When progress was reported last night, Amendment 3 was under discussion. The amendment, as altered last evening, would read: "To add at the end of Section 2 the words, ‘Provided that such director shall not be entitled to vote on any proposal to cancel or alter the agreement referred to in line 31 of the Preamble to this Act.'"
DAIL IN COMMITTEE. - RAILWAYS (DIRECTORATE) BILL, 1924—THIRD STAGE (RESUMED).
I was about to address myself to the merits of this proposed amendment when the time for adjournment came last night. I had emphasised the point that I considered that any such amendment would be a variation of the undertaking providing for a director, and would consequently be a breach of the agreement. Even though that is not a point for your consideration, A Chinn Comhairle, on the question of order, it is a point that I would urge on the merits. There has been an agreement entered into—this much talked of agreement. On the one side, the consideration was the right to nominate a director. That director was intended to be a director, with all the powers which any other director has, and any cutting down of his powers would, I submit, be a breach of the agreement. There is a further point, that if the agreement be read it will be seen that there is no specific provision made for cancellation or variation.
There is, indeed, a specific provision that it is to continue until 1940. That provision occurs towards the end of the letter of the 19th November, which forms part of the agreement which has been circulated to Deputies. There is no other provision in it with regard to time. There is that point, that it is to be, as far as the L.M. and S. Railway Company are concerned, binding on them for the period up to 1940. There is no specific provision laid down with regard to cancellation or variation. It is, of course, possible to vary it or cancel it by agreement. But it is a matter of agreement, the question of voting does not come in, and the question of whether or not this director has the right to vote, is not material. The amendment seems to me (1) to be capable of interpretation as a breach of the agreement, consequently defeating the whole object of the Bill, and (2) to be useless—absolutely useless. It may lead to a mischevious interpretation, and it is absolutely of no use.
Deputy Johnson, in speaking on this amendment last night, endeavoured to persuade the Dáil that he was a much simpler individual in regard to matters of this kind than I know him to be. Deputy Johnson was on an Irish Railway Commission, which sat from 9 to 12 months. As a member of that Commission, he had placed at his disposal documents, agreements and figures relating to railway matters, which members of this House have never had an opportunity of seeing. Therefore, so far as his knowledge of agreements and statistics in connection with railway matters is concerned, I make bold to say that it is greater than mine. Consciously or unconsciously, he endeavoured to persuade the House that there was nobody in the Dáil in a position to deal with this particular agreement, except the Minister and myself. By referring to me in that way he tried to imply that because I was a part-time employee of one of the companies concerned, it was my responsibility to explain every aspect of the agreement to Deputies. That is certainly not the position. It is true that if the Minister brings in a Bill of this kind, Deputy Johnson is entitled to place the responsibility upon the Minister's shoulders and make him justify his action in doing so. But it is not open to him to insinuate or imply that I have any direct responsibility, on the part of the company, to assist the Minister to get this Bill through.
So much for that part of the argument. He made the extraordinary statement, which was supported by the interjection of Deputy Mulcahy, that the Great Southern Company were actually bullied into this agreement.
Hear, hear.
If Deputy Mulcahy knows—and I think he does know— the Chairman of the Great Southern Railway Company—the past history of that gentleman, and his many connections in regard to matters in this country, he would know he is past being bullied into anything. It was not possible to bully him into taking back into the service—from the Governmental point of view—men who were victimised out of the service, and who supported Deputy Mulcahy in the fight in pre-Truce days. The bullying aspect of the case may be left out altogether.
It may be true, to an extent, to say that I do naturally know something about the effect of this agreement; but in reality, if we wanted what Deputy Johnson looks for, the particulars of the concessions, we would have to get a blackboard and chalk in the Dáil, supply Deputies with slates and pencils, and then lectures could be delivered by some railway rates expert and, perhaps, members of the chartered accountants' associations in this country, with a view to proving what Deputy Johnson is not prepared to prove.
It would not be a bad thing at all to have chalk and a blackboard.
I quite agree; but Deputy Mulcahy must not assume that we are all schoolboys.
