I beg to move amendment 4:—
New section. Before Section 16 to insert a new section as follows:—
16.—Notwithstanding anything contained in any Act or in any Statutory Order a company owning a railway to which the Principal Act applies shall be entitled for all services rendered in respect of the conveyance of passengers or passengers' luggage or merchandise upon such railway to make and receive such fares rates or charges as may be agreed upon between the said Company and the person or persons liable to pay the same, provided that such fares rates or charges do not exceed the amount of the Standard Charges for the time being in force and applicable to the conveyance of such passengers or passengers' luggage or merchandise.
Provided that the provisions of this section shall not extend so as to discharge such a company from the operation of sub-section (2) of Section 30 of the Principal Act or of any section contained in any Private Act and expressed to be made for the protection of any port, town or city.
The first part of the section confers on railway companies full freedom to vary rates for the carriage of merchandise below the standard maximum rates, and thereby be placed on an equal footing in respect to merchandise carried on the roads. The second part of the section confirms the clause in the Act of 1924 for the protection of ports.
I should like to say that my original intention was to ask the Senate to postpone the further consideration of these Bills until after the General Election so as to remove them from political controversy. I consider that the problems involved are of national importance, and should, therefore, be dealt with as non-Party measures.
However, on consulting the highest authorities on the subject, I was told that probably my motion would be ruled out of order as the Second Reading had been passed unopposed by the Seanad. I am, therefore, at the request of the Great Southern Railways, submitting this amendment to the Seanad. It is not my drafting; it was drafted by a skilled exponent of that class of work.
The aim of the amendment is to place the transport of traffic by rail under identical conditions with traffic carried on roads. The Bill proposes to place the railway companies on a footing of equality on roads with any other road carriers; that is, that they can adopt competitive rates on their road services, and actually act as competitors to their own traffic on their own lines of railway, which are controlled by standard rates.
My object in moving this amendment is to give an opportunity for full and free discussion on this important, but much misunderstood problem.
My justification for bringing this matter forward is the state of the finances of the railways. Probably I have been selected by the Great Southern Railways because I am a shareholder. Let us look at the present value of our railway property. We have on several occasions heard it spoken of as representing £26,000,000. Part of that is Debenture Stock— £8,760,000. The rest of it is composed of Preference and Ordinary Stock amounting to over £17,000,000. Our Debenture Stock this month represents £4,000,000. Our £17,000,000 of varying stocks are down to £3,400,000. The total of £26,000,000 is represented now by something below £7,500,000.
The present method of fixing standard rates on rails for goods is defended as a necessary protection against "undue preference." No such restrictions are imposed on carriers by road. It has been suggested, in defence of this, that if a trader is aggrieved by this, he can obtain a motor lorry of his own. The same argument might be used in connection with what is called "undue preference" by a railway company—the trader can get his own motor or avail himself of competitive rates by road.
The inevitable result of the proposed legislation and fettering of the railway companies in fixing their rates below a standard maximum must be to drive merchandise from the rails on to the road. It is perfectly obvious that it will always be possible for the road carrier to quote a lower rate than the authorised rate which the railway company must charge. The railway rates are published.
The idea of co-ordination or cooperation of rail and road traffic was that the railways should be the principal agencies for the transport of merchandise, and that the road services should act as feeders to the railways for all long-distance traffic. The proposed arrangements in regard to rates and charges must result in the railway companies having to carry merchandise to its destination by road instead of by rail, in consequence of having to charge a higher rate on the rails than on the roads. This may be of some advantage to traders, but not to the proprietors of the railways or to those who have to maintain the roads. Such a policy must lead to the abandonment of railways unless they are taken over as a charge to the State, or, in other words, nationalised.
To combine road and rail transport efficiently, much thought and ingenuity has been expended on the design of road and rail trucks, waggons or carriages, sometimes known as "convertible vehicles," for use on railways and roads (that would be by a slight change in the tyres) and the same car or truck would be available either for rail or road. To the merchant the direct delivery of produce or materials from farm to market, from factory to store or from door to door, is the ideal. It reduces cost in transhipments, in handling and in injury to goods. This is one of the special attractions of transport by road lorries, but with the development of road-rail vehicles this advantage should be shared by the railways.
To summarise the case on behalf of the railway companies, they have standard rates fixed by the Tribunal under a rigid classification scheme, and if they attempt to vary these rates to meet exceptional cases they must justify their action, obtain the sanction of the Tribunal, and publish the rate. The railways are hampered in their goods traffic dealings and conveyance by harassing regulations not one of which has been relaxed. If what is called "undue preference" is allowable on the roads, and if the road carriers can charge what they like and go where and when they like, absolutely free as regards the wages they pay and the hours their employees serve, how can the railways survive against such unfair conditions? What is the remedy? Relieve them of obligations imposed by standard rates and charges, subject only to maximum rates to be fixed for public protection against overcharge and thus be placed on a level with road competitors.
The Senate should, I think, resent the way in which it has been treated by having Bills of first-class importance submitted to them late in the Session, with threats. I think this is the worst case which has come under my notice. The capital of the shareholders representing millions of pounds is threatened with confiscation, and Bills supposed to give relief are to be hustled through without amendment. It is remarkable that during the discussions on these Bills no suggestions have been made that the traffic will increase, or that any of the proposals in the Bill will increase the earning power of the railways, or benefit the shareholders in any respect. It appears that the opposite will be the case. The whole object of the proposals appears to be to transfer the traffic from the rails to the road, and if to meet this, railways have to place a fleet of lorries on the road, new capital will be wanted for the purpose, and the value of the existing capital of the railways must depreciate.
There seems a general impression that in the interests of the country, railways must be maintained for main line traffic, but with a vanishing revenue it is quite clear that they cannot be maintained by the companies. The inevitable result must be that the State will have to intervene with subsidies leading to final nationalisation. The one and only way to save the situation is to adopt the amendment which I have moved. By this means the railways will be able to recover much of their traffic and carry it much more expeditiously and safely than could possibly be done on the roads. At the same time inordinate expenditure in the maintenance of our roads will be reduced.
I fancy but few Senators remember the intense controversy which raged on "undue preference" and "preferential rates" in the eighties and the nineties of the last century accompanied by inquiries, commissions, committees and legislation. The maximum charges permitted to railways were laid down in a series of Rates and Charges Confirmation Acts of Parliament passed in the Sessions of 1891 and 1892. These were necessary on account of the monoply of transport exercised by the railways at the time. No such monoply exists now, competition by road having put an end to railway monoply, and there can be no reason for not allowing railways to compete with the roads.