I ask leave to introduce this Bill, the object of which is "to confer the right to nominate a Director of the Amalgamated Company, to be constituted under the Railways Act, 1924, on the London Midland and Scottish Railway Company." This also is a Bill in regard to which I shall have to ask the indulgence of the House. In this case, too, it will be necessary to have the Bill passed through the Dáil and Seanad before the Christmas Adjournment. On Second Reading I shall be able to go more into details and give reasons for the delay in this matter. It is a delay that in no way can be laid to my door. This right depends on an agreement which was come to not earlier than the end of last week, and the actual papers are being exchanged at the moment to get the contract fully entered into. It is on the basis of that agreement, and only on the basis of that agreement, that this right to appoint a director will depend. The matter will be more definitely explained in the Preamble of the Bill.
RAILWAYS (DIRECTORATE) BILL, 1924—FIRST STAGE.
I think it would be better to explain it now.
If desired, I can give a certain short explanation at the moment, but I do not want to preclude myself from giving a more detailed expalnation later on. It comes to this: that the London, Midland and Scottish Railway Company did give to the Dublin & South-Eastern Railway Company certain concessions by way of divisions, payments and rebates, which amounted to a sum of £20,000 per annum, and the London, Midland and Scottish Railway has now entered into an agreement, or is entering into an agreement, to carry over into the new Amalgamated Company these concessions amounting to about £20,000 per annum, and in consideration of that they are being given the right to nominate a director in addition to the Directorate set up under the Railways Act of 1924. That is really the gist of the matter. It will first, I say, be explained in the Preamble of the Bill, and I again ask for permission for the Second Reading on Thursday so that the Bill can be put through the House with as little delay as possible.
I had hoped it would be possible for the Minister to give us some satisfaction as to his intention in bringing forward this Bill. So far as he has gone in his explanation he has not justified in the slightest degree asking the Oireachtas of the Free State to confer this right on a railway company that has its headquarters and general activity in England——
What I have done is to put before the Dáil what I consider was sufficient matter to ask them to agree to the introduction of a Bill which, if passed, would give that right, but so far from giving them a right I have not done so at all.
The Minister asked for leave to introduce a Bill to confer a right to nominate a director of the new Amalgamated Company, on the London, Midland and Scottish Railway Company. I would not have any insuperable objection or would not raise any violent objection to conceding power to the Amalgamated Company to appoint, as one of its directors, a person who was also a director of the London, Midland and Scottish Railway, even although he did not reside in Ireland, but to ask the Dáil to confer a right upon the London, Midland and Scottish Railway, by statute to appoint a director upon an Irish railway is asking something to which I hope the Dáil will not agree. I shall not agree to give facilities for the passing of this Bill. I think it is going contrary to everything that has been said regarding the necessity for having an Irish railway system controlled in Ireland.
The voluntary act of the shareholders of the Irish railways is one thing, but for the Dáil to be asked to confer upon the London, Midland and Scottish Railway the right to a seat on the Board of the Irish Railways would require a great deal of argument and, I think, a great deal of pleading to make it acceptable to any large body of public opinion except perhaps certain railway shareholders. I think it is a breach of most of the implications, at any rate of the Minister's arguments, in support of the Railway Bill when it was passing through the Dáil. It is certainly running counter to what was popularly believed: that the Irish railways henceforth were going to be, to a greater extent than in the past, less under the control of British railways. We are practically conceding that the future policy of the Irish railways shall be the feeding of the British railways, and on that account I shall ask the Dáil to divide against the First Reading of this Bill and to refuse to give any facilities for the passing of it.
Before any other Deputy intervenes, I would like to make it quite clear that what we are discussing now is a motion moved by me asking for leave to introduce this Bill. Deputy Johnson, in arguing against the motion for leave to introduce the Bill, says that certain contentions mentioned by him will require a great deal of argument to justify.
I said justify leave to introduce.
I understood the Deputy to say that it would require a great deal of argument to justify that position. I am sorry if I misunderstood the Deputy. I desire to point out to the Dáil that arguments will be put forward, but no arguments can be put forward on a motion for leave to introduce. Arguments will be put forward, and ordinarily and most logically will follow on the Second Reading. Arguments will be put forward at that point, but I am not prepared to enter into that discussion now, even if the Deputy does divide the Dáil. The motion now before the House is one simply asking for leave to introduce a Bill, a Bill which may afterwards be rejected, if sufficient arguments be not brought forward in support of it. I ask the House to support this motion for leave to introduce this Bill conferring a right on a company not in this country.
I do not want to go very much into this matter at the moment, because I think that this is not the stage that a discussion should take place on this or any other Bill. I do think, however, that the Minister, who on recent occasions seemed very anxious to cast reflections even upon questions that were raised by Deputies in the Dáil, should have made a better attempt to justify his own action in bringing in this Bill to-day, and that in fact he should have stated the actual position of the Ministry in regard to this matter.
If £20,000 is not a sufficient reason then I do not see anything further to urge.