Somebody might get the dunce's cap. Is the Deputy not now addressing himself to an amendment that we have passed away from, in regard to concessions?
I am addressing myself to remarks that were made— whether they were in order or out of order—in regard to this amendment.
Remarks in regard to what?
To the amendment.
No remarks were made in reference to this amendment.
I bow to your ruling.
It is not a ruling; it is a matter of memory. This amendment was only discussed for seven minutes last night. There were two points of order, and a ruling was made; but the remarks on the amendment were very slender. In fact, there were none beyond the ruling.
I assume you will agree there was a good deal of unintelligent interruption?
From whom?
None from me, at any rate; I did not say anything. Taking the amendment on its merits, even if it were inserted it would be unworkable, and this unknown and unnamed director, who is going to bully and rule the railways of this country in future, would not be so foolish, in a body of sixteen, as to put to a vote the cancelling or otherwise of this agreement. This agreement, like all agreements, is made between an equal number of representatives of interested parties. The same applies in labour disputes as in railway matters. If it is to be cancelled, it will be cancelled by agreement between the full number, and it cannot be cancelled by one member of this new amalgamated company as against fifteen others. Even if the amendment were inserted there would be nothing gained, and, in practice, it would be unworkable.
Let us assume we had another public concern outside railway matters, and that you had, for instance, a business with Deputy Johnson as director. Suppose that part of that business was a fish and chip shop, another part dealt with hardware, and another section was a beer department. Would Deputy Johnson, as a director of such a concern, say that he had a right to interfere in the hardware and the beer departments, but that he had no right to deal with the business in the fish and chip shop section? Take a case from the Trade Union point of view. Suppose I was a member of a Union and worked in an industry. Suppose that Union catered for other workers in other industries. If I was a member of the Executive of that Union, would it be imposed on me, by Deputy Johnson or anybody else, that I should be denied the right to take part in discussions on different matters? I could argue my own case against this ridiculous amendment, but we have wasted time on the matter already, and if Deputy Johnson feels sufficiently keenly on the subject to put it to a division, let that division be called and then let us record our opinions.
Deputy Davin is very kind to the Minister. He has raised quite a number of questions, but I would like to draw his attention, and the attention of the Dáil, to the fact that the amendment was put in before we had any opportunity of reading this so-called agreement. My aim in putting down the amendment is to limit the powers of the director, who is to be appointed by the London, Midland and Scottish on this Irish company in exchange for certain concessions. Of course, a somewhat new light has been thrown on the business by the Minister's remark last night—and this satisfies Deputy Davin, no doubt—that the new director is really being appointed because of the fact that the London, Midland and Scottish is in reality creating, as part of its contribution to the share capital, new stock, this concession having been valued by the Tribunal, the capital value of the concession, as estimated, being created and being ostensibly the share capital of the company.
At least the contribution of the London, Midland and Scottish to the capital of the new company warrants the Minister in promising to agree that the London, Midland and Scottish should have a director on this railway. There are possibilities, of course, that questions will arise as to whether the agreement refers to the modes of division and the termination of arrangements of one kind or another. There will be questions arising, I have no doubt, that I cannot foresee. If such questions did arise within the board, surely it is not reasonable to suggest that the watch-dog nominee of the London, Midland and Scottish should have a voice in determining the policy of the Irish company on a matter which might mean loss or gain to itself, or alternatively to the London, Midland and Scottish?
The bull-dog in this case.
The watch-dog placed in the position by the London, Midland and Scottish Company, with the assent of the Dáil, on the Irish Railway Board, will be able to exercise a considerable amount of influence in the interests of the London, Midland and Scottish Company. I want to curtail that influence, if possible, and the object of this amendment is to indicate the desire of the Dáil that that influence should be curtailed when it comes to discussing the terms of the arrangements and agreements that have been entered into, that may be entered into, or any revision of them. It may be the precise terms of the amendment would not secure that; but, at any rate, if the Dáil approves of the intention, there may be a possibility, on the Report Stage, of amending the phraseology. The main point, however, is deciding whether the Dáil wishes that this director to be appointed by the London, Midland and Scottish Company to help the Irish Railways Company in the interests of the London, Midland and Scottish Company, shall have unlimited powers—that is the point I want to put before the Dáil, and I hope the Dáil will support me in the view that I have expressed.
