amendment, therefore, avoids the possibility of ambiguity.
The definition of "existing superannuation scheme" means a pension or staff fund in sub-section (1) of paragraph 15. Is there any need to repeat it?
I understand that these funds which are in existence are properly described as pension or staff funds rather than superannuation schemes.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 18:—
In sub-section (1), page 7, line 52, to delete "company;" and substitute "company, such fund being taken as having continued to apply to him after such employment;".
The purpose of this amendment is to ensure that, in the case of G.N.R. personnel transferred to the Dundalk Engineering Works, membership of pension schemes will not be affected by the fact that they were transferred to the Dundalk Engineering Works in January last, when the works were leased to the Dundalk Engineering Works. The whole intention of Section 16 of the Bill is to preserve the pension rights of staff transferred to the Dundalk Engineering Works. The G.N.R. Board have, however, obtained legal advice to the effect that, under the rules of the pensions fund for wages staff, membership of the staff transferred to the Dundalk Engineering Works terminated on the date that they ceased to be employed by G.N.R. and became employed by the Dundalk Engineering Works. If that opinion was correct, it would, of course, defeat the whole intention of the section and, to remove any doubts in the matter, we have prepared this amendment to make it quite clear that these pensions rights are preserved and carried over.
I understand that, in recent times, negotiations have been in progress between the trade unions concerned and the G.N.R. Board regarding the amendment of the pensions scheme as it stands at the moment.
Yes.
I understand that the trade unions have made considerable progress and, were it not for the termination, a substantial improvement would have been secured. May I take it that the Dundalk Engineering Works will continue to negotiate with the trade unions?
I am quite certain that, in the course of time, when their initial problems are solved, the aim of the Dundalk Engineering Works will be to become good employers in respect of pension provision for their staffs but clearly, as a commercial undertaking dependent for their resources upon what they can earn through the sale of commodities, arrangements will have to be less formal in character than those that would apply in the case of a public transport undertaking but I assume it is a matter which will be taken up between the management of the company and the trade unions concerned at a very early stage.
I have no doubt that it will be taken up by the trade unions concerned but the Minister will appreciate the position, that they were on the threshold of making an agreement relating to pensions and were it not for the pending transfer, the thing would have been finalised. Especially in relation to those people who will be coming under benefit in a short time, the Minister will appreciate it is rather hard luck and he might convey to the Dundalk Engineering Works that there appears to be at least a moral obligation on them towards those people who have hard luck because the transfer took place at the time it did.
With regard to the 10/- ex gratia payment to which I referred, will that be retrospective to last January?
Is the Deputy talking about the 10/- paid ex gratia?
Yes.
Yes, that will be retrospective.
In addition to their pensions?
Yes. The Dundalk Engineering Works will take over what would have been the liability of the G.N.R.
The D.E.W. have not paid it yet.
That was due to a misunderstanding of their obligations.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 16, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 17.
Amendment No. 19 seems to cover amendment No. 20.
It does, Sir.
I move amendment No. 19:—
In sub-section (1), page 8, to delete paragraph (a) and substitute the following paragraph:—
(a) where, as a consequence of the vesting on the transfer date of the part of the undertaking of the outgoing board within the State, the board, within five years after the passing of this Act, dispenses with the services of an officer or servant (including an officer or servant transferred or seconded under Section 14) or transfers him to another position in its service;.
Section 17, sub-section (1) (a), as introduced, would entitle the G.N.R. staff to compensation only where they suffer loss of employment or worsening of conditions as a result of the amalgamation of C.I.E. and G.N.R. undertakings. This matter was referred to in the Second Reading discussion and I undertook to introduce an amendment to deal with it. It may happen that, where a post which will become duplicated is retrenched as a result of amalgamation, it will be the C.I.E. employee rather than the G.N.R. employee who will be let go. The effect of the amendment is to ensure that compensation provisions will apply alike to both C.I.E. and G.N.R. staff who are rendered redundant by amalgamation. We took the opportunity of the introduction of the amendment to improve the wording of the sub-section so as to refer to the vesting of the part of the G.N.R. undertaking within the State in C.I.E. rather than the vesting of the whole undertaking in C.I.E., which is not quite accurate.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 20 not moved.
