Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Thursday, 25 Jun 1964

Vol. 211 No. 6

Transport Bill, 1964—Committee Stage (Resumed).

Debate resumed on the following amendment:
Chun mír (e) a bhaint amach.— (Deputy Ryan).

Having left here last night, I tried to pull myself together. I tried to find some way of making a break-through to the Minister, to try to get to him in some way, to make a bridge to him. On paragraph (e) of the subsection, I would be satisfied in connection with this question of compulsory Irish to let this amendment go at the moment, if the Minister would express agreement to accept on Report Stage an amendment to the effect that if two candidates are found to have equal qualifications, preference will be given to the candidate with a knowledge of Irish. I would be satisfied if the Minister signified his agreement to have such an amendment inserted. Is there to be no bridge? The Minister sits there as if he were not paying the slightest attention. He seems to be looking over our shoulders.

It is not necessary for the Minister to reply to every point the Deputy makes. The Deputy is in possession.

The Minister has now risen.

This section dealing with the Irish language is simply to maintain the status quo in relation to CIE clerical appointments. Deputies have debated this subject and it is clear there are very divergent views on it. If any change of any kind, either to make the condition more stringent or in the reverse direction, in regard to compulsory Irish were to be made in connection with CIE clerical appointments, this is certainly not the time or the occasion.

I hope Deputies realise that a commission was appointed who made recommendations on the use of the Irish language throughout the State—recommendations and comments on the use of Irish in semi-State bodies and in the Civil Service and on the teaching of Irish—and I think it would be entirely wrong for me to recommend to the Government, in advance of any general recommendation the Government may make, that there should be a change in the rules for the Irish test in one particular grade of the staff in CIE in respect of which this Irish test has been in force since 1924.

For one thing, it would be giving the public an idea that they were getting some hidden clue as to the final recommendations of the Government on this question. I think it would be wrong. Speaking entirely hypothetically, if I knew that the Government would be more stringent, or that they would leave the situation as it is, or that they would be less stringent in the matter of the Irish language, I should still say that to take this isolated group of people and make a change would create a false impression. It would cause all sorts of additional controversies.

The suggestion in the Bill is that there should not be any change here. The trade union governing the relationship between the clerical officers and the management of CIE are well organised and they have made no complaints to me. None of the people associated with this has made any complaint to me. Deputy Casey, perfectly correctly, said last night that there had been no agitation for any change. People seem to be satisfied with the position. There is a section in the Bill which makes some traditional arrangements for relatives of people who have already been in CIE. None of the relatives have complained to me, or their union, and the union is a close, well-knit and organised body which looks after all the interests of the staff of that grade.

In view of that, and in view of the fact that this whole question will be the subject of consideration later on, I would not make any recommendation to the Government that they should alter the rule either one way or the other in advance of the general consideration of this matter, because, if I did so, as I have already indicated, it would merely start a controversy about what the Government are going to recommend in future for other State bodies, for the Civil Service. It would trigger off a whole new series of arguments and controversies based on a change which would appear to indicate some future trend. It would be entirely wrong from my point of view. It is far better to leave it the way it is. I hope that will shorten the debate on this subject. It would be entirely wrong for me to make this change.

The Minister was once in charge of Fisheries and he introduced a lot of red herrings: he has galloped off with a red herring here today. There is no necessity to bring this before the Government.

The Minister has given a perfect answer.

There is no necessity to bring this before the Government. As to what the Government will do in relation to the Report of the Commission on the Irish Language, the Minister knows right well that that will be a wait and see policy. As far as that Report is concerned, anybody who saw the size of the book in Irish would run away from it. I do not think anybody has read it. How does the Minister know what is in it?

The Deputy is again raising issues that do not relate to the section. I have put the position as clearly as possible. There has been a very long debate on this amendment. I do not think any more could possibly be said. I appeal to you, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle, to try to ensure that there will be no repetition now.

I came in this morning with a proposal that had not been made in the debate up to that point, namely, that where two candidates are found to have equal qualifications, preference will be given to the candidate with a knowledge of Irish.