It would have been much simpler for Deputy Davin to say: "After all, members of the Dáil, this Bill has got a Second Reading; we took a division on it, and why not let it rest at that?" That is practically what his remarks, with regard to this particular amendment, mean. The board of the amalgamated railways, while itself the board of a private company from one point of view, is the nearest approach that we have yet got, here in Ireland, to what we call a vocational council. It is the bringing into focus of the complete outlook on the control of our home railways; but it is also the bringing into focus of general intelligence, general understanding and general discussion on railway matters from the detached point of view.
We will be constrained in our outlook here, on general railway matters, by the views of the principles that will be formulated from time to time in connection with various matters by this amalgamated board. So that we are introducing into a machine of that kind an outside director, a director of a railway company which is not belonging to this State and is not concerned in the interests of this State, but who has been put on because of a business arrangement that we cannot get complete details of, or a complete understanding of. The director is put on in a manner which some of us, at any rate, regard as most undesirable from the point of view of developing the national position here. If we do not put in this amendment, we are going to give him, at some particular time, a veto on the Irish consideration of the question as to whether or not there should be a director of an outside State on our Amalgamated Railway Board.
A veto?
A vote and voice.
Not a veto.
No, I am sorry. We are going to give him a vote and voice in deciding a purely Irish question as to whether or not we should have an outside director on our Board.
I would suggest to Deputy Mulcahy, and other Deputies, that it is not a matter of whether the London, Midland and Scottish should have representation on the Board. They will not in any case influence the decisions of the Irish railway directors. The only fear that I have in the matter is that the director is to be nominated by the London, Midland and Scottish for a consideration of £20,000 a year, which they may withdraw at any moment.
Oh, no—not until 1940, if at all.
Well, in 1940. For this commercial consideration they have the right to nominate a director on this Board in order to look after the immediate interests of the London, Midland and Scottish Company.
I think that Deputy Mulcahy has really put the tin hat on the matter when he described the new amalgamated company as something like a vocational council.
I said that it was the nearest approach to such vocational council as we have yet got.
Probably I do not understand what vocational councils are, but it is well to remind the Deputy that after the first year this will be a self-elected body, elected in secret and no information will be given as to the grounds on which these people will be selected. We heard a great deal when railway disputes arose and when the Railway Act was going through the Dáil, about the number of widows and orphans dependent on shares held in railway companies, and we also heard about the number of charitable institutions, Catholic bodies and others having financial interest in railway concerns. Would Deputy Mulcahy look through the list of these thirteen directors and the thirteen officials who have been nominated, and tell me how many of them represent Catholic institutions and widows and orphans?
I made use of the expression "vocational council" in connection with this matter in the sense that if the people who have interests in the railway companies elect for a railway service, that is as widespread and as national as the Amalgamated Company will be, a certain number of directors to do their work, they will be elected by most people in the country as persons who know most about railway work here. From that point of view people will be inclined to look to them for information and guidance in all matters dealing with railway work.
The spectacle of General Mulcahy endeavouring, in the absence of chalk and a blackboard, to explain to Labour Deputies what a vocational council is, and taking as his first example of such council a railway directorate, is very entertaining, but I do not think that it is bringing us any length in dealing with this matter. I cannot get away from feeling that Deputy Johnson has been indulging in some of those exhibitions of a light type to which the Minister for Local Government referred yesterday. Recently I noticed that there was a familiar ring in the Deputy's speeches, but I did not know where they came from until I got hold of a novel of the good old melodramatic type in which the usual story is unfolded—how the rich man, with a beautiful daughter, falls into the grip of a moneylender, who comes along finally and threatens the daughter that if she does not marry him, he will lend no more money to her father. That seems to me to be the position here. If we do not elect the director we will get no more money. Deputy Johnson is afraid that the director to be appointed is going to have what Deputy Mulcahy first called a veto, but then weakened his argument and called it a vote, and that this £20,000 must continue against our wishes, as if in these circumstances there was no other way out of the difficulty. Can this Bill not be repealed if it is contrary to the wishes of a large section of people?