I move amendment No. 21:—
In sub-section (1), page 9, to add to the sub-section the following paragraph:—
(c) where the board ceases to provide or permanently reduces any transport service by rail or inland waterway or substitutes diesel for steam traction or where an Order is made under Section 9 of the Transport Act, 1958, in relation to a specified level crossing and as a consequence thereof the board, within five years after the passing of that Act, either dispenses with the services of an officer or servant (being an officer or servant transferred or seconded under Section 14) or transfers him to another position in its service;.
This proposed sub-section is a repetition of Section 14 (1) of the Transport Bill which we have just disposed of. The amendment was found necessary, in order to meet drafting difficulties in applying to G.N.R. staff after the amalgamation precisely the same compensation provisions as will apply to C.I.E. staff under the Transport Bill. To that extent, it is a drafting amendment only and does not alter the intention of the Bill in any way.
The Fourth Schedule of the Transport Act, 1950, as amended by the recent Transport Bill, contains the compensation provisions applicable to C.I.E. staff and requires adaptation in applying it to G.N.R. staff for the reason that compensation under the Schedules as they stand is calculated by reference to past services with C.I.E. and its predecessors but not to past services with the G.N.R. Board and its predecessors. The necessary adaptation is provided for in amendment No. 23. In order to apply the adaptation to G.N.R. staff who will become redundant after amalgamation as a consequence of the reduction of services or reorganisation of services, it is necessary to bring such staff within the ambit of Section 17 of the Bill, which is done by this amendment.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 22:—
In sub-section (3), page 9, line 13, to delete "Section 13" and substitute "Section 14".
Amendments No. 24 and No. 27 are cognate and perhaps the three may be discussed together.
Amendment No. 22 is only a drafting amendment. It arises out of the fact that we inserted a new section in the Transport Bill. We have to make the alterations here consequent on that.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 23:—
In sub-section (3), page 9, line 15, to delete "applies" and substitute the following:—
applies, but, in construing for the purposes of this sub-section the Second Schedule to the Transport Act, 1958, that Schedule shall be deemed to contain an additional paragraph as follows:—
8. (a) References in the Fourth Schedule to the Act of 1950 to a former transport company shall be construed as including references to the G.N.R. Board and the G.N.R. Company (Ireland).
(b) References in the said Fourth Schedule to a former road transport licensee shall be construed as including references to a person who was the holder of a passenger licence, within the meaning of the Road Transport Act, 1932, or of a merchandise (existing carrier's) licence within the meaning of the Road Transport Act, 1933, and whose said licence was transferred to the G.N.R. Board or the G.N.R. Company (Ireland).
(c) For the purpose of reckoning the pensionable service of a person under the said Fourth Schedule:—
(i) the pensionable service shall include any service (having been with a former road transport licensee within the meaning of the said Fourth Schedule or of that Schedule as extended by sub-paragraph (b) of this paragraph) which is recognised for the purpose of an existing superannuation scheme as defined in Section 15 of the Great Northern Railway Act, 1958, and
(ii) if the person was taken into the employment of the board as a specially qualified person at an age exceeding that at which transport service usually began, his pensionable service may be increased by the addition of such number of years as may seem just.
This amendment is consequential on amendment No. 21.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 24:—
In sub-section (4), page 9, line 16, to delete "Section 13 in Sections 14 and 16" and substitute "Section 14 in Sections 15 and 17".
Amendment agreed to.
Question proposed: "That Section 17, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
I am not satisfied about the statement which the Minister made in relation to the application of compensation to people who are supposed to qualify under sub-section (2) of this section. It says:—
"This section applies only to an officer or servant who at the date of his dismissal or transfer was employed in a permanent capacity... by the board."
I submit that the present employees of the Dundalk Engineering Works qualify for compensation under that sub-section, if only for the reason that at the date of their dismissal last January they were employed by the board. They are not employees of the board at the present time but they are former employees of it and this section relates to employees and former employees of the board.