That is where the Minister fails to show the necessity for this Bill. If Deputies will carry their minds back to a discussion that took place on the Committee Stage of the Railways Bill, they will remember that this very same question was raised. I think I am speaking correctly when I say that this matter was then under discussion— that is, the question of the right of the London, Midland and Scottish Railway to have a Director on the amalgamated company.
On what grounds?
On the grounds of the Minister's statement which, I think, was confirmed by the President, that all existing legislation was to be reenacted in the Railways Bill as it then was.
On the Second Reading of the Railway Bill the question was raised as to the right of the London, Midland and Scottish Railway to have a Director on the new Board of the Amalgamated Company. I say that that question was raised, but not in consideration of the payment that is now referred to, but in consideration of something else. Therefore, that argument need not now be brought up, because this is a different matter.
I can quite understand the anxiety of the Minister not to have his arguments on that occasion rehearsed, because really what he is asking for now means that he has to swallow his own words, and not only his own words, but if I remember rightly, his own words confirmed by the President's statement during the Committee Stage of the Railway Bill.
I may have a lot of palatable and unpalatable things to swallow, but if I have, I expect that they shall be served up correctly to me. On the Committee Stage of the Railways Bill, I did not say anything about right of the London, Midland and Scottish Railway, in consideration of a sum of £20,000 guaranteed to the Amalgamated Company, to have a Director on the Board of that Company. No argument could have been founded on that because that point was never raised.
The statement was certainly made, and I defy the Minister to contradict me on this: that any existing legislation—that means that any rights that then existed in regard to the amalgamating or absorbed companies— would not be denied them under the terms of the Bill that was then going through Committee Stage in the Dáil. Is that not so?
I think we had better get on now and have the Minister's reply at the end.
I think the Minister should have explained how this question originally cropped up. He should have explained how this question comes up now, that is the right of the London, Midland and Scottish Railway to nominate a Director on the Board of the new Amalgamated Company. I have no brief for the Company in this matter. Indeed, I am sure it is well-known to some Deputies here, and certainly to many people outside, that on many occasions I have carried on an open battle with this particular company in my capacity as a representative of the staff.
However, the position is this: On the understanding that a sum of £100,000 was given some years ago to the Dublin and South Eastern Railway Co. for the development of that Company, the London, Midland and Scottish Company or, as it then was, the London and North Western, was given the right to nominate a representative on the Board of the Dublin and South Eastern Company. That sum of £100,000 was lent by the London, Midland and Scottish Railway at the rate of 3½ per cent. to the Dublin and South Eastern Co., and in consideration of that they were given, as I have said, the right to nominate a representative on the board of the Dublin and South Eastern. It should be made clear, of course, that the money was lent by the old London and North Western Co., which is now the London, Midland and Scottish. That was the reason why this question was raised on the Committee Stage of the Railways Bill, not by me but by other Deputies—the question that the right which then existed, and that was given by statute, should be carried over and embodied in the Bill that was then going through the Dáil. The Minister then stated that the matter was under consideration, and that it would probably be put right before the Bill passed through its final Stages in the Dáil. That is a matter which I think the Minister should explain. At least it is not for me to give an explanation of it.
It has nothing to do with this.
With regard to Deputy Johnson's point, that it is not the duty of the Irish railway companies to feed the British companies, and vice versa, if I understand railway work at all, whether it be on the French, British or Irish railway systems, it is the duty of all railways to feed one another. It is their duty to help, as much as possible, the flow of traffic, because in that way they naturally increase their own dividends and revenue. There is not very much, however, in that point. I would like, however, to have a better opportunity than is being given to us here to-day in this off-hand discussion, first of all to read the Bill which the Minister asks for leave to introduce, so that we would be enabled to go into the matter more carefully. I heard during the latter end of last week that this Bill was likely to be introduced, but I have no information whatever on the matter, and I think that the Minister should have given us more information than he has given to-day. At any rate, until I see the Bill, and until I hear a better explanation from the Minister as to why on this occasion he has swallowed his own words used on the Committee Stage of the Railways Bill, I am not prepared to join with Deputy Johnson in opposing the introduction of this Bill.
This is an easy matter for Deputy Davin, Deputy Johnson, and the Minister to discuss, but it is not quite so easy a matter for other Deputies to talk on, especially those who are not very well up on railway matters. It seems to me that it would be more practical to allow the Bill to be introduced, so that we would have an opportunity of examining it and of hearing the arguments for and against from all sides. When we have heard these arguments we will be in a better position than we are now in to make up our minds as to what is the right thing to do.
The Title describes the Bill.
I think it must be gratifying to the people who have placed the care of their national concerns in the hands of Deputies here that a proposal by the Executive Council to give a representative by Act of the Oireachtas to a company not belonging to the Saorstát should meet with the shock of opposition that the proposal, at first blush, has met with here. I think that is a very gratifying matter, but the Bill must come before the Dáil in its proper form for Second Reading before we can see whether it is justifiable or not. I think we all understand that a Bill must come down for its First Reading in this particular way and go through more or less automatically.
