Dáil Éireann debate -
Friday, 7 Apr 1933

Vol. 46 No. 18

Railways Bill, 1933—Committee Stage (Resumed).

Mr. Good

On the adjournment last night we were discussing amendment 57. I will briefly reiterate what the amendment means. The Dublin and South Eastern Railway enjoyed the benefits of a loan, which was given to that company many years ago to aid them when finances were low, in order to carry out certain improvements on the railway at Waterford and Wexford. That loan has been for the benefit not alone of that railway but of the joint railways, as on the amalgamation in 1924 these railways derived the benefit of it. There were certain benefits in addition to monetary benefits, estimated at something like £20,000 per annum, which went to the amalgamated company and have been enjoyed by it since 1924.

Attaching to this loan was a condition giving the old London and North Western Railway, or its successors, the London, Midland and Scottish Railway the right to nominate a director. For years that director sat on the Board of the old Dublin and South Eastern Railway, and since the amalgamation the London, Midland and Scottish Railway has nominated a director on the Great Southern Railways. When exception was taken to the appointment of this director I pointed out last night that he was only one director, so that from the point of view of voting strength not very much importance could be attached to the condition. The extraordinary fact is that the director who is filling this position for many years cannot be looked upon in any sense as a drag on the board, because the individual who acted in this capacity happens to be one of the most outstanding figures in the railway world. Prior to his appointment as head of one of the greatest railways in the world, a position he filled for a number of years, he discharged duties in Dublin. In fact his whole life has been spent in connection with the railways, so that instead of being any hindrance, I should think he would be the greatest asset that any board could welcome. I am quite satisfied that there is no railway board in the world to-day that would not be glad to get a man of such outstanding experience and knowledge of railway matters to assist them in the guidance of the railways. I mention those facts to show that advantages will accrue from a continuance of the proposal. I cannot see on looking at this proposal, which has now been in existence for some thirty odd years, that any disadvantage whatever will accrue from continuing it; on the other hand, from the point of view of the railways, as far as I see it, nothing but advantage can accrue. For that reason, I am at some difficulty to understand why this section is put forward, taking away from the Southern Railways all these advantages.

The personality of this director has been raised here by the Labour Party. That is not a question I want to discuss, but seeing that the matter has been raised, I think it is due to this director to say that at the last meeting of the Southern Railway Company I heard a very great tribute paid to him by the chairman of that company, who spoke of the advantages which the company had derived from his services. In addition, he is a citizen of our State. Prior to his appointment to that high position in the railway world on the other side he lived in this country. During the whole period when he filled that position on the other side his home was here, and his family resided here. He is a man of considerable wealth, and this country gets the benefit of that wealth through taxation. One does not like to go into those features of the matter, but they are some of the advantages which accrue from the continuance of this arrangement, and it baffles me to know why this proposal should be put forward to discontinue those advantages. I have had the privilege of being a member of this House for the last ten years. Let me say as a business man that this is the most extraordinary proposal which has come before this House in that period. Why do I say that this is the most extraordinary proposal? For these reasons: The railway companies have enjoyed the advantage of this loan without, as far as I know, having had to pay anything for it. They have enjoyed the advantage of £100,000; they have had the consequential advantage of the equivalent of £20,000 per annum. From the condition giving the London, Midland and Scottish Railway the right to nominate a director, they derive the benefit of the advice and experience of the most able railwayman in the world to-day. I say, therefore, that it seems a most extraordinary thing to me that any sane man—I do not say that in any personal sense—should put forward a proposal doing away with those advantages, and as far as I can see, the proposal will confer no corresponding advantages of any kind whatever on the other side. I would like to know from the Minister what is behind this? I am looking at it—as I have looked at all the problems in this Bill—as a business man. As a business man, I am quite sure there is not a board or a company in our city or in our country that would not agree with me when I say that I would not hesitate to continue those proposals. Everything points to the continuance of them, and I would like to ask the Minister why this extraordinary proposal is put forward to do away with those benefits and advantages, and what we are going to get in return if we do away with them.

Mr. Lemass

At the outset, I think I should make it quite clear that this section was not inserted in the Bill because of the personality of the director nominated by the London, Midland and Scottish Company. No matter what person had been nominated by that company as its representative on the Board of the Great Southern Railways this section would still have appeared in the Bill. The question is whether it is desirable that there should be upon the board directing the activities of the Great Southern Railways Company a person nominated by a great English Railway Company. I want the Deputies to consider the changes that have taken place and that are proposed to take place in the future. Thirty years ago an Irish railway company entered into an arrangement with an English company, which resulted in that English company having its representative nominated as a director on the Irish company's board. That position continued until 1924, when the amalgamation of the Southern Railways took place. Objection was taken in 1924 to a Bill brought before this Dáil, which proposed to give to the English company in respect of the Great Southern Railway Board not merely the same right but a greater right than it had previously exercised in respect of the Dublin and South Eastern Railway Board. Objection was taken, on the grounds that the activities of the amalgamated company were of much greater importance to the whole economic life of the country than the activities of the smaller railway which originally gave this concession to the English company. Whatever basis there may have been for those objections in 1924 is obviously considerably strengthened by the proposals contained in this Bill and in the other Bill we have been discussing recently.