The Minister said some time ago that he was providing compensation for C.I.E. employees on the understanding that they were not coming back to work in the transport concern. That is fair enough, but he also said that the aim is to keep the Dundalk Engineering Works men in employment. I would assume that that is the object in relation to C.I.E. workers as well. He went on to say that his obligation was fulfilled when he put them in employment. I hold that the Dundalk Engineering Works men, because up to last January they were G.N.R. employees, are entitled to compensation. Perhaps in the course of the past few months some of the employees in the Dundalk works would have been dismissed if the Dundalk Engineering Works had not been set up last January but at the present time you will find the G.N.R. men in the Dundalk works classed as G.N.R. employees and under the ordinary provisions of this Bill they would be entitled to compensation if they were dismissed.
The Minister said also on the Second Stage that a C.I.E. man takes the pension with him if he finds employment in a non-statutory body. I presume that is because it would be too difficult to keep track of an ex-C.I.E. man's movements. If he found employment with some private concern, you would not know whether he was in fact employed by it or not. However, the Minister said that it would not do to provide compensation for Dundalk Engineering Works men because that would act as an inducement to them to leave their employment and that the arrangements must be such as will encourage the workers to stay on the job. They are anxious to stay on the job but the danger is that they will be dismissed in a very short time. It is to meet that contingency that I ask that this section be applied to these men and that they be compensated in common with the other G.N.R. employees who will be entitled to compensation if they are dismissed by C.I.E.
As I have said, that sub-section entitles them to compensation because they were actually dismissed. I have here a dismissal notice, one of a number which were issued to the G.N.R. employees last January when the Dundalk Engineering Works was set up, and these men have received legal opinion that they are entitled to compensation even if they are reemployed by the Dundalk Engineering Works immediately they are dismissed by the G.N.R. I should like to ask the Minister, comparing the G.N.R. works in Dundalk with the C.I.E. works in Inchicore, what would happen if it were found necessary as a result of any proposed reorganisation of C.I.E. to dismiss a number of workers in Inchicore? Would they be entitled to compensation?
Let there be no ambiguity of any sort about this. If the G.N.R. Board had dismissed all these Dundalk Engineering Workshop employees last January, on the grounds that they had no work for them because branch lines had been closed down or for any other reason, they had no statutory right to compensation under any legislation. It would have been quite easy for me to have let the situation develop until next September, to do nothing whatever in the way of organising additional employment and merely provide that the workers who would no longer be required by C.I.E., when the workshops had been handed over to C.I.E., would get compensation.
I decided, instead of solving the problem there, by allowing the works to close down and paying retirement pensions, to organise employment at Dundalk that would keep the workers busy. I think that was the best arrangement in the interests of the town of Dundalk as a whole and in the interests of the individual workers in particular. We cannot have it both ways. To the extent that that effort succeeds in getting them employment I think any obligation there is upon the community as a whole to help out in a difficult situation arising from causes outside our control will have been fully discharged and indeed more than fully discharged, because I do not think it will be contended that the community as a whole has any greater obligation to unemployed men in Dundalk than in Drogheda, Clones or anywhere else.
Or Inchicore.
Inchicore or anywhere else. Furthermore, it would be a complete impossibility to carry on a commercial undertaking of the type that is being organised in Dundalk on such a basis as has been suggested, where each worker would gain an advantage by losing his job in that workshop, if he finds a job somewhere else. There is no similarity between the situation there and the situation of a worker employed on a branch line or in the Inchicore shops who is permanently put out of his employment. The purpose of the compensation arrangement there is to get them to leave their employment and to make provision for them when they leave. You cannot compare those arrangements with those applied to a worker who it is desired should stay on the job, who is required on the job to enable it to be successfully organised.
I will concede that the possibility might arise that some of these former G.N.R. workers employed at Dundalk might not be adaptable to the new type of operations which will be carried on at Dundalk, that they just could not be fitted in to any of the organisations that will be established there. If that happens the Dundalk Engineering Works should have resources to enable them to make some provision on an ex gratia basis for these workers.
