Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 28 Jun 1933

Vol. 48 No. 11

Supplementary Estimate. - Cork Tramways (Employees' Compensation) Bill, 1933—Second Stage.

Acting Minister for Industry and Commerce (Mr. Derrig)

This Bill is the outcome of representations that have been made by the Cork Corporation and by a large number of Cork citizens generally that some steps should be taken to provide compensation for a number of tramway employees who were disemployed in the year 1931, indirectly as a result of the operations of the Electricity Supply Board. The House will remember that the provisions for the granting of compensation in respect of disemployment as a result of the operations of the Electricity Supply Board were very limited. They were limited to cases in which the employees who were disengaged as a result of the work of the Board were actually engaged in the generation of electricity in generating stations.

Notice taken that twenty Deputies were not present; House counted and twenty Deputies being present,

Mr. Derrig

The tramway system in Cork city was worked and operated as a part of the undertaking of the Cork Electric Supply Co., Ltd., which owned and operated both a tramway undertaking and the business of generating electricity for consumers in the City of Cork. While the company, as a whole, operated successfully up to the time of the acquisition of its electricity undertaking by the Electricity Supply Board, the tramway, which was not operated by the Electricity Supply Board, did not prove correspondingly successful from the financial point of view, and had, in fact, been carried on to some extent out of the resources provided by the lighting side of the business. Consequently, on the taking over of the lighting undertaking by the Electricity Supply Board the tramway undertaking would have been closed down had not the Irish Omnibus Co., Ltd., made arrangements to operate the tramway system for a period of six months to the 30th September, 1931. It was the intention of the Irish Omnibus Co., Ltd., to acquire in the meantime an adequate fleet of omnibuses to provide the necessary services on the withdrawal of the trams. The trams ceased to run on the 30th September, 1931, and since then omnibus services have been provided by the Irish Omnibus Co,. Ltd. At a meeting held on the 23rd August, 1932, the Cork Borough Council opposed a resolution which proposed, amongst other things, that the Council should be authorised, for the purpose of providing a moiety of the compensation, to levy a special rate to produce a sum not exceeding £1,500 per annum for 20 years. The Minister for Local Government and Public Health did not raise any objection, and the Minister for Industry and Commerce was satisfied that in the exceptional circumstances of the case special consideration should be given to the question of endeavouring to provide compensation for those men. It was accordingly decided that compensation should be granted, the amount necessary to provide compensation to be borrowed from the Central Fund and to be repaid in annual instalments over a period of 20 years, one half by the Cork City Council and the other half by the Electricity Supply Board. The arrangement that was come to was that those who were not less than 50 years of age or who had not less than 15 years continuous service on the 30th September, 1931, should be granted compensation. If any question should arise as to the allocation of the compensation within these terms it is provided that an advisory committee be set up by the Minister for Industry and Commerce consisting of three members to be nominated by the Minister, two members of the Cork Borough Council and two members of the Electricity Supply Board.

It is necessary, therefore, to provide for legislation to enable the funds to be advanced, to authorise the Cork Borough Council and the Electricity Supply Board respectively to provide for the repayment of any moneys so advanced, and for other objects of an incidental character. It is estimated the amount required to provide for compensation on the foregoing basis will be about £36,000. A contribution of, roughly, £1,500 per year from the Cork Corporation and the same sum from the Electricity Supply Board will cover the required amount. I should explain that originally the intention of the Minister was that this compensation should be given only to employees who had over 15 years completed service, but subsequently, owing to further representations being made, the number of years was reduced to 12. I think that is the limit to which we ought to be asked to go in this matter, because the case is quite exceptional. No other class of persons who were disemployed indirectly as a result of the operations of the Electricity Supply Board have been given compensation.

