Dáil Éireann debate -
Friday, 14 Jul 1933

Vol. 48 No. 19

In Committee on Finance. - Vote 57—Railways.

Mr. Derrig

I move:—

Go ndeontar suim ná raighaidh thar £10,494 chun slánuithe na suime is gá chun íoctha an Mhuirir a thiocfaidh chun bheith iníoctha i rith na bliana dar críoch an 31adh lá de Mhárta, 1934, chun íocaíochtanna fé Acht na mBóthar Iarainn, 1924, fén Tramways and Public Companies (Ireland) Act, 1883, etc.; agus chun crícheanna eile a bhaineann le hIompar in Eirinn.

That a sum not exceeding £10,494 be granted to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1934, for payment under the Railways Act, 1924, the Tramways and Public Companies (Ireland) Act, 1883, etc.; and for other purposes connected with Irish Transport.

Sub-head A is a statutory payment under the Railways Act of 1924 amounting to £47,288. Sub-head B is a token vote of £10 in respect of the acquisition of land for colliery railways. No expenditure is likely to arise, but it has been the custom to have this token vote. Sub-head C is a payment in respect of steamer services, and shows a decrease of £1,160. This decrease is accounted for in connection with the service of the Galway Steamboat Company from Galway to the Aran Islands. A certain reduction in costs has been effected, and it is expected that in the future it will be possible to run the service on a Government grant of £300. £300 is the amount, accordingly, allowed this year. Of course in certain years, such as last year, for example, certain sums have been spent on repairs and so on, but it is anticipated that in the future the service will be covered by the Government grant of £300. Sub-head D deals with the payments to railway companies in respect of wages, and the amount here is £15,000. The House will remember that in December last, when there was a threat of a strike on the railways, the Minister for Industry and Commerce introduced a Supplementary Estimate to provide for a sum of, I think, £40,000, of which the £15,000 under this sub-head is in respect of the present financial year. The position was that a strike was threatened, and in order to avoid any strike until such time as those concerned had an opportunity of considering the new position created by the passage of railway legislation, legislation which has since gone through both Houses of the Oireachtas, the Minister gave this subsidy. The £15,000 fell due during the present financial year. The portion of the amount payable to the railway companies whose lines cross the Border was not payable after the 30th January in their case, because a strike occurred. The subsidy was accordingly withdrawn in respect of those lines across the Border as from that date.

Mr. McGilligan

May I ask what the token vote of £10 is for?

Mr. Derrig

It is in respect of law costs in connection with possible claims arising out of the acquisition of lands for the purposes of the Wolfhill colliery railway.

Mr. McGilligan

If the Minister will let me know when speaking later how these law charges are likely to arise I will be grateful to him.

Mr. Derrig

The Deputy should be familiar with this as it has been in the Estimates for years past.

Mr. McGilligan

And an explanation was always given of it. The explanation varied, according to the changed circumstances of the Vote, and according to the expectations. I want to know now what is the expectation this year in regard to it.

Mr. Derrig

The only information I have——

Mr. McGilligan

I do not want to be interrupted. I want to have some information also in relation to sub-head C—payments in respect of steamer service. The Minister says it is expected that £300 will serve the subsidy of the Galway-Aran service. £500 was required before. Does the Minister mean that any expenditure previously met out of the State subsidy has been put over as a charge upon the people who are, in fact, owning and working the service, or does he mean that the expenses have been reduced to such a point that the expectation is that £300 will only be required where £500 was required before? Am I to understand from him that the £300 is to be substituted not merely for the £500, but for the £960 in respect of the working deficit on the Sligo-Killybegs-Belmullet steamer services, or is it that that service is being discontinued? The last time the Minister for Industry and Commerce spoke to any extent on this Vote he said that certain investigations had been made which were leading him to the belief that the service was not of very much value and should be discontinued. He also referred to certain guarantees that were given by certain people in the neighbourhood of Sligo and Killybegs that if they would load so much of their produce on this boat it was bound to pay its way. What has happened? Is it merely that the steamer has been taken off the service or that the guarantees have been made good and that trade has improved to such an extent that the money will not be required, or else that the £300 is the substitute for all the payments both in regard to the Galway-Aran service and the service to Killybegs and Donegal? I should like the Minister to tell us which of these is the actual situation.