If that situation arises, however, it will arise very quickly. It will arise as soon as the management of these undertakings at Dundalk can assess their employment needs and the practicability of utilising the available labour there to meet these needs. As soon as that transition stage is over, the workers in the Dundalk Engineering Company's employ will be in the same position as every other industrial worker in the country, secure in his employment as long as he gives satisfactory service there and so long as the undertaking employing him is in a position to get business.
I believe that I served the best interests of Dundalk and of these workers by trying to meet the problem in that way, by the organisation of alternative employment there rather than thinking in terms of compensation payments which would obviously have been far less than workers could earn in wages in employment, and it would, of course, have left the town of Dundalk in a very serious commercial situation. Now that that has been done, I feel sure these workers will accept that the effort to get employment for them was the right course to have followed rather than to be thinking in terms of disemployment and of compensating them on their disemployment.
With regard to the ex gratia lump sum which the Minister says it is his intention to pay these men, why does he not make it statutory? He says he does not want that because he wants to deal with each individual case on its merits. Could the Minister not deal with each individual case on its merits even if it were statutory?
No. Once it was statutory you would have a new situation altogether. The management at Dundalk will be concerned to try to fit every worker in. Their first aim will be to fit the worker in. It will be in the odd cases, where some special circumstances make that impossible, that some question of ex gratia payment will arise. Once you start giving workers a statutory right, they then have a choice. I do not think they should have a choice. They should have the opportunity of work, if that can be given to them, and no choice of refusing the work just because of some cash alternative.
I do not mean that they should have a choice. I have in mind that it should be incumbent on the Dundalk works, by law, to pay this lump sum if and when it is found——
The company should take into account the circumstances of the individual.
Can the Minister say for how many years this ex gratia lump sum provision will be in operation?
We have not got down to considering that yet or even to putting a figure on it. The idea would be that the Dundalk Engineering Works would handle that problem, which will arise—if it arises at all— very quickly. I have undertaken to find the money for them if they cannot get it.
Can the Minister say, when determining the years of anybody's service, if the years of apprenticeship in respect of each individual dismissed will count?
I could not answer that. We have not got down to that in detail.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 18.
I move amendment No. 25:—
Before Section 18 to insert a new section as follows:—
(1) This section shall have effect where, as a consequence of the undertaking of the outgoing board having ceased to be vested in that board, the Irish Railway Clearing House, within five years after the passing of this Act, dispenses with the services of an officer or servant or transfers him to another position in its service.
(2) This section applies only to an officer or servant who at the date of his dismissal was employed in a permanent capacity or who was, except for casual interruptions of employment, employed by the Irish Railway Clearing House during the whole of the preceding three years.
(3) If his services are dispensed with, he shall be paid by the Irish Railway Clearing House compensation calculated in accordance with the Second Schedule to the Transport Act, 1958.
(4) If he is transferred to another position and thereby suffers a worsening of his conditions of service as an officer or servant of the Irish Railway Clearing House, he shall be paid by the Irish Railway Clearing House compensation consisting of a lump sum of such amount as is reasonable.
(5) For the purposes of sub-section (4) of this section—
(a) an officer or servant of the Irish Railway Clearing House shall be deemed to suffer a worsening of his conditions of service as an officer or servant thereof if, having been transferred, without his consent, by the Irish Railway Clearing House from one position to another in its service, by reason thereof he suffers any direct pecuniary loss or is in a worse position in respect of the conditions of his service as a whole (including tenure of office or employment, remuneration, gratuities, superannuation, sick fund or other benefits or allowances, whether obtaining legally or by customary practice and whether applicable to himself or his widow or children or other dependents) as compared with those obtaining in respect of him before the transfer;
(b) an officer or servant of the Irish Railway Clearing House, who is transferred by the Irish Railway Clearing House from one position in its service to another, shall be deemed to suffer a worsening of his conditions of service as an officer or servant thereof if he is required by the Irish Railway Clearing House to perform in the position to which he is so transferred duties which are not analogous to or are an unreasonable addition to those which before the transfer he was required to perform in the position from which he was so transferred.
(6) Sections 41, 42 and 43 of the Act of 1950 (which relate to the determination of compensation under that Act) shall apply to compensation under this section, references to the board being construed as references to the Irish Railway Clearing House.