That depends on the Minister at the time.
One vote out of sixteen is to be absolutely essential.
Why does the London Midland and Scottish Company want him there?
Not, certainly, to overawe fifteen people; and I may say that I do not believe, as Deputy Johnson appears to, in the great superiority of an English director.
Will the Minister say whether this Bill was brought forward at the request of the London Midland and Scottish Company?
The Bill says in the Preamble that as certain agreements have been entered into this is the result of operations to meet them. I said on Second Reading that the Ministry had become interested in this question, arising out of a statement made by the chairman of the Dublin and South Eastern Railway, and we set about seeing how these objections could be removed.
Will the Minister say whether it was a voluntary act on the part of the Irish railway directors to say that they wanted this other director?
Was the agreement brought forward at the request of the London, Midland and Scottish Company?
I cannot answer either of these questions, but I am quite certain that it was not brought forward under duress by the amalgamated company.
Not even financial duress?
I may say that I have no belief in the power of the London, Midland and Scottish Company to bully the new amalgamated company. I do not believe in granting this supposed superiority to certain people. It is evident that close co-operation is desirable, and this is one of the ways to achieve it, and there has been consideration on both sides. If Deputy Johnson's attitude of mind is that nothing should be done by Saorstát Eireann to its own advantage if, while securing that advantage, it brings, incidentally, advantage to somebody else, I must say that I cannot see how any agreement is ever going to be entered into with anybody. Agreements generally are bilateral and have consideration for both sides. If the Deputy persists in that attitude, that a thing which helps this country and also helps somebody else must be ruled out, I say that on that basis there could be no agreement with anybody.
Suppose, for instance, that in regard to this question of sugar beet, which is so very much in the air, it was decided, as it has been decided in other countries, that some outside, expert body were to come in and build a factory, that the Government were to subsidise it, put up portion of the capital, and that there had to be an arrangement with the Government which would enable foreigners to have part control or to co-operate in the control of such factory, would Deputy Johnson object if we put ourselves under the control of a Dutchman, Frenchman or Belgian? Would his argument be that because this factory is going to do benefit to these people, even though it does more benefit to the Saorstát, it should not be proceeded with and no agreement should be entered into? As I have already said, this amendment is useless and effects nothing, but it will do damage if it can be interpreted as a breach of the agreement.
The Minister has suggested that I am taking up an attitude which makes it impossible for any agreement to be entered into by this country with any other country, for advantage to this country, which did not preclude the possibility of advantage being derived to the other country by it, and that, if we take commercial relations, we should not enter into any agreement which incidentally gave advantage to another organisation. That, of course, is a mere parody of anything I said or indicated. I have been sufficiently versed in the development of social organisation, whether political or economic, to know that mankind is growing more and more interdependent and that the advantage of one may be, and usually is, the advantage of another, that there is mutual advantage, and that we ought to aim at mutual advantage.
As an example, the Minister suggested sugar beet production. I would say, quite distinctly, that if sugar beet and its production were as essential to the life of Ireland as the railways are, and if there was competition between British sugar beet production and Irish sugar beet production, I would certainly preclude, or deny, the right of a British sugar beet company to establish itself in a responsible position to decide whether or not Irish sugar beet should be continued, or to influence the policy of the Irish company. That is if Irish sugar beet production were as essential to the life of Ireland as Irish railway administration is in connection with transportation.
Then the objection to the principle has disappeared?
No. The railway service in Ireland is a public service on which the whole economic life of Ireland largely depends and, in my view, it should be developed for the social and industrial advantage of the country. The Dáil, on the other hand, knows that it has been the theme of many essays and economic writings that Irish railway policy has influenced Irish national and economic life in such a way as to feed and serve British railway interests at the cost of Irish industrial interests. That is the proposition, and if that is true, and any member on the other side of the House denying it would be going contrary to past protestations, I say that to bring any influence on the Irish railway system which would tend to perpetuate that policy is wrong in principle.