The question before this Dáil is whether there is any consideration which would justify us in putting a representative of an English company as one of seven on a board that is going to control not merely the railway activities on the system of the old Dublin and South Eastern railway, not merely the activities of the Southern Railway Company, but public transport activities over three-fourths of this State. I think it is preposterous to argue that because of an arrangement entered into thirty years ago by an Irish railway company with an English company we are coerced to-day into giving to that English company this right of representation on the board of this very important organisation. I say deliberately that, no matter what the considerations are, this Dáil should not give that right of representation. Now, what are the considerations? Deputy Good is all wrong in his facts. The agreement entered into by the Dublin and South Eastern Railway Company with the London and North-Western Railway Company did not give the London and North-Western Railway Company the right to nominate a director on the Dublin and South-Eastern Board. It embodied a clause by which the directors of the D. & S.E. Railway undertook to secure the election of a duly qualified person approved by them and nominated by the London and North-Western Railway to the board of the Dublin and South-Eastern Co. That agreement also provided for this loan of £100,000, to which the Deputy referred, a loan repayable at any time during that perfod on six months' notice. That is an important fact that I want the Deputy to bear in mind in connection with this matter: that the loan was repayable on six months' notice given by the London and North Western, or its successor, the L.M.S. That agreement was carried on until 1924. In that year the Dublin and South-Eastern disappeared on amalgamation with the Great Southern and Western. It is quite obvious that after that date the agreement could not be given effect to because it was no longer possible for the proprietors of the Dublin South Eastern Company to secure the election of a duly qualified person, approved by them, to the board of the Dublin and South Eastern. That Board had disappeared.

Certain discussions, negotiations and communications took place in that period. As a result of these discussions, presumably, an Act was passed by the Oireachtas which gave to the L.M.S. Company the right to nominate a director on the Great Southern Railways board, a right which was stated to be given in consequence of an arrangement between the Great Southern Company and the London North Western Company and which, it was said, secured an advantage of £20,000 a year to the Great Southern Company. There was no question of the loan. The loan was repayable on demand on six months' notice. It was repayable in that manner before 1924, and was repayable in that manner after 1924. The position as regards the loan of £100,000 is not changed by this Bill. At any time, up to January of this year, the date to which the agreement operated, it was repayable on six months' notice being given. What the precise position is since January of this year is not clear. The agreement is continued by a certain clause of it, and I presume the effect of that is that the loan is now repayable on demand. That position is not altered by this Bill. If it was repayable on demand in February or in March it is still repayable on demand, and presumably will continue to be repayable on demand whether this Bill is enacted or not. The position, as I have said, in respect to the loan of £100,000 is not changed.

Professor Thrift

On paper?

Mr. Lemass

Yes. Deputy Good said that this arrangement procured an advantage of £20,000 a year for the Great Southern Railways. Does he know that of his own knowledge, and can he tell me what form exactly that advantage takes?

Mr. Good

I have been told that by people who are much more capable of judging the advantages than either the Minister or myself.

Mr. Lemass

I ask the Deputy to give me that information, as I have not got any information to show that there is, in fact, an advantage of £20,000 a year to the railway company arising out of this arrangement. If an additional profit of £20,000 is secured for the Great Southern Railways by this agreement, why is it not possible to give information about it? In what manner is the £20,000 handed over to the Great Southern Railways. I cannot find out. I asked for information, and I was given a list of payments by the L.M. & S. to the Great Southern Company. On examination, these appeared to me to be payments for value given in respect of such matters as the use of Carlisle pier and Westland Row station. These payments would probably have to be made in any case. I want it demonstrated clearly that there is, in fact, any advantage amounting to £20,000 a year being secured to the Great Southern Company under this agreement which will be terminated if this agreement ceases to operate. That has not yet been shown, and I do not think Deputy Good can show it.

Mr. Good

I understand that the Minister has made application to the railway company to show how they make a case in respect of this £20,000. I am not sure that the circumstances in connection with it have not been stated from time to time by the chairman of the Great Southern Company. I have heard about it myself in many places and have seen references to it. If the Minister calls for information, and if the information is supplied to him, I suppose that will satisfy him.

Mr. Lemass

If information is conveyed to me to show that the Great Southern Railway Company is getting £20,000 a year under this agreement which it will not get in future, then I will admit there is a loss to the railway company.

Mr. Good

Getting an advantage to the extent of £20,000 a year?

Mr. Lemass

I have not been able to get any information to show me that that is so.

Mr. Good

All I can say is that this is the first time that statement has been questioned.

Mr. Lemass

Well, that is the position.

Professor Thrift

If it is demonstrated to the Minister that it is so, will he take out the section?

Mr. Lemass

No. I would say that £20,000 would be a very poor return to get for giving to an English railway company this very considerable share in the control of the whole transport organisation of this State. The facts are: In respect to the loan of £100,000 the legal position is not changed. Since 1904 the L.M.S. were entitled to demand repayment of that loan on giving six months' notice from the Dublin South Eastern Railway Company and since 1924 from the Great Southern Railways. As far as the £20,000 is concerned, I have no information apart from statements to the effect that the Great Southern Railways have secured the advantage spoken of. I am certain that whatever arrangements were made in 1924, and which were considered to confer an advantage of £20,000 a year on the Great Southern Railways, if still continued do not bear an advantage to that extent in this year.