Compensation has been restricted under statutory conditions to persons who were employed directly in the generation of electricity and whose undertakings were taken over by the Electricity Supply Board. Although the Cork tramways services were run under a local electricity company, to a certain extent the business was separate and there is the point which I have indicated that in any event the service would probably have closed down. The point which appealed to the Minister and the Executive Council in providing compensation in these special cases was that these tramway employees, after a long period of service, often find themselves in a position that they cannot obtain other employment. What is more serious, they are not, if they have spent a long period of service on the trams, able to undertake the ordinary work which they would get. The Cork Corporation and Cork citizens generally, having asked that we should get the Electricity Supply Board to make this contribution, it was that consideration that prompted us to make this arrangement. The total number of employees of the Cork tram service was 184. The number over 50, or with 12 years' service and upwards, is 109. There is still a small number outside.

Mr. Norton

Nearly half.

Mr. Derrig

The question is, are we justified in assuming that a man of 40 years of age and with a service of, say four or five years, would be entitled to compensation? In the first place, if he were employed in any other undertaking where he lost his employment under similar conditions, as individuals have lost employment through the operations of the E.S. Board, he would not have got any compensation. In the second place, the question arises whether that man, as a result of his length of service, is in any way incapacitated, whether he is too old or is at that stage that he is not adaptable for other employment. The Minister went into the question very fully with the representatives of the tramway men and with the representatives of the Cork Corporation and, having first agreed to make these provisions for people who had 15 years' service, he ultimately reduced it to 12 years' service. I do not think the Government would be justified in going to the E.S. Board, which is an independent statutory body and which has its own obligations, and requesting it to go further than it has already consented to go in this particular case.

This is a special case and I think that, taking all the circumstances into consideration, the Government have prepared a fairly satisfactory scheme. It may not be perfect, but on the other hand when one considers the scale of compensation that has been given generally by the E.S. Board and the fact that a large number of these ex-employees of the Cork Tramways Company must be in a position to find employment—they are not too old and their length of service has not precluded them from taking up other work—I think the scheme is fairly satisfactory and I will ask the House to accept the principle of the Bill.

Mr. Cosgrave

I have had some representations from the secretary of the tramwaymen in Cork about this matter. I asked for particulars regarding the length of service and the ages of the various men, but I have not got them yet. The Minister has given us a fair outline of the situation so far as 109 men are concerned. I would like to know whether he has made any estimate of what the cost would be of making provision for the other 75 men. I was informed quite recently that one man had over 11 years' service. You always got that sort of case where a line is drawn. It does appear, on the face of it, to be a peculiar sort of situation in which the Government has acted very generously, not providing any of the money nor acting in any capacity except as intermediary. If I have interpreted the Minister's statement correctly, the costs of this compensation are to be paid by the Corporation of Cork and by the E.S. Board. I would like to know if that is correct.

Mr. Derrig

Yes.

Mr. Cosgrave

It has been reported to me that it would cost about £6,000 or £7,000 to finish up the whole lot. That is a very small sum. It is one-sixth of the whole sum involved and interest and sinking fund on £36,000 will not be very enormous, I presume the Minister is not charging them five per cent. on the money.

Mr. Derrig

The rate is five and one half per cent.

Mr. Cosgrave

On £36,000? That is a very big price to ask.

Mr. Norton

This is another sort of Moneylenders Bill.

Mr. Cosgrave

Some time ago in a moment of spiritual exaltation, and financial megalomania, the Minister for Finance said that he could borrow at a price we could not borrow at when in office. The statement is quite correct, but the Minister did not give all the facts. When he was speaking the interest in the British money market was one-half per cent. When we were in office it was five or six per cent. First-class paper could be had in London for a half per cent. this year and sometimes for a quarter per cent. The man who gets up and says, under these circumstances, that he can borrow cheaper than his predecessors must think he is dealing with children, or else he is a child himself. What does the Government want to make out of this transaction? They are asking five and one-half per cent. for their money at the present moment. The banks would not charge such a figure. I presume some Ministers have overdrafts. I suggest that they should have an interview with their bank manager as many people have to have, and then they could find out if they were being charged five and one-half per cent. on their overdrafts. Yet we have the Minister for Finance telling us that he can borrow money cheaper than we could when we were in office, when the interest is a half per cent. to-day as compared with five and one-half per cent. when we were in office. And that is what he now proposes to charge the unfortunate tram men. The Minister has given no information how he proposes to amortise this sum.