There is an item of £15,000 here for payments to railway companies in respect of wages. According to the footnote it is the estimated amount required to provide the difference between the higher rate of wages paid to railway employees and the reduced rate which would have been payable had the award made by the Irish Railway Wages Board on 25th November, 1932, been brought into operation from the 26th December, 1932. Can the Minister tell us if the reduced rate has since come into operation in full accordance with the Irish Railway Wages Board award of the date of the 25th November, 1932? If so, has the Minister anything to say to the House on the situation which has developed from that? If it simply is that the railway employees had accepted that cut, will the Minister make some attempt to justify the payment of this sum to prevent an award coming into operation on the date from which the award was to operate, seeing that in these circumstances the award has come into operation since without any trouble? The Minister for Industry and Commerce, speaking on the Supplementary Estimate brought in on an earlier stage to make this payment in respect of the last financial year, said that, as far as he was concerned, he wanted to have it known that as a matter of policy he would never again interfere in relation to the Wages Board; that if controversy was taken before them in the ordinary and proper way, and if they made an award, the employees got a warning from him that they could not expect any subvention from State funds to bridge whatever the difference might be between the award and the old wage. I should like to know is that still the policy of the Department, and is it going to be persisted in?

Certain Appropriations-in-Aid are also mentioned. Paragraphs (a) and (b) of sub-head E are tied up with Section 63 of the Railways Act, 1924; and, similarly, on the other side of the account, the payment under sub-head A is also associated with the same section: but there is a divergence between the figures. Even the multiplication of the Appropriation-in-Aid by two and the addition of the county council payments is not the full equivalent of the outpayment of £47,000. Where does the discrepancy come from?

Mr. Derrig

I think the discrepancy arises, possibly, from the fact that there will be a change in the amount of the Treasury subvention. The amount paid to the company is composed at present of a Treasury subvention of £20,586, the contribution of £6,804, and payments from the county councils totalling £21,208 up to the end of 1929, and £19,898 to the end of 1934.

Mr. McGilligan

I submit, sir, that that is hardly an answer.

Mr. Derrig

The position regarding the steamer service is that no provision is made in this Estimate for any other steamer service but the Galway Bay steamboat service from Galway to Aran Islands. I take it that the other services to which the Deputy referred have been discontinued. I have no information as to the circumstances under which they were discontinued, but no provision has been made in the Estimates this year and, accordingly, I take it that the policy which, I understand, the Minister to some extent outlined last year with regard to the Belmullet service at any rate—I do not know anything about Killybegs—will be definitely discontinued so far as the Government grant is concerned. That has been carried into effect.

With regard to the subsidies to the railway company and reimbursement of wages, the position is that the award, so far as I know, has been carried into effect. The Minister declared, at the time and since, that it was not the Government's policy to grant subventions or subsidies in this case where strike disputes occurred. I think the Deputy can take it that the Government's will not, under any circumstances, make allowances by way of subsidies or otherwise to enable the railway companies or other bodies involved in such disputes to carry on while these strikes or other disputes are in operation.

Mr. Seán Brodrick

I should like to have some information from the Minister, for instance, on the question of railway bridge approaches. What is the liability of the railway company to the local authority? Apparently, a case has cropped up. Formerly, when the roads were not being steam-rolled, I believe the railway company had an agreement with the local authorities to keep their bridge approaches in order. For a number of years now these roads and bridges have been steam-rolled by the local authorities, and the railway companies have given very little attention to the approaches. In any case, they are not kept in the same state of repair as the local authority would keep them.

Mr. Derrig

I do not think that is a matter which properly arises on this Vote. It seems to me that that is a matter between the local authority and the railway company.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Minister has no responsibility in this matter.

Mr. Derrig

This Vote confines itself to certain statutory payments.

Mr. Brodrick

Are payments made to the railway companies out of the Estimate?

Mr. McGilligan

Sub-head A makes payment to the railway company and there are certain obligations arising from that.

Mr. Derrig

There is a general payment to the railway company but I cannot say what the basis was at the time it was fixed under the 1924 Act.

Mr. McGilligan

Then the Minister cannot say that it does not arise, if he does not know what the basis was.

Mr. Brodrick

Certain bodies are anxious to find out their position; for instance, the Galway County Council want to find out their position. The approaches to those bridges are kept in a very bad state at the present time, and if this matter is allowed to go on, it is possible that these approaches will become dangerous to the public. Certainly, payments are being made to the railway companies and I think that something should be done. The railway companies certainly should compensate the local authorities in some way for the work they are doing. In the case of several of those bridge approaches the local authorities have taken on the work themselves. I do not think it is fair that local authorities should be asked to pay the full amount for this work as the railway company, by agreement, were originally liable to keep the roads in an ordinary state of repair.

Mr. Coburn

With regard to the item of £15,000 for payments to railway companies in respect of wages, a note in the Estimates states:—

"Estimated amount required to provide the difference between the higher rate of wages paid to railway employees in An Saorstát and the reduced rate which would have been payable had the award made by the Irish Railway Wages Board on 25th November, 1932, been brought into operation from the 26th December, 1932. Provision is here made for the difference in respect of the months of March and April, 1933."