Mr. Good

Then the Minister does not question the advantages from it in past years? It is only for the future that he questions the advantage.

Mr. Lemass

I question it for past years, too. My statement is based on the fact that I have been unable to get any information to show that, in fact, this advantage has been secured to the Great Southern Railways Company.

Mr. Good

Is the Minister making the point that the Great Southern Railways Company refused to give him the information?

Mr. Lemass

My point is that the information which they gave me consisted of a list of payments which, as far as I could see, would have to be made in any case, and which did not represent an advantage over and above what would be regarded as ordinary arrangements.

Mr. Good

In other words, that the statement that advantages have accrued to the Great Southern Company equivalent to £20,000 per annum is incorrect?

Mr. Lemass

Quite so.

Mr. Good

That is the Minister's statement.

Mr. Lemass

What I am saying is that I doubt very much if advantages representing that sum were secured by the Great Southern Railways Company, and I am going to continue to doubt that until the contrary is proved. That is the position in respect to the £100,000 and this £20,000. As regards the director, the position is as I have stated. The old Dublin, Wicklow and Wexford Railway Company agreed with the London and North Western Company to procure the election of a qualified director approved of by them and nominated by the L.M. and S. Railway Company to their board. That could not be continued. An Act was introduced here by the Government in office at the time to give the L.M. and S. Company the right to nominate a director on the Great Southern Railways Board. The preamble to the Act stated that it was in consequence of certain agreements entered into between the two railways. These agreements related to the £20,000 apparently. We propose to repeal that Act. We are proposing to put the position back to the point when the Amalgamating Act had been passed and the Railways (Directorate) Act of 1924 had not been introduced. I think that there is every justification for doing that. If I had been here in 1924 I would have opposed that Act. I would have opposed the London, Midland and Scottish Company having one director in 16 upon a Board controlling the Great Southern Company. Whatever basis there might have been in 1924 for opposing it is considerably strengthened to-day when it is a question of one director in seven and when it is not only a question of control of the Great Southern Railways Company but of all the transport activities over a great part of the Saorstát. I do not think that any Deputy in the House will agree that we should be coerced because of an agreement entered into 30 years ago.

Mr. Doyle

I should like to ask the Minister if the objection against this claim of the London, Midland and Scottish Company for representation here is an objection on the principle of the thing, or is the objection more against the individual?

Mr. Lemass

In my opening remarks, I stated that this had nothing to do with the individual and would have appeared in the Bill in any case.

Mr. Doyle

If the objection is on the principle it is different.

Mr. Dillon

Deputy Good, in opening this matter, said that this director would be one of seven, if the Railway Act of 1924 was not repealed, and the Minister seemed to confirm that. Is that correct? I thought the Act of 1924 provided for an additional director.

Mr. Lemass

The Act of 1924 provided for a board of 15.

Mr. Dillon

But I understood that the director representing the London, Midland and Scottish Company should be a supernumerary and, if read in conjunction with this Act, there should be seven directors and one nominated director. So that I think you would have eight directors if the section remains without this repealing section. I think the difficulty could be resolved in a word. I welcome the Minister's disclaimer of personal animus and I think all Deputies in the House accept that. I am in sympathy with the Minister in principle. I do not think it is a desirable principle that a British railway company should have the right to nominate a director on our Transport board. But this is still—and the Minister should remember this—a private company. We should be reluctant to compel that company to do certain things by statute.

Mr. Lemass

But it was compelled by statute to take the director.

Mr. Dillon

We should be reluctant to do things by statute which might involve the company in grave financial liabilities unless we are prepared to indemnify them against any possible loss. Even though we are of opinion that no liability will result from it, still, if in law a liability should ensue, we should be prepared to indemnify them.

Mr. Lemass

What liability?

Mr. Dillon

There are two—one absolute and the other contingent. The absolute one is the necessity to repay this loan that the old company can claim. It has not done so before, but admittedly, it has the right to do so, but there has been an agreement out of the Railways Act which left the Great Southern Railways Company immune from claim. Now, if we repeal the Railways (Directorate) Act the claim may be revived and the money recovered. Secondly, as Deputy Good has pointed out, the Great Southern Railways Company, in their experience as railwaymen, have estimated advantages that they secure by admittedly reciprocal agreements with the London, Midland and Scottish Company for traffic facilities. They have estimated the value of those agreements to the Great Southern Railways Company at £20,000 a year. The Minister, in his wisdom, may form a different estimate of the value of those agreements and he may think that a pier in Westland Row or facilities there are quite as valuable as any facilities which the London, Midland and Scottish Company can provide in Crewe. But a railwayman might not take the same view and might feel that facilities in these very large centres such as Crewe or Liverpool are infinitely more valuable to the Great Southern Railways Company than any convenience the Great Southern Railways Company is able to put at the disposal of the London, Midland and Scottish Company.

There may be a difficulty in arriving at a true estimate of the loss that would result to the Great Southern Railways Company on that score if we repeal the Railways (Directorate) Act, but there can be no difficulty in assessing the loss they will be put to if the London, Midland and Scottish Company serve a Civil Bill on them for £100,000 and succeed in recovering the money. If the Minister is sincere in his conviction that this Act is going to involve the Company in no serious liability, then he can sweep aside all legitimate objection by saying that he is prepared on Report Stage to insert a section to indemnify them against such liability.