Mr. Derrig

By annuity for 20 years.

Mr. Cosgrave

That is a very different transaction. Five and a half per cent. on an annuity of £36,000 is approximately £1,980 per annum, or less than £2,000. Does anyone correct me on that figure?

Mr. MacEntee

I think the Deputy is correct.

Mr. Cosgrave

The Electricity Supply Board are paying £1,500, the Cork Corporation £1,500, that is £3,000 to discharge this £1,980. Apparently the Cork Corporation took the big view and wanted to settle. Let us put the full sum at £6,000. We would, then, have £42,000 and that at five and one-half per cent. is £2,310 per annum. Is there any objection to that figure of £2,310 to do the whole lot? I suggest that in all decency the Ministry ought to act in this matter in a manner fair to all persons concerned.

There is no necessity to go into the history of the legislation of the last few years in connection with the acquisition of the trams under the Electricity Supply Act of 1927. At that time it would be possible if the acquisition of the Cork undertaking had been then undertaken to have got it at a very much cheaper price. It had not been envisaged that the tramway company concerned would be taken over. The shares then on the market were at a discount. If it had been envisaged that such a situation would arise, then provision would have been made, and ought to have been made, for those men. It is not open to any member of the House to increase expenditure, but if this sum of £1,980 is not sufficient to relieve 75 persons and their families of their grievance, then, in all the circumstances, as there is sufficient money to provide for it, allow that to be done.

Mr. Anthony

I would like some information from the Minister. Is the Minister's final view expressed in what is contained in section Part III of the Bill? that the employee must be not less than 50 years of age, at the critical date or must have been employed in the tramway for a continuous period of not less than 12 years. I want to know from the Minister has any representation been made to him, in the last week or two, or if any conversation took place between him and representatives of the 75 persons not provided for under this Bill? I have been led to believe that if, and when, the Cork Corporation increased their grant the Department of Industry and Commerce were prepared, also, to suggest to the Electricity Supply Board, or other contributory body, to increase their grant in order to compensate the 75 persons not provided for under the Bill. If that is so, I think there would be little difficulty and the Minister would be able to get his Bill as an agreed measure through the House. I quite appreciate the Minister's point that there must be some finality, whether it be ten, 11, 12 or five or six years of service, because if it were six years you would always find some person who had five years, 11 months service that would be cut out of the provisions of the Act. Still there must be finality. I pressed the Minister on this because in a letter in the Cork Press it was stated that the Cork Corporation were agreeable to increase their contribution, that is to increase it to £1,500 per annum for 20 years. But in doing so, they insisted that the Government should use their good offices in the direction of finding the money to compensate all persons who would be displaced. The understanding, as far as I can gather was, that those men should be compensated at so much per head per year according to the services of the men. A man of one year's service would, of course, not get as much as a man with two years and a man of two years' service would not get as much as a man of three years and so on. I would like some information from the Minister on that point. If that is not made clear I would have to put some amendments down for the Committee Stage. There would be no necessity for that, and there could be no objection raised, if the other course was adopted and the whole 184 persons benefited under the Bill. They are all members of a union which proclaims to the four winds of Eireann: "All for each and each for all." It is the principle of those persons who will benefit under the Act that they should help their weaker brethren not provided for under the Bill. So I ask the Minister, before offering any further criticism, will he state if any conversation took place within the last week or two with him, or officers of his Department, and if any understanding was arrived at with the Cork Corporation, to the effect that if and when the Cork Corporation would place further money at his disposal, he would be prepared to secure compensation for the 75 persons who are not provided for under the Bill. I should like the Minister to answer because I have some other criticisms to offer.

Mr. Derrig

I gave no undertaking. I made it quite clear to the men that I could not undertake any further responsibility in the matter.