On a previous Vote I referred to the tendency of the Department of Industry and Commerce to enter into industrial disputes. On this occasion, while it might have been thought good business on the part of the Minister to provide a sum of money from State funds equal to the difference between the award and the demands of the men in order to keep the railways going in the Free State, on the other hand, it had a very detrimental effect on the Great Northern Railway, which is in a peculiar situation, half of the line being in Northern Ireland and the other half in the Free State. The action of the Minister on that occasion produced a rather peculiar position, in that the employees on the Free State portion of the railway received higher wages than were paid to the employees in the Northern Ireland portion and that, I think, more or less hastened the strike action by the Northern Ireland section of the employees. Seeing that their comrades in the Free State were being subsidised by the Free State Government, they thought it only required a little pressure on their part to have a similar subsidy given by the Northern Government, but that Government refused to enter into the dispute. I need not go into the whole history of the matter. It is sufficient for me, as a trade unionist, to say that once the men agreed to submit their claim to the Wages Board they should have abided by the result. However, the wiser counsels did not prevail on that occasion and the fact remains that a strike did take place on the Great Northern Railway which lasted nine or ten weeks and ended rather disastrously for all concerned, as, although the men had to submit, yet the railway company lost a considerable volume of trade and, incidentally, there was a big loss, not alone to the North of Ireland but to the Free State. In Dundalk, which is one of the chief centres as far as railway works are concerned, and where much employment was given, after the strike had ended there were many dismissals and reductions in staff. That applies also to other places in Northern Ireland and the Free State. While I do not want to criticise the action of the Minister on that occasion unduly, still I think it was a dangerous precedent to set up by interfering in a dispute of that kind. As a trade unionist, I always take the line that employers and employees could settle their own disputes better between themselves than by appealing to outsiders. If it is necessary to appeal to outsiders, once both sides have agreed to that, they should abide by the result. In this case there was an appeal to the Railway Wages Board, which came to a certain definite decision. In my opinion, it would have been much better for all concerned had that decision been accepted. Unfortunately, it was not and then we had the Minister's intervention. From the experience gained on that occasion I think that the Minister, or any future Minister, will hasten slowly in interfering in disputes between employers and employees. As far as Dundalk is concerned, which might be termed a railway town, it has suffered very considerably in the last three or four months as a result of that unfortunate strike. I do not want to see a repetition of that and, in my opinion, the Minister should steer clear of these disputes.

Mr. Cleary

Repeat it twice over again.

Mr. Coburn

Deputy Cleary does not know anything about the matter of which I am speaking. He would rather be making speeches at the cross-roads in Mayo, trying to convince some of the poor people there, who do not understand things, that he is a very clever sort of fellow, and telling the people that he was the official interrupter of the Fianna Fáil Party. It requires a certain amount of moral courage to deal with the matter to which I have referred. Deputy Cleary does not understand the words "moral courage." It is not to be found in many members of the Fianna Fáil Party. It is rather an unpopular thing to speak about strikes at all and the grievances of workingmen. It is much better to say the popular thing on all ocasions. Men who know nothing about work cannot be expected to engage in matters of this kind. There is one other matter I should like to refer to, and that is the very injurious effect that the duty of 5/- per ton on coal has on the working of the railways. I do not know whether I am in order in referring to it now.

Mr. McGilligan

It would put up the expenditure of the Galway-Aran service certainly.

Mr. Coburn

Considering the present position of the railways the Government should be very slow to place any undue burden by way of extra cost on the running of the railways. Certainly this 5/- per ton has added very considerably to the cost of running the railways in the Saorstát. It may be argued that it is possible to obtain supplies from Germany, but there is the drawback that you can only procure German coal at an economic price by taking it in large quantities, and if you purchase a large quantity of coal a large boat has to be employed to convey it here. There are only one or two ports in the Free State capable of accommodating boats with a deep draught, and if the coal has to be brought to these ports injury will be done to the small ports like Dundalk, Drogheda and others to which cargoes of coal for the railways came in the past. In the interest of those engaged in the running of the railways, and of the many thousands at present finding employment on the railways, the Government should make some arrangement by which coal for the railways would be imported free of duty.

As regards the point raised by Deputy Brodrick in connection with repairs to railway bridges and roads in the immediate vicinity of these railways, it is a well-known fact that many public bodies have constructed very good roads leading up to those bridges. It is also well known that the bridges and the approaches to them are kept in very bad repair by the railways. They are, of course, bound by statute to keep these bridges in repair. I think that owing to the bad times through which the railways are passing they are not so quick in repairing these bridges as they have been in the past. It is a matter, of course, between the public bodies and the railways, but I think if some arrangement could be come to whereby the railway authorities would be relieved of the responsibility of repairing these bridges, and the local authorities would take it over in consideration of getting some little remuneration in respect of it from the Government, it might meet the situation. There is a great deal of dis satisfaction amongst public bodies in regard to the way in which these bridges are being repaired, and if it were possible for the Minister to make some representation in that regard to the railway companies, it might lead to a satisfactory solution.