In so far as removing Mr. Burgess from the sphere of Irish railway management is concerned, this Bill does not do that. Very probably Mr. Burgess is a shareholder in the Irish railway company. Probably also he is a national of the Irish Free State, or if he is not he can become one, and there can be no difficulty in the shareholders electing him to be one of the seven directors. This is not directed against him personally. It could not be. He is perfectly free to be elected as a member of the board, but it is directed against the right of the London, Midland and Scottish Company to nominate a director. If no other consequencies flow from it, I would accept it; but if on grounds of policy we believe it to be a necessary proposal I hold that we are bound to indemnify the company against possible liabilities just as we are indemnifying the employees against the possible loss that may accrue to them as a result of amalgamation. We must secure fair and adequate compensation for those who may suffer as a result of this liability just as we are securing it for those who suffer as a result of amalgamation.

Mr. Davin

You have not voted for that.

Mr. Dillon

I do not wish to argue now.

Mr. Davin

It would not suit you.

Mr. Dillon

I will not be drawn into an argument by the Deputy. Probably, if our respective records were examined on the point of solicitude for the railway employees I should come better out of it than the Deputy. We directly indemnify railway employees and, for exactly the same principle, we should indemnify the shareholders for the losses that may accrue as a result of this. The Minister holds that no liability will accrue. He may be perfectly right that there is no liability, but whether there is going to be a loss or not the Minister can sweep aside all opposition if he will agree to indemnify them against the possibility of such a liability. If he would do that I am sure he would have the unanimous support of this House on the proposal. Otherwise, it is manifest that he is asking the railway company to bear the burden while he collects the glory.

Mr. Dockrell

In rising to support the amendment for the deletion of the sub-section, I should like, first of all, to say I was very pleased to know that the Minister has disclaimed any attack upon the nominee of the L.M. and S. There is no doubt that possibly if anything could be alleged against him it would be that he knew too much about railways. The more one examines this section of the Bill the more illogical it becomes. It seems as if the Government had gone either too far or not far enough. I am very glad that Deputy Dillon made the point that this was a private company, because it is a very common occurrence that with companies associated in the same enterprise, or class of enterprise, an exchange of directors or directors that are common to both does not matter much. The L.M. and S. Company and the Great Southern Railway Company both meet at the end of one another's system. Now, the dream of a railway company is to get a long haul for stuff, and what could be more logical than that these two great companies, each great in its own sphere, should be associated with each other.

Mr. Lemass

May I interrupt the Deputy for a moment to read an extract from the speech of the Chairman of the Great Southern and Western Railway at the recent general meeting of the shareholders? He said:—

"It is proposed to repeal the statute under which a representative of the London, Midland and Scottish Railway Company has a seat on our Board. Apart from all consideration of the personnel of that representative, I have to say that we, the Great Southern Railways Board, have no responsibility for the creation of that representation. Indeed I do not think I am wrong in my recollection that the view of the chief Free State railways then in association was against such representation."

Mr. Dillon

Will the Minister finish the paragraph?

Mr. Lemass

Yes.

"The Free State Government of that day, however, for reasons which they fully expounded in the Dáil, passed a special Act, in 1924, providing for that London, Midland and Scottish representation—which, in their judgment, was necessary to conserve most valuable financial advantages."

Mr. Dillon

What does the chairman say about the liabilities?

Mr. Lemass

My point is that Deputy Dockrell was wrong in representing this as a result of an agreement entered into, in the ordinary course of business, by the Great Southern Railway and the London, Midland and Scottish Railway.

Mr. Dillon

Surely the Minister will give us the views of the chairman of the company as to the liabilities that will accrue to the company from this Bill?

Mr. Lemass

The Deputy can read for himself.

Mr. Dillon

My point is that the Minister has only read some of the matter and not read the principal part.

Mr. Lemass

I have established my point.

Mr. Dockrell

I do not know what the purpose of the Minister was in reading that paragraph, because I should be surprised to hear that the chairman and directors were anxious to get rid of the nominee of the London, Midland and Scottish. Is that the case the Minister is making?

Mr. Lemass

No. My point is that this representation was not given to them in consequence of an ordinary business arrangement or agreement, such as the Deputy suggests. It was forced upon them by Act of Parliament.

Professor Thrift

Against the will of the directorate?

Mr. Lemass

That is what the chairman said—by Act of Parliament.

Mr. Dockrell

I listened to Deputy Good being told that his facts were all wrong. I suppose, in the same analogy, mine are wrong. At the same time it appears to me that if we trace this transaction to its inception, in return for benefits the Great Southern Railways received, the L.M. and S. Company also received benefits. I do not think that there is very much in the Minister's point. I should like to get down to the fact that the L.M. and S. Company has a right to be represented on this board. If the Minister wants to express that in some different term I will not quarrel with him, so long as there is representation there. Apparently it is not there against the wishes of the directors. If the directors are bursting to have this representation cut out, and to hand a cheque for £100,000 over, and have it bundled out of the country, really then, I am quite wrong in the contention I am making; but the case I wish to make is that of the illogical procedure under this section. I can conceive two companies being either in friendly relation, or in hostile relation, but I cannot conceive anything between these two positions. I cannot conceive a half and half position. Apparently the nominee of the L.M. and S. Company is to be put off the board and they are to be handed a cheque for £100,000. That is left to be settled. Either it can be concluded or it cannot be concluded. There appears to be no doubt about the amount paid to the South Eastern Company and the money has not been repaid.