Mr. Anthony

Is the Minister prepared now, in view of the action of the Cork Corporation last evening, to do this? I think the Minister must agree that the citizens of Cork have been very generous indeed because when everything is said and done, there was no onus on the Cork ratepayers to pay anything. There was certainly an onus on the Government and certainly some onus on the Electricity Supply Board and, to an extent, a good deal of onus on the old Cork Company. It was through Governmental action that these men lost their employment. It was because the Cork Electric Lighting and Tramways Company's system was taken over by the Electricity Supply Board that these men were discharged. The Minister must know the whole history of the matter. I think he will agree, and that the House will agree, that that was very generous on the part of the Cork citizens, who have no responsibility whatever but who felt that these men had been unjustly treated. They have decided to levy themselves for the next 20 years to compensate these men. I think there should be some gesture on the part of the Government, in view of the attitude taken up by the Cork ratepayers to go a little further. Deputy Cosgrave has already pointed out that the sum necessary is a mere bagatelle compared with what the ratepayers and others are prepared to do. I would urge the Minister, as the sum is a relatively small one, to go the whole hog and compensate these men.

Mr. Norton

I think the Executive Council, while they have found a Minister for Education, have really lost a Minister for publicity and propaganda, because the acting Minister for Industry and Commerce, in the course of his speech, said that the Government have dealt very generously with this matter.

Mr. Derrig

I have not said that. I did not make use of the statement that the Government had dealt very generously. I said the scheme put forward was very satisfactory, if you like. I did not mention the word "generously" at all.

Mr. Norton

That hypothesis is just as good as the other. The scheme put forward is very satisfactory, the Minister says. When you come to find out who are the architects of the satisfaction, you find the Minister and the Government delightfully conspicuous by their absence. The Cork Corporation is asked to put up £1,500 per annum; the Electricity Supply Board is to be asked to put up an equal sum. The Government's contribution to this financial marriage between the Cork Corporation and the Electricity Supply Board is to the extent of the Minister's speech delivered on the Second Reading of the Bill. That is the amount of the Minister's presentation to this financial marriage between the Electricity Supply Board and the Cork Corporation in order to provide some compensation for the ex-employees of the Cork Tramways Company who have lost their employment directly——

Mr. Derrig

No, indirectly.

Mr. Norton

The Minister tries to argue that it is indirectly. They have lost their employment directly as a result of State action in taking over the Cork Electric Lighting and Tramways undertaking. Recently there was a Bill going through the House known as the Railways Bill, and the Minister for Industry and Commerce told me, in reply to a speech which I made on the Second Reading, that the Government were giving, or rather forgiving, the railways company a sum of £280,000, or over a quarter of a million, legally and morally due by the railways company; that they were permitting that sum to remain with the railways company as the Government's presentation to the railways company on entering what the Minister described as a new era. The Government were prepared to give £280,000 to the railways company as a good start for the Railways Bill, but the Government are not prepared to give what I am assured amounts only to £6,500, in order to provide compensation for the 75 ex-employees of the Cork Tramways Company, who will not get compensation under the Bill.