I do not propose to make any change on the Report Stage in the manner indicated by the Deputy for the reason I have just now given, apart from any other.

We are in a terrible position here that we have a Minister who does not know anything about the policy of give and take, a Minister who insists that he is right, that he is always right, that his advisers and the people who put this Bill together for him and sent him into this House with it are right, whereas we on this side of the House and even Deputies on the Minister's side of the House and persons up in Kingsbridge know that his advisers have many times been wrong.

That does not arise on this amendment.

I want to tell the Minister that he need not think he is entrenched there, believing that there is nobody right but himself.

I should like to appeal to you, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle, on the ground of excessive repetition in the past two days.

What have I said here now that was said before in the debate?

What does the Deputy want?

It is the Chair that I am addressing and it is from the Minister that I want the answer. If the Parliamentary Secretary had been here, he would have heard what I said. I want the Minister to say that if on Report Stage we put down an amendment to the effect that if there are two candidates equally qualified, preference will be given to the candidate who has a knowledge of Irish, he will accept it.

The Deputy has already made that proposal. The Minister has given his opinion.

I have a right to talk on the amendment also. The Minister has explicitly stated that he will not change the status quo.

The Parliamentary Secretary asked me what did I want and I said that what I wanted was to know if the Minister would accept an amendment that, in the event of two candidates being equally qualified, preference would be given to the candidate with a knowledge of Irish.

I do not want to be unduly argumentative. The reason I intervened was that I wanted to know if the Minister had answered what the Deputy proposed. The Minister has given an explicit and perfectly straightforward reply. He has simply stated that he will not make this the criterion of what might be policy or might not with regard to the whole broad question of the language. I think he is perfectly right. He has simply stated that he does not propose to change the status quo. I think that is a perfect answer.

It would appear, if the Minister did this, as if the whole Irish language movement would fall. Candidates for appointment as officers in CIE do not have to have any Irish at all. The Minister himself does not have to have it.

That does not arise on the amendment. The amendment deals with entrance to CIE clerical grades.

If the Minister accepted that amendment, there would not be a ripple and there would be many young fellows who would say: "I will learn Irish and it may get me through if I dead heat with somebody else". What I am aiming at all the time during the debate is that when CIE advertise for people, they will at least get the best qualified people, and if the section is passed unamended, the best qualified men will not get the job in 70 or 80 per cent of the cases. If the Minister would give some indication that he will amend this on Report Stage, he can have the section.

I am not making any change whatever.

This is a most reasonable request. All things being equal, we should get the best man. I do not see why this does not apply at the top. I pointed out last night to the Minister that when senior staff were being engaged, they advertised in the English bulletin. There was no advertisement in an Irish bulletin. In other words, no Irish need apply.

We are discussing clerical grades as mentioned in the section.

I am saying the example should be given at the top.

That is a separate question.

In other words, no Irish need apply, when such an advertisement appears in a cross-Channel bulletin.

I am glad the Minister has at last agreed to break his silence. It is undesirable that we should have lengthy debates in this House during which the Minister should indicate little or no reaction at all. The Minister is the first person in the course of this discussion to refer to the matter of the Commission which reported some time ago. He made the case that it would be undesirable to anticipate the Government's White Paper on the Commission's report. It is precisely because of the Commission's report and because of the pressure group now endeavouring to have that report implemented, because of the pressure being put on the Government, that we feel it is very desirable that we should take issue with the Minister at this stage, on this section, because, bear this in mind, Sir, we have not been afforded an opportunity of discussing the Commission's report at any stage.

It certainly may not be discussed on this amendment.

It is not being discussed. The amendment is being discussed. But I do want to make it clear, in so far as the Minister has mentioned it, that if there is any question of the Government giving way to highly-organised pressure——

That does not arise. The matter of the Government giving way to organised pressure is not relevant. We are dealing with a specific amendment put down by the Deputy relating to entrance of clerical staff to the ranks of the CIE.

The Minister stated it would trigger off something.