When you come to consider the other matters I would like to make a balance sheet of the advantages and disadvantages accruing to the railway company under this Bill. I have endeavoured to make up a few of the particular items of the advantages and disadvantages. I take it this is a railway Bill, and is intended to help the railways. It has no ulterior motive in which we can see any return for some sacrifice, some material advantage, that accrued to this country. The Minister seems to make great capital out of the fact that on a private company no nominee of an English company could be allowed to take his place in which, according to Deputy Dillon, he would be one in eight and under the old régime would be one in sixteen. If one man in eight or one man in sixteen, and the latter figure would mean six or seven per cent., could work an amount of harm to this country I think there must be something wrong with his fellow directors. But to get back to the idea of a balance sheet if you look at this Bill you will see what are the advantages and disadvantages under the Bill. The Great Southern Railways Company have been let off a sum of £285,900. Undoubtedly they have benefited to that extent. I do not know if the reconstruction scheme had been carried out and that liability had been left, whether the Government would have tackled that liability and written it down to 50 or 10 per cent. However, that does not matter. Undoubtedly, the railway company have been forgiven the sum of £285,000. What are they asked to undertake on the other side? The railway company contend that they receive advantages from their association with the L.M.S. amounting to £20,000. I know that the Minister has challenged that statement. Apparently, nobody has been able to produce a cheque for £20,000 from the L.M.S. with the endorsement of the G.S.R. on it. There are, however, a number of other ways in which you may receive a payment of £20,000. The Minister is not ignorant of railway affairs and he knows of the pooling arrangements and their share of the through rates, etc., and that seems to me quite likely.

Although I personally cannot state that I have examined the books of the company and can certify that they do receive £20,000, apparently it has been stated by the company again and again that they are going to lose £20,000 in benefits. They are also asked to bring forward a superannuation scheme which would cost the company about £15,000 per year. That would be £35,000 a year that they are to be saddled with. If you take that at 15 years' purchase it amounts to £525,000. Then you have to add £100,000 that they will probably be asked to repay by the L.M.S., and that brings the advantages to £285,000, and the disadvantages, capitalised, to £625,000, leaving a net debit balance of £340,000.

Mr. Good

And this is supposed to be a Bill to help the railways!

Mr. Kelly

Make it a little more.

Mr. Dockrell

You could make it a lot more.

Mr. Kelly

You are going on all right. They will probably own the railway before you finish.

Mr. Dockrell

It is a very heavy burden for the widows and orphans, whom we have heard mentioned here, to bear as a start from the Railways Bill. I do not wish to refer to the other aspects of this matter, because the Ceann Comhairle might possibly call me to order if I dealt with the advantages that they were going to receive under the Transport Bill. At present, however, the railway companies are left in this position: that potentially they can only look out on the whole volume of traffic in this country and say: "Possibly and potentially we might get that." Who are the other people that are going to compete for that traffic? There is a very large volume of traffic that, I think it can be demonstrated without a shadow of doubt the railway companies are not suited for, and are not able to carry, although the competition with them, as far as road transport is concerned, is very strong. If they are going to embark on very heavy capital commitments in buying up their competitors and compensating these interests they are at the present time menaced by two other forms of transport that are only on the horizon—one from the air and the other from the water. With modern conditions and modern science he would be a wise man who would say that the whole position of transport on the surface of the earth, as we know it, may not be changed. That is the position that the railway companies are now faced with. To get back to the Bill, I repeat that they are carrying out of this Bill a net debit balance of £340,000.

Mr. Morrissey

I find myself in absolute agreement with the Minister on this matter. Deputy Good appeals to the Minister to deal with this as a business man and in a businesslike way. If we were to take anything at all from the speeches made by Deputies Good and Dockrell we could only come to the conclusion that the directors of the L.M.S. were not business men. They gave a loan of £100,000 to the Dublin South Eastern Railway For what? Was it merely out of goodness of heart, or because they knew it would pay them very well to keep that railway going and to give it any assistance it could? It was not for the sake of the Dublin South Eastern, or of the Irish people, but because it was good business for the L.M.S. We are told that there are advantages to the tune of £20,000 accruing to the G.S.R. What advantages are accruing to the L.M.S. from this connection? Are there any? I have nothing to say in a personal way against the nominee of the L.M.S. on the board of directors, and, I suppose, as he is a fellow-county man of mine I should not. I quite agree with Deputy Good that he is perhaps to-day one of the greatest experts we have in this country or probably in Great Britain upon railway matters. I suggest, however, to Deputy Good that that ability and that great knowledge may not be always used in the interests of the G.S.R., as he seems to suggest. I suggest to the Deputy that the influence of that particular director on railway matters and upon certain transport matters in this country for the last few years has not led to the very smooth running at all times of these particular transport concerns, or the G.S.R. When the Minister talks of one in sixteen, or one in eight, it is well known, not only to railwaymen, but to members of the general public who take any interest whatever in transport matters, that that particular nominee, because perhaps of his expert knowledge, exercised more influence on the policy of transport in this country than any five directors. I think that if you could get the real mind of the directors and of the railway body in general you would find that they are not all so keen upon a continuance of this right of nomination as Deputies Good and Dockrell would seem to suggest. Apart altogether from that, as the Minister quite properly pointed out, Deputy Good made his case as if we were legislating for this particular individual. We are not. This particular individual has no lease of life, any more than anybody else. He may be removed to-morrow by the L.M.S. or he may die and some other nominee may take his place. As the Minister says I think this House could not agree on principle to this proposal. We hear a lot about the £100,000 that may have to be repaid but, speaking for myself, I would say that if the Company were not in a position to pay that £100,000 it would be good business for the State to pay it rather than allow this amendment to go through.