The basis of compensation, as set out in Section 9 seems to me to be the product of a very curious mind. It is proposed that a person of 50 years of age with one year's service will get compensation, while compensation is to be denied to a man of 49 years of age who has 11 years and ten months' service. That is not taking an extreme case, because in fact there is a man who was in the employment of the Cork Tramways Company and who had 11 years and ten months' service. That man is going to get no compensation, but an employee of over 50 years of age with one-tenth of his service is going to get compensation. I put it to the Minister that it is quite impossible, if any kind of reason or logic is going to be depended upon for a defence, to justify a scheme of compensation which denies a man of over 40 years of age compensation, although he has 11 years and ten months' service, while giving compensation to a man a few years older who had only a fraction of his service. I should like to hear the Minister upon that particular conception of justice in relation to the actual facts of these cases, as I am sure they are known to the Minister. As Deputy Cosgrave stated, there is sufficient money provided by the E.S.B. and the Cork Corporation to pay compensation to all the persons who lost their employment as the result of the closing down of the Cork Tramways. But the Minister gives no contribution whatever and, apparently, his only purpose in connection with this Bill is to introduce it in this House, defend it in the Seanad, secure its signature by the Governor-General and charge five and a half per cent. on the money advanced to pay this compensation. I say with Deputy Cosgrave that five and a half per cent. on the money advanced to these two bodies is an outrageous rate of interest to charge. Last year the publicity managers of the Department of Finance and the "Irish Press," the Party newspaper, came out with streamer headings and leaded type to show what the credit of the State was. They told us that the Minister for Finance had been able to float bills to the extent of £2,000,000 and that they were subscribed at a rate of interest of approximately two per cent. Of course, they were subscribed at a rate of interest of two per cent. as the banks were only giving one-half per cent. to their depositors.

Mr. Derrig

This is for 20 years.

Mr. Norton

At all events, the acting Minister does not deny that the Minister for Finance, and he is the financial wizard in all these things, can get money at two per cent. He says it himself, and his newspaper says it for him in language that seems to me very like the flowery silver-tongued language used by the Minister himself. There is a definite admission on the part of the Government that they can get money at two per cent. Everybody knows that it can be got even cheaper than two per cent.

Mr. Derrig

Where?

Mr. Norton

Will the Minister consult the Minister for Finance before he asks that question?

Mr. Derrig

I am asking you now; you know these things.

Mr. Norton

If the Minister would consult the Minister for Finance on that question, and if he does something more and reads the speeches of the Minister for Finance——

Mr. MacEntee

That certainly would be something to attempt.

Mr. Norton

——which are very interesting documents, I think he will find that so far as the Minister for Finance is concerned he is a sort of financial magnet. He can attract money at almost any rate of interest but he proposes to charge 5½ per cent. on the money advanced to pay compensation in these cases. That is an outrageous proceeding. That rate of interest is going to be paid by the Cork Corporation or by the Electricity Supply Board. The 75 men could get compensation under this Bill if anything like a reasonable rate of interest were charged by the Minister for Finance to the Cork Corporation and the Electricity Supply Board. If the Government were open to be satisfied with a reasonable rate of interest instead of the usury which is manifest in this 5½ per cent. interest then the people who have lost their employment could get compensation. As the Minister admitted, he was putting up this money at 5½ per cent. He said so quite proudly. If the Minister is entitled to feel a public benefactor in extracting 5½ per cent. for the money advanced under this Bill, then every rapacious moneylender in town is entitled to have a monument erected to him on the same principle, namely, that he can squeeze interest out of people who are unfortunate enough to borrow from him.

I put it to the Minister that the Cork Corporation have been generous in this matter. The Electricity Supply Board have come into the matter and have acted in an exceptionally generous way when you consider the niggardly way in which the Government are looking at the problem. Each of these bodies has put up £1,500 for 15 years but the Government have done nothing as a contribution to it One thing they might do is to put up a sufficient sum estimated at £6,500, which would provide compensation for the 75 people who will not get compensation under this Bill. If the Minister is not prepared to advance this £6,500 for the purpose of securing a satisfactory settlement for these people, then I suggest that he should drop this tax-gatherer role, charge a reasonable rate of interest and not the 5½ per cent. which he announced his intention of charging these people in order to provide compensation for the persons affected by this Bill. That is not an unreasonable request to the Minister. I am sure that request will be supported by all Parties in this House and by the Deputies in his own Party.

I put it to the Minister that he should look into it, reduce the rate of interest and make it possible to compensate these 75 people. The Minister says this will last 20 years. He could not hope to borrow at two per cent. during the whole of the 20 years. But if the speeches of the Minister himself mean anything, the period that we are passing through just now is one of the most trying periods in the next 20 years. Judging from the Minister's speeches, the problem in the future years will be to keep one's self from being drowned by the milk and honey that will be plentiful everywhere. The problem in the future will be a problem of plenty. One thing that is to happen to this country in the future, again interpreting the speech of the Minister for Finance, is the terrible prospect of a deluge of milk and honey drowning everybody and wiping out the historic Irish nation.