I am entitled to discuss Government policy—CIE policy.

The Deputy is not so entitled. The Deputy is entitled to discuss his amendment and nothing else.

Very good. I am entitled to develop my argument.

Could I ask the Deputy: does he not agree that the Minister put forward a very reasonable explanation of his attitude? Has he any answer to it?

I do not think the Minister is at all reasonable or sincere. As I said last night, if he were either one or the other, he would long ago have learned Irish. He would long ago have measured up to the standard which he is imposing on a younger generation.

The Deputy should deal with the argument.

That is the argument.

Is there any answer to that argument? There is a great deal of talk about State companies, of which CIE is one. It has been reported that inquiries have been made to their management as to the extent to which Irish can be used in these companies. Is this intransigence on the part of the Minister, who has not at all got his heart in the Irish revival policy of the Government, an indication of further pressure, of a tightening of the screw as recommended by the Commission which recommended that officers in the Civil Service, in local authorities and in State companies, of which CIE is one, should be deprived of their increments if they fail to pass competency tests in Irish?

There is nothing about that in this section.

It was the Minister brought in the matter of the Commission.

Perhaps we have said enough about the Commission.

The Deputy's remarks are totally irrelevant.

Then the Minister was irrelevant when he mentioned it.

He was not.

This provision is unnecessary and irrelevant because the Minister has argued that he has indicated to the trade unions that the tests to be applied will be the intermediate certificate and the leaving certificate and, as we know, Irish is already a compulsory subject for these examinations. In these circumstances, what is the point of this provision? The Minister says he has received no representations from the trade unions nor has he received any complaints from outside bodies. He is receiving complaints upon this matter from the Fine Gael Party who represent 350,000 people in this country. That is the answer to that. The matter of trade unions catering for the CIE clerical workers' attitude is a red herring. We are concerned about the young people who have not yet entered the CIE service. We are concerned about the young people who would be debarred from entering CIE. We are concerned about elementary justice and we are concerned to see thrown over the humbug and hypocrisy which has been manifested again here by the Minister.

Question: "That the paragraph proposed to be deleted stand" put and declared carried.
Amendments Nos. 23 and 24 not moved.
Section 12, as amended, agreed to.
Section 13 agreed to.
SECTION 14.
Question proposed: "That section 14 stand part of the Bill."

This section relates to the appointment of directors to the Fishguard and Rosslare Railways and Harbours Company. I endeavoured to speak on this on the Second Stage and I was ruled out of order and told I could speak on it now. I have here the Fishguard and Rosslare Railway and Harbours Acts and section 70 of the 1898 Act is a very important provision. I should like the Minister's assurance that when he is appointing a director, he will have this section drawn to his attention. The port of Waterford has been very badly treated by British Railways, notwithstanding a British Act of Parliament. We could nearly say it was worse than the breaking of the Treaty of Limerick by the British. Section 70 (1) of the Fishguard and Rosslare Railways and Harbours Act, 1898, reads:

The Great Western Company shall unless and until Parliament shall otherwise determine continue to provide or afford a daily service by steamer between Waterford and either New Milford or Fishguard as efficient as that provided by them at the date of the passing of this Act and the Railway and Canal Commission shall have the same powers for enforcing this provision as they have for enforcing the provisions of section 2 of the Railway and Canal Traffic Act, 1854.

This section deals with the continuance of the service by steamer between Waterford and any of these ports in Wales. The importance of this is that in the 1930s, thanks to the Minister's friends, we had an Economic War and there was practically no cattle traffic or livestock traffic on this hitherto well-supported service. British Railways came to the Waterford Harbour Commissioners and got their permission to reduce the service to a three-day service. They were justified in doing that.

There is no power in this section by which I could make any alteration in the position in regard to the Waterford Harbour service. This section deals with the method by which the Board may appoint representatives to the Fishguard and Rosslare Railways and Harbours Company.

The Minister is always trying to put words into people's mouths. I did not say the Minister has any control over British Railways or anybody else. I told him that under this section he was going to appoint——

I do not appoint them.

