Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Tuesday, 30 Jun 1964

Vol. 211 No. 7

Committee on Finance. - Transport Bill, 1964: Report Stage.

Mr. T. Lynch

I move amendment No. 1 which stands in the name of Deputy McGilligan:

In page 3, section 6, subsection (5), line 44, after "order" to insert "which shall be open to amendment by way of reduction in the amount of the grant proposed to be varied."

Last week, when we were winding up on this Bill, Deputy McGilligan asked the Minister for an explanation. As reported at column 969 of the Official Report, Volume 211, No. 6, Deputy McGilligan said:

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.

The Ceann Comhairle said:

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

The Minister said:

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.

Deputy McGilligan said:

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

The Minister then said:

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.

Deputy McGilligan then said:

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.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Does the Deputy intend to give us all these quotations? It is not in order.

Mr. T. Lynch

This is the last paragraph. Deputy McGilligan then said:

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".

That is what is here. Deputy McGilligan asked the Minister last week to give an explanation. The Minister said he had not been briefed and he proposed to be briefed at a later stage. I should like to hear from the Minister now.

Minister for Transport and Power (Mr. Childers)

It would be possible to frame an amendment in such a way that no further variation could be tabled in the Seanad. I have thought over this matter since the last debate and I think I have met Deputy McGilligan very amply by my own amendment to section 6. It will be recalled that the arrangements for providing the subsidy after April, 1969, were that an order under subsection (5) of section 6 would be laid before each House of the Oireachtas. I think Deputy McGilligan made a good point when he suggested that there should be a Resolution in the Dáil and that the debate should take place on it. I accepted that amendment and I slightly altered his amendment. My amendment to section 6 was to delete subsection (5) and substitute the following:

"(5) Where an order is proposed to be made under this section, a draft of the order shall be laid before each House of the Oireachtas and the order shall not be made until a resolution approving of the draft has been passed by each such House."

In that connection Deputy McGilligan described it as an improvement in the Bill in the sense that even if the previous arrangement stood of having an order laid on the Table of the House which could be annulled or otherwise, there would, quite obviously, at that stage, have to be quite an elaborate White Paper giving the reason for a change in the subsidy, giving the background of CIE, giving the full pattern of the traffic changes which would have occurred since the enactment of this Bill, giving particulars of changes in costs, the amount of traffic secured and the position as it would be affected by the then prevailing volume of private traffic. Under my amendment, suggested by Deputy McGilligan, there would be a debate in this House in which I would outline the main features of the White Paper and perhaps provide some additional notes. I think I have gone far enough in that regard.

My amendment, under section 6, does not change the scope of this House to debate and propose an alternative to the draft order. It preserves the position where, in the event of the House being of opinion that an order should not be approved in the form submitted, the Minister of the day will not be denied an opportunity of considering fully the implications of any suggested change and, if deemed necessary, of consulting the Government. So, if Deputies feel the subsidy is excessive, they can suggest it should be lessened. I understand they are not permitted to suggest an increase of subsidy by the rules of the House.

I have gone as far as I can in regard to this matter. It is quite obvious to me, from a purely practical point of view, if the Opposition felt that the subsidy was excessive, and if the Government were defeated it would be a matter of very considerable importance. I should think that such a defeat would be regarded with great seriousness. It would be a very serious matter for the Government and it seems to me it would be quite sufficient to mention a sum by which the subsidy should be reduced if there were a conflict of opinion in regard to it.

I feel quite unable to go any further than I have already gone in satisfying Deputy McGilligan's attitude concerning section 6. There could be a full-scale debate, apart from the debate on the annual Estimate for the Department of Transport and Power and apart from any discussion which could take place on the annual report, by way of special Resolution. It would be a case in which the whole position of CIE would be explained to the House and the reason for any change in the subsidy fully justified by facts and figures. There would be no need to do anything so elaborate as to make a Pacemaker document available. It would only be necessary to indicate in some detail the financial position of CIE. If the Opposition feel the subsidy is too much, they are fully entitled to suggest a lesser sum and have the matter debated in this House.

Mr. T. Lynch

I want to be more than reasonable with the Minister. He has told me that the acceptance of Deputy McGilligan's amendment would mean there would have to be a White Paper and a full discussion of the administration of CIE and so on. Why should there not be?

Mr. Childers

I suggested that there would be. The Deputy has misunderstood me. I said there undoubtedly would be.

Mr. T. Lynch

By that the Minister means he will come into the House and read a brief we will be hearing for the first time. We will have no notice of it. He mentioned the Pacemaker Report as if it were available to every Deputy. Hardly a Deputy has seen that Report. Only about 12 copies were printed. There is a copy in the Library, which I got. It consists of two large volumes. Why should there not be a White Paper for Deputies when they are being asked to vote large sums of money?

Mr. Childers

The Deputy misunderstands me. I said there would be. I will commit myself and my successor further. In advance of the day of the debate on this Resolution, a White Paper, with the particulars, will be issued with the Resolution. The Resolution will be taken between ten and 14 days after it has been put down, so Deputies will have at least ten or 14 days to read the White Paper on this subject, which will be either repeated or abbreviated in the course of my remarks in the Dáil.

Mr. T. Lynch

I am delighted to find the Minister coming to the surface for once in his life and telling us he will give us information.

Mr. Childers

I have given the most lavish information to the House in the form of notes for the past two years well in advance of the debate.

Mr. T. Lynch

It is all right for the Minister to say that now, but when we ask the Minister in the course of a debate or in Parliamentary Questions——

Mr. Childers

I am not discussing Parliamentary Questions.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

That does not arise on the amendment.

Mr. T. Lynch

We are not able to get information across the House.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy may not discuss that point on this amendment.

Mr. T. Lynch

The Minister said he will give us information in this White Paper, if and when it comes, and that he will give it to us 12 or 14 days beforehand. I hope this is on the record. I would prefer Deputy McGilligan's amendment so that we would have it by law. The Minister will not blame me for being suspicious. On the Transport Bill in 1958, the then Minister for Industry and Commerce gave an undertaking.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy may not discuss transport or questions relating thereto on this Bill.

Mr. T. Lynch

It is no harm to comment that, even though the Minister has given an undertaking that we will have this White Paper, an undertaking was also given by Deputy Lemass, the then Minister.

Mr. Childers

I would remind the Deputy that, if I had not given the undertaking and had agreed to Deputy McGilligan's amendment, there would be no guarantee whatever that there would be information given in advance. Deputy McGilligan's amendment does not guarantee information.

Mr. T. Lynch

I hope the Minister's guarantee will be kept in better fashion than the guarantee given by his predecessor.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment No. 2 not moved.

Bill received for final consideration.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Final Stage?

Mr. Dillon

We do not want to take it today. We will take it first thing tomorrow.

Fifth Stage ordered for Wednesday, 1st July, 1964.