Mr. T.J. Murphy

May I add my plea to what has been said by Deputies Cosgrave and Norton in this matter? I had the pleasure of accompanying the deputation to the Minister and I want to say that what he said here this evening is quite correct. The Minister gave us no undertaking. He said that if the Cork Corporation would look into the matter again, and if they were prepared to show their faith in the case of the men by putting up an additional sum of money, then the Government would be prepared to look into the matter again. That is what the Minister said while definitely stating that no undertaking would be given. The Cork Corporation has taken the course suggested. In view of that new situation I suggest that the Minister ought to be in a position between now and the Report Stage to consider the matter sympathetically. A great deal of the case that could be made for the inclusion of 70 odd men who are out was made by the Minister himself in his statement when he pointed out that a very large number of the men concerned would not, in any event, be suitable for ordinary work. I think that was fairly clearly demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Minister. Certainly, more than one or two of them are men who are not fitted for heavy work They are not in good healthy condition.

While I realise that it is very difficult to adjust a matter of this kind and know that when a rule is made and line drawn there are bound to be hard cases, still I think that the case of a man who has given 12 years' service, with the exception of one or two weeks, is really a hard case. The Cork Corporation has agreed to provide this money for a period of 20 years. In times like the present when rates and taxes press rather heavily on every section of the people I think that it is a fairly clear indication of what the people of Cork desire should be done in this matter. Deputy Norton has suggested that the Minister might put up the £6,500 necessary to complete the compensation. That would be a solution of the matter. As an alternative he might, by a rearrangement of the terms under which the advance has been made, enable compensation to be paid to the men. If he finds that impossible, perhaps he might consider doing this in the event of there being any difficulty on the part of the E.S.B. in providing the money. I think it would not be too much to ask the Minister to prevail on his colleagues to accept responsibility for the sum that would be necessary to provide compensation to the men. I put that point to the Minister. In the Cork Corporation there are very many interests and yet this proposal was passed unanimously last night. The Corporation have put on the backs of the people a heavy burden. They have accepted that burden, willingly, in order to make it clear that the people there are prepared to end this matter satisfactorily by providing the necessary sum to clear up the whole matter.

Mr. Derrig

As Deputy Murphy has stated, I met the tramwaymen. I did not give them any undertaking that I would do anything in this matter. I found out subsequently that when Deputy Lemass was dealing with the Corporation he got a definite undertaking that when this bargain was made it was to finish the matter and that there was to be nothing more about it. The original proposal was to give compensation to those who had 15 years' service. Then it was reduced to 12 years' service. There was a definite understanding between the Minister and the Corporation that that was a bargain and that it was to be implemented here. One would imagine, from the tone of some of the speeches, that the Government were inflicting some hardship on these men and giving them particularly bad terms. It must be remembered that no other individual or body of individuals who lost their employment indirectly and who are employed otherwise than in a generating station have got compensation. The former Minister for Industry and Commerce stated quite definitely from these benches that the Electricity Supply Board could not possibly carry on its operations and pay compensation to all the interests which were involved in one or other of its operations. That was admitted in the House and on two separate occasions Bills were passed to regulate the position regarding compensation. In none of these two Bills was there any advertence whatever to the position of persons in the same position as the Cork tramway employees.

Mr. Anthony

The Minister should know that the Cork case was a very unique case. There was no other case handled by the Electricity Supply Board with the same features as the Cork case. It was the only case in which they were catering for both lighting and traction and it was demonstrated that, whilst the traction side was run at a small loss, the lighting undertaking made up for that loss, and the two combined were a success.