Mr. E. O'Neill

The House may not be aware that this is another attack on Cork. I shall show how. It is not so much an attack on County Cork as on the port of Cork. Cork port is the natural outlet for any trade from the province of Munster, and the fact of there being an L.M.S. director on such an important system as the G.S.R. naturally tends to the Company's directing all the traffic they can over these two systems to the detriment of the port of Cork. On that account I strongly oppose the amendment and I think the Minister should insist strongly on his original point. There are two big systems in England competing for the Irish cross-Channel trade, the Great Western Railway system and the L.M.S. Naturally, the fact of having a working arrangement between the G.S. Railways and the L.M.S. is detrimental to southern interests in this matter. The natural point of contact between southern Ireland and England is the Great Western system at Fishguard. If you are going to allow a L.M.S. director to sit on the G.S. Railways Board, why not also have a Great Western director on it? I could elaborate this point a good deal but I merely wish to say that I strongly support the Minister in the point of view he has expressed. I think he is quite right in saying that Irish railway affairs should be carried on from an Irish standpoint, with regard to the interest of Irish traders and not in the interests of any cross-Channel railway company or big corporation. On that account, I support the Minister on this point and I hope that the amendment will be defeated. We have reason to know that this arrangement has diverted traffic in the past. Even southern traffic is taken longer distances at greater cost over the Great Southern and L.M.S. systems than it would be if it were sent direct through the port of Cork. Cork shipping has in my opinion suffered from this arrangement. I speak for the interests of Cork and I hope that these two systems will be allowed to compete on level terms for this traffic in future.

Mr. Keyes

Deputy O'Neill has put his finger on the real kernel of the problem, to my mind. Deputy Dockrell told us of the magnificent balance sheet and painted a very rosy picture of this company. It was as fictitious as the foundation of the £20,000. What is the real origin of the £20,000? This was the point dealt with by Deputy O'Neill. The London, Midland and Scottish Company entered into an agreement with the Dublin South-Eastern Company offering them certain advantages on through rates for the purpose of diverting traffic from the South of Ireland which would naturally go through the ports of Cork and Rosslare and by the Great Western Company. This traffic was to be hauled over the Dublin South-Eastern line to be handed over to the London, Midland and Scottish. The value of the traffic would naturally be in accordance with the length of the haulage. The major part of the advantage would be to the London, Midland and Scottish and the maximum that could be estimated as being paid to the Dublin South-Eastern Company was £20,000. There was no fixed figure that I ever heard of. It could have been £20,000 at its peak but everybody knows that since that time a good deal of what was formerly rail borne traffic has been diverted to the road. At no time since the D.S.E.R. was merged in the G.S.R. could they have received benefits to this amount. At the present day the amount derived from this traffic has reached its minimum. I suggest that the Minister is on fairly safe ground in asking the company to produce figures to show that at any time recently they received anything like this £20,000.

Deputy Dockrell pointed out that the natural tendency of railway companies was to get a long haul. I suggest that if that has been the policy in the past it is a vicious principle and should not be developed. It is not in the interests of the trading community to give companies the right to take every pound of traffic over the longest possible haul. That is not the way to develop the industries of the country. It has come to be recognised by some of the most prominent officials of the railway as a shortsighted policy and that by giving the most expeditious route to manufacturers they are helping to build up a larger volume of traffic.

Deputy Dockrell suggested that there was some bias against this director, who has been painted, on the other hand, as a person of wonderful capacity and as one who is extraordinarily well versed in railway lore. Somebody suggested that if anything, he knew too much about railways. I suggest, to complete the phrase, that that he knew too much for his fellow directors. It may be said that one individual amongst 16 could not be expected to wield such an extraordinary influence, but the fact remains that the influence of that particular gentleman has been out of all proportion to what might be expected to take place on normal boards. He has influenced all sections of the transport industry in this country. He has been on the I.O.C. board and on the board of John Wallis and Sons. Under the original agreement his interest was to be a somewhat passive one, to look after the interests of the L.M.S. While his interest in that respect has been declining, so as to become not sufficiently worthy of his care and attention, he has in effect become a dictator of the G.S.R. Company, to the discredit, I may say, of his colleagues on that board. His influence on that board has been of a dominating character. It is not, however, the individual that is aimed at, although the L.M.S. have been able through him to exercise greater influence than might have been possible through any other person. Irrespective of any question of personnel, I think the Minister is perfectly justified in the attitude he has taken and I hope the section will be allowed to remain.