CIE will do it, and this is the only chance the representatives of the people who are paying to keep CIE going have of saying anything on this. If we ask the Minister a Parliamentary Question he refuses to answer, so he had better take it now. I want to ensure that the director will not be sent jaunting off to his directors meeting without being aware of it and aware of the kind of people he will have to meet in British Railways.

We had our three-day service and Waterford Harbour Commissioners got an application from British Railways to take off the passenger service as they proposed to increase the container capacity of the ship and remove the passenger cabins. The Commissioners did not agree to that and— here is the importance of having people in the Government representing the local interest—the present Taoiseach who was Minister for Industry and Commerce and responsible for Transport and Power at the time, when British Railways appealed to him, said that they could by legislation get what they wanted. I was the still, small voice who said: "Let the British get out by their own legislation if they like and rat on the agreement they made with Waterford Harbour Commissioners and the people of Waterford". They could have been compelled to keep the service there. I draw the Minister's attention to that. When a man is going to attend these meetings, he should be specifically instructed and should be shown these Acts which the British Parliament solemnly passed and in which they gave undertakings to various authorities here.

I contend that the British Government "pressured" themselves out of this and they were able to do that because Waterford Harbour Commissioners were abandoned by their own Minister.

This section provides that the Board may nominate, if it thinks fit, persons who are not members of the Board as directors of the Fishguard and Rosslare Railways and Harbours Company.

And is it not very important that when the Minister appoints a man, it will not just be a matter of sending him a letter telling him he is appointed?

Surely that is administration, how they conduct their business, whether he is provided with a brief setting out his line of action and so on? That is not something to be embodied in legislation.

The directors of the Board consist of CIE and British Railways representatives. They are a joint board and Deputy Lynch is pointing out that it is essential we should have directors who will defend our interests against British Railways.

Deputy Lynch is arguing that they should be provided with a brief on how they should act. The section simply says that the Board may nominate at any time, if it so thinks fit, persons who are not members of the Board as directors.

As I represent the people and the port of Waterford in this House, I think it is incumbent on me to come before the House and tell the House what the position is because. as far as I can see, the Minister knows very little about his Department and we never get a chance, so to speak, of tipping him off.

Surely that is administration. It will not be embodied in legislation.

Perhaps you will bear with me, Sir. If I put down a Parliamentary Question asking if the Minister is aware that an agreement existed between British Railways and Waterford Harbour Commissioners and if the Minister and his Department will see to it that the director or directors appointed by CIE on this Board are made aware of all these facts, I will get a letter from you telling me that the question is disallowed. This is the only chance I have of mentioning this matter.

I have endeavoured to give the Deputy every possible latitude and I cannot see how administration of this kind can be embodied in legislation or how the Deputy can discuss administration on this section.

The section says:

Notwithstanding anything contained in section 89 of the Fishguard and Rosslare Railways and Harbours Act, 1898, the Board, in exercise of its powers under that section, may nominate at any time, if it so thinks fit, persons who are not members of the Board as directors of the Fishguard and Rosslare Railways and Harbours Company.

If they are to bring in these outside men, or even directors of CIE, it is no harm that they should be aware of what is in these Acts as regards agreements made between the old railway companies in England—now British Railways—and ourselves, agreements which were cast-ironed by these British Acts of Parliament. In my experience of dealing with Government Departments and people supposed to be doing this administration, I discovered that they know very little about it.

I have allowed the Deputy to say all that.

And I am very grateful to you.

I should like to say a few words on this section because, as I know the position, the Rosslare-Fishguard Company consists of representatives of British Railways and CIE and I have considerable apprehension in regard to the future of the port of Rosslare in which I am interested. This section says that notwithstanding anything contained in the previous Act—I take that to mean the directors of this company would be representatives of British Railways and CIE—the Minister may appoint an outside director. I think that is a correct interpretation of it. The director need not be a member of the Board of CIE. That is the section we are dealing with. I am apprehensive because I have the feeling that the joint responsibility for the Rosslare-Fishguard Company, which also deals with hinterland places like Waterford, is at the moment administering jointly the cross-Channel shipping between the two ports and it is essential that the people who are administering that should be concerned entirely with the development and survival of the port and the further advancement of the facilities of the port and the service also.