I am almost obstructed from speaking by trying to swallow the words which Deputy Davin twice tried to force on me. I have nothing that I said previously to swallow. Deputy Davin referred—and referred very clearly—to an argument used during Committee Stage of the Railways Bill, on an amendment put forward by Deputy Alfred Byrne, with regard to the continuance of a certain directorate in consideration of a certain sum of £100,000. There is nothing in the Bill with regard to that loan of £100,000—nothing whatever. That matter was under consideration and was negotiated. I went to London myself twice on that matter, and various negotiations and conversations took place here. That question has apparently disappeared at the moment. No further negotiations are proceeding about it, and no question has been raised concerning it.
This is a new question—a question of certain concessions granted to the Dublin and South Eastern Company. The Deputy, by way of binding up that previous point with this one, referred to the right given by previous legislation and to some statement by the President, that previous legislation would be continued. That whole point was threshed out very clearly and in great detail on an amendment put down by Deputy Byrne on the Committee Stage of the Railways Act. It was pointed out then that was not legislation of the type referred to by the President, because it had nothing whatever to do with the new amalgamated company. It had to do with one portion of it, and it was a right which you could not extend. You could not extend the right to appoint a director of one constituent element of the amalgamated board to the complete amalgamated board or undertaking. This is a completely distinct matter.
The Deputy has asked me how did this question come to be raised. It came to be raised in very acute form, so far as my Department is concerned, and in this way: were we going to allow the new amalgamated company to be deprived of a sum of £20,000, previously guaranteed to the Dublin and South Eastern Company, about the continuance of which there is a question in connection with the new amalgamated board? The thing that had to be decided by my Department and by the Government was: would they take this step to secure that sum of money for the new undertaking or would they have a sum of money taken out of the Central Fund to supply this loss? That is the question Deputies will have to decide when the Bill comes before them. A question to be decided before that probably will be: is there any equitable obligation on them to put up a sum equal to the sum which will be lost if this Bill is not passed?
Will the Minister say if there is anything to prevent the new amalgamated company appointing a director who is also a director or nominee of the London, Midland and Scottish Railway Company?
There may be nothing to prevent that, but such an appointment would not carry with it and would not secure the £20,000.
Would the Minister say if the £100,000 lent on conditions has been refunded to the London, Midland and Scottish Company?
It has not.
Would you sell three seats for £60,000?
If the Deputy is making that as an offer, I will give it very careful consideration. If the money is well guaranteed and well secured, the Dáil might be induced to give such an offer favourable consideration. Deputy Davin has referred to the off-hand way this matter was discussed. I do not know if the Dáil wants to have a sort of dress rehearsal of Second Reading speeches on the occasion of the First Reading of a Bill. I think the debate has been far too detailed for a First Reading to-day and I think it should be the duty of this House to get back to some degree of sanity with regard to this matter. We should have Second Reading speeches confined to the Second Reading and not have them delivered on the First Reading and then repeated on the Second Reading.
Surely the Minister has a right to justify the introduction of a Bill which is described quite fully here?
That is the point in dispute, but I think the statement I made is sufficient justification for asking leave to introduce this Bill. That is all I ask at the moment.
Tá
- Pádraig F. Baxter.
- Séamus Breathnach.
- Seoirse de Bhulbh.
- Séamus de Búrca.
- John J. Cole.
- Bryan Cooper.
- Máighréad Ní Choileáin Bean Uí Dhrisceóil.
- Osmond Grattan Esmonde.
- Desmond Fitzgerald.
- John Good.
- Connor Hogan.
- Séamus Mac Cosgair.
- Pádraig Mac Fadáin.
- Patrick McGilligan.
- Eoin Mac Néill.
- Liam Mac Sioghaird.
- Patrick J. Mulvany.
- John T. Nolan.
- Michael K. Noonan.
- Peadar O hAodha.
- Séan O Bruadair.
- Partholán O Conchubhair.
- Liam O Daimhín.
- Séamus N. O Dóláin.
- Tadhg S. O Donnabháin. Eamon S. O Dúgáin.
- Aindriú O Laimhín.
- Séamus O Leadáin.
- Fionán O Loingsigh.
- Pádraic O Máille.
- Risteárd O Maolchatha.
- Domhnall O Mocháin.
- Séamus O Murchadha.
- Pádraig O hOgáin (Gaillimh).
- Seán M. O Súilleabháin.
- Patrick W. Shaw.
- Liam Thrift.
Níl
- David Hall.
- Tomás Mac Eoin.
- Risteárd Mac Fheorais.
- Tomás de Nógla.
- Tomas O Conaill.
- Aodh O Culacháin.
- Eamon O Dubhghaill.
- Pádraig O Dubhthaigh.
- Domhnall O Muirgheasa.
- Tadhg P. O Murchadha.
When it proposed to take the next stage?
On Thursday.
Is that within the Standing Orders?
It is not within the Standing Orders.
Friday.
Neither is Friday.