That is the principle to which I am objecting, because the Irish railway service is a national service and is as essential, or ought to be, to the national life as, shall I say, the Ministry of Local Government. Suppose you brought into the Ministry for Local Government a British railway director, or into the Ministry for Finance a nominee of the British Government, to assist, advise, and help—and, of course, it has always been the contention that the nominees of the British Government in every country have always been for the benefit of the other countries—this is, in my opinion, analogous. The proposition is that the British railway service shall put in a director on an Irish railway concern to look after British interests. We know, unfortunately, that the railway directors at present in charge——
Subject to correction, Deputy Johnson knows that the tribunal which governed Irish railway administration previous to the Railway Act was a British tribunal, but now we have an Irish one.
I am talking about Irish railways.
The Deputy is not talking to the amendment.
I am answering the Minister's challenge about the principle. I submit that when dealing with the directorate we have to consider the directorate as a whole.
These directors have advanced a policy which conformed with British railway policy, inasmuch as it was beneficial to shareholding interests in Irish railways as a purely commercial undertaking. The Minister can have all he asks if he can disassociate Irish railways from national, economic, and social policy. It is because Irish railways should subserve national policy that I object to the nominee of the British railway service influencing that policy.
I will answer Deputy Johnson briefly. His argument seems to be that it is necessary, from the point of view of the nation, to object to British railway control. One director on a board of sixteen means British control, and therefore we must object to one director—that is his argument. I do not admit that the appointment of that one director means that he is to have control. I do not see how anyone could argue that.
Will he influence the control? What is he there for?
Because £20,000 was paid.
The motion is not that the Bill be now read a Second Time.
Amendment put.
The Dáil divided: Tá, 14; Níl, 36.
Tá
- Seán Buitléir.
- Osmond Grattan Esmonde.
- David Hall.
- Connor Hogan.
- Tomás Mac Eoin.
- Pádraig Mac Fhlannchadha.
- Risteárd Mac Liam.
- Tomás de Nógla.
- Tomás O Conaill.
- Aodh O Cúlacháin.
- Pádraic O Máille.
- Risteárd O Maolchatha.
- Domhnall O Muirgheasa.
- Tadhg O Murchadha.
Níl
- Earnán de Blaghd.
- Seoirse de Bhulbh.
- Séamus de Búrca.
- John J. Cole.
- John Conlan.
- Sir James Craig.
- Michael Egan.
- Patrick J. Egan.
- Seán de Faoite.
- Desmond Fitzgerald.
- John Good.
- John Hennigan.
- Seosamh Mac 'a Bhrighde.
- Patrick McGilligan.
- Patrick McKenna.
- Seoirse Mac Niocaill.
- Liam Mac Sioghaird.
- James Sproule Myles.
- Martin M. Nally.
- John T. Nolan.
- Peadar O hAodha.
- Ailfrid O Broin.
- Seán O Bruadair.
- Liam O Daimhín.
- Séamus O Dóláin.
- Mícheál O Dubhghaill.
- Peadar O Dubhghaill.
- Eamon O Dúgáin.
- Seán O Laidhín.
- Aindriú O Laimhín.
- Fionán O Loingsigh.
- Andrew O'Shaughnessy.
- Caoimhghín O hUigín.
- Seán Priomhdhail.
- Patrick W. Shaw.
- Liam Thrift.
Amendment declared lost.
Sections 2, 3 and 4 put and agreed to.
THE PREAMBLE.
I think the amendment on the paper is not in order.
Is it in order to introduce a touch of realism into this Bill?
I allowed Deputy Johnson to make the speech he would have made on this amendment, had it been in order, on the last amendment.
It was realism.
I am not making any comments on that.
Question—"That this be the Preamble to the Bill"—put and declared carried.
Title put and declared carried.