I know from Press reports that British Railways have already shown their intention of establishing a ferry service in opposition to the one I am particularly concerned with at Rosslare. I have learned from the Minister that he is aware of the fact that the existing ferry service is a paying service, expanding and increasing daily. What worries me is that I feel that CIE who are in financial difficulties already must naturally be concerned with preserving and maintaining any institution that is giving them revenue. It is fair to say that the operations of the Fishguard-Rosslare Company are remunerative. They pay a dividend; they have never been subsidised and have never produced a loss, but they are only a part of the general scheme of CIE. It is a solvent company which has to carry the losses of CIE as a whole.

I conceive this to be a local matter, vital to the fundamental financial interests of CIE. Because of that, I am apprehensive about this section. I do not see any reason for the introduction of such a section when there is already in existence legislation covering the whole position. There must be something in the minds of those advising the Minister when he introduces a section such as this, changing the existing pattern. Being a Wexford man I am naturally apprehensive that this is a move on someone's part to appoint a director who will decide that Rosslare no longer justifies its existence and CIE will make more money out of Dublin. My own belief is that they will make less money because the overhead expenses will be far greater.

The constitution of this Board as it stands is in no way inimical to Rosslare and I should like the Minister to give a full explanation of the introduction of this section. Why should we be asked to give power to appoint a particular director? This has nothing to do with the suggested ferry at Dún Laoghaire, a project to which a great many people in the area are opposed. I hope I have made crystal clear the full explanation I want the Minister to make publicly here so that those concerned may be assured they are adequately safeguarded. Practically the whole area around Rosslare is dependent on Rosslare Harbour. I support Deputy Lynch's plea for Waterford. They have no longer their own shipping service and are, therefore, dependent on this area as well.

CIE consider it would be advantageous in certain circumstances to have whole-time officers rather than part-time members of the Board under the relevant Acts to represent the interest of CIE on the Board of the Fishguard-Rosslare Company. They think more effective work would be done. I have already given information as to the likely developments at Fishguard and Rosslare. I am glad to say the new manager of the Western Regional British Railways is taking a great interest in the development and modernisation of the services there. Already increased facilities have been provided for cars, facilities to enable cars to be transferred more expeditiously to the boats at Fishguard. There were additional sailings last year and an increase again this year, with a corresponding increase in the car space available.

It is impossible for me to give in advance the character of the report being prepared jointly by the Great Western Regional British Transport Commission and CIE on the future development of Rosslare. All I can say is that the report is likely to be very favourable. I cannot commit the British Transport Commission in advance. The whole matter is being studied. Consulting engineers have been appointed to examine the position on behalf of the Fishguard-Rosslare Harbour Company. I have made it clear to CIE that, if there is agreement on a project for improved services, and CIE cannot find the capital, the matter should come before me. This is a matter of national interest. Everything is moving favourably at the moment. Until agreement has been reached, I cannot give any details. The Deputy, however, need have no fear in relation to the future of Rosslare and Fishguard services.

In relation to the exploratory work which is being done, I do not think I am giving away any confidential information when I say the market research was carried out at a time when the full impact of the Dún Laoghaire-Holyhead ferry service could be appreciated. When the new chairman decided to investigate this matter, he asked for estimates of future potential traffic. These were highly favourable, despite the knowledge that the Dún Laoghaire ferry service would be in operation in 1965. There will be considerable motor car traffic through both Dún Laoghaire and Rosslare on the run-off and run-on basis. I have every reason be believe that the final report will be to our advantage.

Could the Minister give any indication as to when this report will be available?