(7) In construing for the purposes of this section the Second Schedule to the Transport Act, 1958, and the Fourth Schedule (as applied by the said Second Schedule) to the Transport Act, 1950—
(a) in paragraph 5 of the said Second Schedule "the Irish Railway Clearing House or" shall be inserted before "a local authority" and "from the Irish Railway Clearing House" shall be substituted for "from the board",
(b) in sub-clause (ii) of clause (a) of sub-paragraph (2) of paragraph 1 of the said Fourth Schedule, "if that person had service with a former transport company," shall be deleted, and
(c) in sub-paragraph (b) of paragraph 4 of the said Fourth Schedule, "the Irish Railway Clearing House" shall be substituted for "the board".
Amendment No. 26 is an alternative to amendment No. 25 and both may be discussed together.
It is not quite the same, but I think we can dispose of the difference when talking about it. The effect of the amalgamation on the staff of the Irish Railway Clearing House was discussed, perhaps irregularly but nevertheless discussed, on the Transport Bill. I indicated that there would be difficulty in enacting legislation here to impose any statutory obligation on an organisation of this kind which included in its membership bodies located outside the country. The matter has since been the subject of discussion with the Railway Clearing House.
I was informed that the committee of the Clearing House, at a meeting held last month, passed a resolution asking that provision be made in this Bill for compensation to staffs of the Clearing House who were rendered redundant owing to the dissolution of the G.N.R. to the same extent as staff of the G.N.R., the cost of compensation to be borne by the Committee of the Clearing House. I am not clear that this amendment is required to enable them to pay that compensation or what the effect of including this provision in the Bill may be but, as they asked us to include this provision in the Bill, I am doing so.
The parties to the Clearing House include not merely C.I.E. and the G.N.R., but the Ulster Transport Authority, British Railways, B. & I., other cross-Channel shipping companies and various organisations. The expenses of the Clearing House are apportioned on the basis of clearances. I think Deputy Casey's amendment was mainly to achieve the same purpose as this.
There is a suggestion about provision for compensation where staff may be disemployed in the Clearing House because of some reorganisation in the Clearing House itself. In this Bill, we are concerned only with the consequences of the amalgamation of the G.N.R. and C.I.E. It is by no means clear what the effect of any legislation we might pass would have so far as bodies located outside the country are concerned. For example, we could not tell British Railways or the B. & I. to make payments in this regard. The fact that the Railway Clearing House asked for this provision is an indication that they intend to make compensation provisions their own resources. I think they asked for it because they wanted to have it applicable to the very elaborate rules on compensation set out in the Transport Act. Clearly, we would be going entirely beyond our proper sphere if we were to extend the section so as to cover anything except the consequences of the amalgamation of the G.N.R. and C.I.E.
I appreciate that the Minister has tried to deal with a very difficult situation. When I mentioned reorganisation I was referring particularly to reorganisation to be forced on the Irish Railway Clearing House by reason of the fact that that part of the G.N.R. would be taken from them. As far as possible, the Minister's amendment meets the case which the trade union wished to make in this connection and I would express my appreciation for it.
This amendment amounts almost to a new section. Would the Minister tell us on this occasion if a Railway Clearing House is really necessary in our circumstances now? I understand the Railway Clearing House system originated when a multitude of railway companies were operating——
It is not as necessary as it was but it will still be necessary between the various members.
When you established a railway clearance system appropriate to the situation in which you had, perhaps, 15 railway companies, originally designed to avoid all the elaborate machinery of book-keeping and rendering of accounts between one railway company and the other, gradually the other railway companies begin to disappear whereupon Parkinson's law begins to operate. Here is the railway house. Now we proceed to create one of the railway clearing houses. Where we have now, in effect, only one transport authority in Ireland dealing with a number of other transport authorities, a very limited number of transport authorities outside Ireland —the Ulster Transport Authority, the British Transport Authority and possibly one or two shipping companies— does the necessity for this elaborate machinery survive? Suppose we were starting now, would the Minister exhort C.I.E. to set up a railway clearing house? I think he would not. I think he would probably say to them: "You can transact your business like anybody else, pay your bills"——
Surely we require a system of through rates which would involve some clearance arrangement.