Mr. Derrig

Deputy Anthony and his colleagues had every opportunity of getting that stated in the Bill or Bills at the time they were passing through the House. He speaks of a special case. There are hundreds of special cases all through the country. The position taken up by the former Minister for Industry and Commerce was agreed upon, that the undertaking could not possibly afford to pay compensation in all cases and, even in the cases where the House considered that compensation should be paid, we know that it was very meagre indeed. In many very deserving cases it was very meagre indeed. Therefore, Deputies should remember that, were it not for the sympathy of the Minister for Industry and Commerce, these proposals would never have come before the Dáil.

It has also been suggested that the Cork Corporation had no responsibility at all in this matter. These people were employees of a certain company and if there were any obligation to the employees it should be on their normal employers, I suggest, and not on the Electricity Supply Board, who were able to show quite clearly that these employees had no legal rights whatever and no statutory claim whatever to compensation or pension. We recognise that the case was exceptional, but I doubt whether it is a good principle. This debate shows clearly that it is extremely foolish for a Minister to take up a special case and bring it before the Dáil, because, when he has achieved a certain amount of agreement outside, and secured agreement between the two parties that a certain proposal will come before the House and that that will complete the matter, every Party in the House thinks it fitting and well to get up and say that more should have been done. The Electricity Supply Board would never have done this had not the Government intervened. The Cork Corporation, as I say, through the Lord Mayor, seemed to have given a definite undertaking that nothing further would be asked. That is the present position.

I cannot hold out any hope at this stage that the Government can go back a second time and give further concessions. Deputy Norton has wasted a lot of time, a Chinn Comhairle, and I do not propose to follow him into his discursions about the Minister for Finance, who seems to be the Deputy's particular bête noir. I only wish to say that the position is somewhat different in the case of an annuity repayable at five and one-half per cent. over a period of 20 years from the financial transactions over a few months, to which the Deputy has referred. I have no doubt whatever but that the annuity over 20 years at five and one-half per cent. is reasonable in all the circumstances.

Mr. Norton

What about the Cork Corporation Loan, which was floated recently? Was that at five and one-half per cent?

Mr. Derrig

I do not know. The Deputy also dragged in, quite irrelevantly, the question of the railway company. The railway companies are in the position that they are a very substantial undertaking on which, apart altogether from the capital invested in them, as the manager recently pointed out, 12,000 men are depending for their existence. If the railway companies go out of business it means that 12,000 men lose their employment. It is of some consequence to the State that these men should continue to be employed. In the case of the Cork tramways, they were closing down. They had closed down, in any event, and were not going to carry on. The tramway company themselves had no obligations to the men and did nothing about it. If there were obligations, ethical or otherwise, it is the proprietors of the tramway company, I think, who had these obligations in the first instance.

I do not think I need delay the House further. I cannot hold out any hope of a reconsideration of these terms. I have not described them as generous but as a settlement into which the Government, somewhat reluctantly, entered in view of the very strong representations made to them from Cork City and of a definite proposal from the Cork Corporation. When it is assumed in this House that the Government has some further responsibility in the matter, I should like to point out that we had no responsibility at all. It was simply through the sympathy of the Minister for Industry and Commerce that this Bill has ever reached the light of day. Were it not for his intervention in the matter, and the approaches of the Cork Corporation to him, the Bill would never have come to pass. In the circumstances, I think we should be grateful for what has been done and that we should remember that other people have been definitely disemployed as a result of the operations of the Electricity Supply Board and that the House on two occasions definitely decided that it could not allow these people to get compensation. When, therefore, we make a definite agreement, I think the House might be expected to accept it in that spirit.

Mr. Norton

I should like to know from the Minister were the Cork Corporation employees, acting as a body, a party to the agreement to which the Minister referred? The Minister also said that the Cork Corporation had agreed to £1,500 as their final scheme of contribution. Is he aware that the Cork Corporation has now unanimously decided to put up an extra £250 per annum, and, in view of that decision, will he not now be prepared to reconsider the whole position?

Question—"That the Bill be now read a Second Time"—put and agreed to.

Committee Stage ordered for Tuesday, 4th July, 1933.