Mr. McMenamin

The question of the benefits received by the D.S.E.R. Company, in my opinion, does not arise on this amendment at all. I do not understand how Deputy Good could defend an amendment of this character having regard to what he properly said the other day in relation to the strike. I submit the principle which is at stake here is linked up with the question of the strike and I want to get rid of the dictation of these people entirely. Why should we be so tied to London? Daily on opening our papers for some time past we have seen such news as "Cramp flys from London to Dublin and from Dublin to Belfast; Cramp meets the Minister for Industry and Commerce and has a conversation with him." Why is Deputy Davin not capable of doing that? Is he not capable of settling an Irish strike?

Deputy Good set forth the psychology behind the strike the other day when he said that the unions selected the Six Counties because it was the smallest area and the strike would cause the unions less money. They selected this country in order to have a fight. Why, in the face of that, does Deputy Good put down this amendment and start to defend it? If the question of the strike or the N.U.R. in this country is indefensible in principle, so also is this. It is not a question of Mr. Burgess or any other director; it is not a question of money or holidays; it is a question of the dictatorial powers which can be used. It is a question of principle and it should not be admitted.

Mr. Good

Let us carry the matter further. There was a condition attaching to this loan of £100,000, a condition that they would have the right to nominate a director.

Mr. Lemass

No. I would like to remind the Deputy that there was an agreement by which the directors of the Dublin South-Eastern Railway undertook to procure the election of a duly qualified person approved by them and nominated by the L.M.S.

Mr. Good

They undertook to get a director nominated, and the difference between that and nomination is the difference between tweedle-dum and tweedle-dee.

Mr. Lemass

Except that one required an Act of Parliament and the other did not.

Mr. Good

The result is the same in both cases. Is there any difference?

Mr. Lemass

I think so.

Mr. Good

I give the Minister the benefit of all the difference. To my mind the result is the same. Before ever advancing this loan they got a director on the board. I will not mention the means. Now we are taking away that directorship. We are taking away one of the rights that attached to that loan.

Mr. Lemass

No. The loan was made to the D.S.E.R. The company could not undertake to give the L.M.S. a right to nominate a director upon a board of organisation that was going to control all forms of transport in Ireland.

Mr. Good

The D.S.E.R., to whom the loan was made, agreed to put a nominee on their board as a result of this advance. That liability was taken over by the Great Southern Railways in 1924 under an Act passed here. This House agreed to continue that right.

Mr. Lemass

No.

Mr. Good

I cannot get into the Minister's head the fact that this right attached to that contract.

Mr. Lemass

No.

Mr. Good

It attached to the contract beyond any question. The Minister now seeks to take that right from the contract. If, as a result of his action, the railway company is called upon to make a payment of £100,000, will he take over that liability?

Mr. Lemass

It has always been a liability of the railway company.

Mr. Good

That liability is going to be brought to the point of repayment.

Mr. Lemass

That might have happened last year, the year before, or the year before that.

Mr. Good

As long as the directorship remained there was no question of recalling the loan. Now that the directorship is being taken away the Minister may be surprised to see how quickly they will be called upon to foot the liability. In the event of the railway company being called upon to foot it, will the Minister take over the liability? The railway company are quite willing to continue the directorship, and as long as the directorship is continued I am quite satisfied the loan will not be recalled. On the other hand, I am informed that if this Bill goes through and the director is removed the loan will be recalled. It will be recalled as a result of Parliamentary action, not as a result of the action of the railway company. Is it fair, therefore, that the railway company should have to foot this Bill as a result of Parliamentary action?

There is a good deal to be said for what the Minister has put forward, but if he removes this and if liability accrues to the railway company as a result of his action, he should accept that liability and not throw it on somebody else, particularly on the unfortunate railway company. If the Minister will go that far and accept the liability, then a considerable sting may be taken out of this; but as the proposal stands, I think 99 out of every 100 men will agree that it is unfair for the Parliament to step in and interfere with a contract of this character without agreeing to accept the liabilities which will accrue from their action. If the Minister accepts the liability, a good deal of the sting will be taken out of the proposal. It is only giving to the railway company its due that the Minister should accept the liability.

Mr. Davin

During the Second Reading discussion and here to-day reference was made to the alleged domination of Irish railway workers by English union leaders. I can assure Deputies McMenamin, Dillon, Good, Cosgrave and McGilligan, if assurances are worth anything, that Irish railway workers are free to join any union of their own choice. During the past couple of years——

Mr. Lemass

In view of the short time at our disposal, I ask Deputy Davin to keep this over for another Stage.

Mr. Davin

I do not want to hold up the time of the House unnecessarily, but I cannot understand the Minister making these points of order now, especially when he did not object to Deputy McMenamin and others.

Mr. Lemass

The Deputy will have plenty of opportunities to deal with this matter on another Stage. We have very little time at our disposal to-day.

Mr. Davin

The people who are raising these objections, which are really frivolous, have not, strange to say, taken exception to the attitude of the Great Southern, Great Northern and other Irish railway companies in electing as their principal officers Englishmen and Scotchmen.

Mr. McMenamin

We have no control over the management. The principle is the same in both cases.

Mr. Corish

But why confine your attack to one side?

Professor Thrift

I cannot help thinking that there exists in the Minister's mind in relation to this section some national hyper-sensitiveness. This is an alliance between two private companies, companies that are essential to the life of the State. It is for the good of the transport system that there should be that kind of working alliance between the transport system of this country and the transport system of another country. I feel a lot of this trouble is due to that definite feeling in the Minister's mind to which I have referred. The very least he ought to do—he has changed considerably on this point from the attitude he took up on the Second Stage and recognises now that the paper liability is a serious thing— in response to Deputy Dillon and Deputy Good, is to realise that if he is giving this very heavy blow to the company he ought to make the State liable for any financial liability that may accrue.