The Minister might consider this. The railway clearing house system was set up to deal with the problem of a number of railway companies whose wagons frequently passed across one another's tracks. Therefore it was extremely difficult to operate it at all, on the ordinary commercial system of bills rendered and accounts paid. This elaborate machinery which we have was characteristic of the 19th century. I submit to the Minister that there is a danger, in the new situation in which we find ourselves, of Parkinson's law operating. When the machinery is there work will be found to make it continue to tick. I suggest that as we are always talking about bringing in new methods and streamlining production, when we are trying to make this whole business approach an economic working, it would not be inappropriate to seek expert advice as to whether the whole system of railway clearance might be allowed to peter out gradually.
This amendment is necessary because railway clearance is obviously going to contract, and to provide compensation for the staffs who will no longer be required.
I never pass the palatial office of the Railway Clearing House that I do not ask myself: "What is going on in there? If that building and staff was big enough to deal with the affairs of 15 railway companies, why is it still solemnly churning away when we have only one railway company, with very limited relations with outside transport authorities?" I think the Minister might ask for a report from an independent body of business consultants as to whether so elaborate a clearing system is required.
Why should we concern ourselves——
Because we have to pay.
C.I.E. pays only on the basis of the services it gets. C.I.E.'s contribution has not been much more than 20 per cent. in the past and will probably be a great deal less in the future.
The reason this section is in the Bill is precisely for the reasons mentioned by Deputy Dillon, a diminishing use and need for the railway clearing system.
Exactly.
This is to provide compensation for people who will become redundant, because the need for the clearing system is becoming less.
I want to make this point. I have a constitutional horror of redundancy. I have said in this House before, and I believe the Minister and the Deputy agree with me, that redundancy is the greatest evil which could ever hit a man at middle age. Our aim and object should be the absorption of railway men into suitable employment. It is no good giving a lump sum to a man at the age of 45 or 50 and telling him to go and look for other employment. He will not get it and his problem is very often seriously misunderstood by those who think that he should be able to get work. If we, and C.I.E., made up our minds that railway clearance, in the old sense, was clearly unnecessary then we could put our hands to the task now of gradually giving these men some analogous employment, with the purpose in mind of ultimately giving them all suitable, alternative employment and then institute a new system which would make the Railway Clearing House unnecessary. That is all.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 26 not moved.
Question proposed: "That Section 18 stand part of the Bill."
With regard to the annual lump sum that is to be paid to people who qualify, will it be paid annually or weekly?
The annual lump sum?
The lump sum.
The lump sum will be paid once and once only. If it is the compensatory pensions that the Deputy refers to——
Yes.
I do not know. I could not answer that question. They are paid in the way regarded as most convenient to the payer and to the payee.
Question put and agreed to.
Sections 19 to 21, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 22.
I move amendment No. 27:—
In page 10, line 44, to delete "Section 9" and substitute "Section 10."
Amendment agreed to.
Section 22, as amended, agreed to.
Sections 23 and 24 agreed to.
SCHEDULE.
Question proposed: "That the Schedule be the Schedule to the Bill."
Paragraph 6 says: "The rights and obligations of the board in respect of any person employed by the board immediately before the transfer date shall be transferred to the part of the area in which that person is then resident." As I said, there are a number of buses operating from Newry to Dundalk and operated by G.N.R. crews. Will C.I.E. continue to operate that service?
It is a matter for arrangement between C.I.E. and the U.T.A. There will be cross-border bus services operated, some by C.I.E. and some by U.T.A. They have been the subject of discussion between the managements of the two organisations but the Deputy understands that the whole of the G.N.R. bus undertaking was a Twenty-Six Counties affair, and we are taking over all of it. Whatever arrangements previously existed between the G.N.R. and U.T.A. for the operation of cross-border buses will be taken over by C.I.E. and continued by them.
Question put and agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported with amendments.
Agreed to take remaining stages today.
Bill received for final consideration and passed.