It is impossible for me to forecast. I should imagine we will know something about it before the end of the summer. Highly technical considerations enter into the picture in regard to Rosslare because of silting in the harbour. CIE have spent considerable sums desilting the harbour. The construction of a road and the formation of shore facilities involve technical examination also. It would be very difficult for me to predict in advance how long the study will take. All I can say is that I have told CIE I regard the matter as one for urgent attention and the study must be constantly and continuously proceeding. They have accepted that position.

Were any representations made to the Minister about the improvement of Rosslare Harbour?

We have been examining this whole matter with Bord Fáilte to see what can be done to improve the facilities for ferrying cars.

In Rosslare and Waterford?

Yes, and in Dún Laoghaire and Holyhead. The first and most important thing was to get a response from the British side. That response has come. Anyone may say it could have come earlier. The market research could have been undertaken at any time in the past, but, as I have already indicated, the major part of the study on the side of British Railways has been since 1960 and is related to the new attitude taken by the two chairmen of the Midland Region of British Railways and the attitude taken by the new chairman of the Western Region of British Railways and to the general directions which obviously have been given by Dr. Beeching to British Railways to seek new traffic, develop sales and bring in new business. All this has been happening since 1960. We may say, from our point of view, that it is rather late but we are very glad it is happening. It commenced in 1960 and has been happening ever since.

I want to thank the Minister for that. It is the first decent answer he has given us for the past five weeks, but at the same time, I should like to inform you, Sir, that I have asked the Minister about this before. On 16th June, I asked the Minister if he had approached British Railways for the purpose of improving the service between Fishguard and Waterford and the answer was:

I have received no complaints about the Fishguard-Waterford service and I have not approached British Railways on the subject.

That is the kind of cryptic answer you get.

That is true. That does not contradict what I said. I have received no complaints about the Fishguard-Waterford service.

I did not ask the Minister if he had received complaints.

Question put and agreed to.
Section 15 agreed to.
SECTION 16.

I have an amendment to this section.

It has already been discussed.

The amendment to the Schedule is out of order. It is irrelevant.

Section 16 agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported with amendments.

Very good.

That means that amendments can be received up to late on Monday for Report Stage?

The Minister may be able to advise me now on a point. I had an amendment to section 6 which deals with the annual grant to the Board. The Minister also tabled an amendment and told us that the type of order he contemplated under section 6 was a "take it or leave it" type of order and could not be amended. The chief difference between my point of view and his was that my amendment was that the order should be open to amendment. The Minister's reply was that the parliamentary draftsman had more or less insisted on the form we have from the Minister. I asked the Minister why and he agreed that he was not briefed on the matter and proposed to be briefed at a later stage. Has he got the explanation now as to why my form, asking that an order should come in draft form and be open to amendment, is wrong? I am asking this for the purpose of putting down an amendment.

I do not want a debate on this. I can see the Deputy's point of view.

The main answer is that this procedure could equally apply to the Seanad. You could have a position of hopeless confusion with amendments upwards and downwards in the Seanad and upwards and downwards in the Dáil and it is not considered desirable.

I cannot hear the Minister. Perhaps it is the acoustics.

The difficulty is that under the procedure laid down in the Constitution, if the Seanad amends a Bill already passed by the Dáil, or in the case of a Money Bill makes recommendations, the Bill must come back for further consideration by the Dáil. There is no such procedure for ministerial orders and the situation could arise, if the Deputy's amendment were accepted, that the Dáil could amend the order in one way and the Seanad could amend it in another way, and there is no procedure for reconciling the amendments between the Dáil, and the Seanad.

I thought the point was that if a draft order were made and were open to amendment—this is about varying the subsidy—an amendment might be proposed which would increase the amount in any year and thereby put a charge on the State.

That is one point.

That could be met by saying something like "open to amendment by reduction", and that is the way I propose to word it. I gather that the Seanad might make recommendations and there is no way of reconciling them. I thought the situation was clear that the Dáil in the end over-powered the Seanad. I propose to examine what the Minister has said and I propose to put down an amendment with the phrase "by way of reduction".

Report Stage ordered for Tuesday, 30th June, 1964.
Barr
Roinn