Amendment 57, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment 58 not moved.

Mr. Lemass

Probably the better procedure now would be to complete the Committee Stage, as we did with the Road Transport Bill, holding over amendments in the names of private Deputies until the Report Stage, and to put in official amendments. That would give an opportunity to table amendments for the Report Stage during the recess.

Professor O'Sullivan

There will be Committee procedure on the Report Stage?

Mr. Lemass

That will depend.

An Ceann Comhairle

There are only a few amendments left now.

Mr. Davin

I suggest that there should be Committee procedure on the amendments that have not been discussed.

Mr. Lemass

There are only three.

Professor Thrift

Could the Minister briefly indicate his general attitude with regard to transfer of powers to the Minister?

Mr. Lemass

I will be very strongly opposed to that. I think these are judicial functions.

Professor Thrift

I mean appeals to the Minister.

Mr. Lemass

I think they are judicial matters. Again, I think we might be up against the Constitution, as in the case of the arbitrator.

Professor Thrift

On the question of exceptional rates, I think that is a minor matter.

Mr. Lemass

I do not think so.

Amendment 59 not moved.

Mr. Good

I take it the proposal is that all the amendments will be withdrawn and will appear on the Report Stage.

Mr. Lemass

If the Deputy wishes.

Mr. Davin

The Government amendments are going in.

Mr. Lemass

Yes. I move amendment 65:—

In page 10 after the Schedule to add a second Schedule as follows:—

SECOND SCHEDULE

1. In this Schedule the word "service" means service with any railway company or railway companies having the whole or part of their line or lines in Saorstát Eireann.

2. The compensation payable to an employee who had at the date of his dismissal continuous service for a period of less than five years shall be a gratuity calculated on the basis of one-sixth of the amount of his annual remuneration and emoluments at the date of his dismissal for every completed year of his service.

3. The compensation payable to an employee who had at the date of his dismissal continuous service for a period of not less than five years shall be an annual sum to be paid to him during his life not exceeding in any case two-thirds of his annual remuneration and emoluments at the date of his dismissal, and, subject to that limitation to be calculated at the rate of one-sixtieth of such annual remuneration and emoluments for every completed year of his service with an addition thereto based on the number of completed years of his service and calculated according to the following scale:—If he has 20 or more completed years of service, an addition of ten-sixtieths of his said remuneration and emoluments; if he has 15 or more completed years of service and less than 20 such years, an addition of seven-sixtieths of his said remuneration and emoluments; if he has ten or more completed years of service and less than 15 such years, an addition of five-sixtieths of his said remuneration and emoluments; if he has five or more completed years of service and less than ten such years, an addition of three-sixtieths of his said remuneration and emoluments.

(4) In the case of a person who was taken into the employment of a railway company as a specially qualified person at an age exceeding that at which employment by a railway company usually began, his actual period of service may be increased by the addition of such number of years as may seem just, having regard to the particular circumstances of the case, and thereupon his compensation shall be calculated on such increased period of service.

5. (a) Where a person was temporarily absent from his employment and during the whole of such absence was engaged in service in any of the military forces serving under the authority of the First Dáil Eireann, the Second Dáil Eireann, or the Provisional Government of Ireland, or the British Army, Navy or Air Forces, or in either of the opposing forces during the civil strife in the years 1922, 1923, 1924, or was interned or imprisoned in consequence of such service, such temporary absence shall for the purposes of this Schedule be reckoned and included in the period of his service.

(b) Without prejudice to the provisions of the preceding paragraph, where any person was absent from his employment for a period of less than one year on account of the closing or partial closing of a railway or section of a railway in consequence of the civil strife in the years 1922 or 1923, such absence shall not be deemed to have caused an interruption of his employment if otherwise continuous, but shall not be reckoned or included in his period of service for the purpose of calculating compensation under this Act.

6. Where any person has served as a trade apprentice with any railway company the period of such apprenticeship shall not be reckoned or included in his period of service.

7. Whenever the compensation payable to an employee of a railway company is an annual allowance and such employee is entitled to benefits by way of superannuation payable out of any contributory superannuation or benefit fund to which a railway company by which he was employed contributed, such annual allowance shall notwithstanding anything contained in this Schedule be the difference between the amount of the annual allowance which would be payable if such employee was not entitled to any such benefits and the annual amount or annual value of such benefits and such employee shall in addition be paid by such railway company a lump sum equal to the total amount of the contributions paid at any time by such employee to the superannuation or benefit fund.

8. Any person who is in receipt of an annual sum by way of compensation may, within one year from the date on which the amount of such annual sum is fixed, apply to the railway company by which he was dismissed to commute not more than one-fourth of such annual sum by payment of a capital sum of money and no such application shall be unreasonably refused by such railway company.

Amendment agreed to.

Sections 13 and 14 agreed to.

Mr. Lemass

I think amendment 61 which was not moved is covered by a previous Government amendment, referring to aerial transport.

The Schedule and the Title agreed to.

Bill reported with amendments.

Report Stage ordered for April 26th.