Mr. Derrig

I do not think it is a matter for the Minister directly. I suggest that the Deputy should take it up with the local authority or get the local authority to take it up with the railways. The Deputy has twice referred to the question of strikes and he has spoken of the Department interfering in strikes. On a previous occasion he spoke of the strikers being assured of sympathy from the Department. I do not think it is right for the Deputy to speak of the Department interfering. The position is that there is a Conciliation Branch in the Department of Industry and Commerce and if the parties, or any one of the parties, approach the officers in that Department or approach the Minister, I think it is the Minister's duty on the ground of public policy to try to bring the parties together and have the dispute settled. The Minister and his Department would prefer to be left out of the disputes but I think the Deputy will recognise that a certain stage is reached, when the Minister must try and bring the parties together and have the dispute settled in the public interest. There is no question of the Department giving sympathy or moral support to the strikers. That question has never arisen and I think the Deputy should not have made the statement.

Mr. McGilligan

I asked a few questions in regard to this Vote and I should like to put them again in so far as they have been left unanswered. I asked for some explanation of the sums set out in the Appropriations-in-Aid in (a) (b) and (c). The Minister would advance no further than stating that probably they are to be explained by the fact that the sums may change but we are voting distinct specified sums.

Mr. Derrig

What is the exact question that the Deputy wishes to raise? Is it not quite clear that the matter arose under this particular section of the Railways Act?

Mr. McGilligan

The Minister apparently does not really know anything more about it than what is in front of him. There should be some approximation between the sum paid to the Great Southern Railway Company and twice the amount got in by way of appropriations in aid plus the payment out of the local taxation account. I say that these things do not balance. I was told the reason was that probably the sums would change but to pass an Estimate of this kind we want something more definite than to say probably they will change. We want a statement from the Minister that the amounts will in fact change and showing what the amount of the change is likely to be so that people will agree that there may be that deficit and that it has to be met by the State. That was, I think, the second question I asked. My first question was in regard to the payments in respect of the acquisition of land for colliery railways. The Minister said that that was a token vote. A token of what? Is there going to be land acquired this year for colliery railways or is the vote merely for the purpose of keeping the sub-head open?

The other items to which I referred are the payments of subsidies in respect to steamer services. On the Galway-Aran steamer service there was a subsidy paid some years ago of about £1,000. It had been brought down year by year until last year it was at the rate of £500. This year it comes down to £300. I have asked the reason for this new estimate of £300, £200 less than last year. Is it because the expenses have been better gripped under supervision, that certain items have been cut out and that, therefore, there has been a reduction from the old estimate of about £1,000 to this £500 or does it mean that the Government considers that £300 is enough to lose on the service? If so, there is another consideration which must be borne in mind, that the charges for tolls, freight on goods and animals carried, and the fares for the small number of passengers who travel on this service must be raised. I also drew attention to the disappearance of the estimate of £960 for Sligo-Killybegs steamer service. I asked if the steamer services were still being kept on, whether the guarantees were being kept on, or would the steamer service disappear. The Minister said he assumed that it is possible—that is the sort of doubting preamble we had—that as the money has not been voted the service is disappearing. That raises a very serious matter.

There used to be a steamer service between Sligo and Belmullet and a certain subsidy was paid for the running of that service. Then at a certain point certain traders in Killybegs, joined by certain traders in Sligo, made what amounted to a guarantee to the Department that if that steamer would run a certain number of times in a northward direction so as to touch at Killkbegs, there would be sufficient traffic offering to pay its way but, as they thought that it might take some little time to get that under way, there should be some subvention for a short period. The disappearance of the service between Sligo and Killybegs which has not been very long established will not probably do very great harm but there will be some doubts raised when some explanation has not been given in regard to the matter. If it could be shown that there was not sufficient traffic between the two ports so that it was really uneconomic from the start, that would be one thing, and it would be a good answer. If it could be shown that the traffic is going more cheaply by the present Donegal light railway system that would be another answer and to my mind an equally good answer. But the disappearance of the Sligo-Belmullet service is a totally different matter. That had been under investigation for two or three years. It looked on first consideration as if anything that was to be done, as between Belmullet and Sligo, could certainly be met by a road service. It was easier to approach by road because the steamer service had a difficulty on account of certain tidal variations in the particular place where the wharf outlet ended.

There was considerable difficulty about getting things landed in a particular time and there was a suggestion that the road service could supply the transport needs. Then it was found after the first demand was made on the road service that the roads around that area began to crumble and the Government were faced with a decision as between paying fairly large sums of money per annum or re-making the roads which because they were built in a particular place were liable to sink. The question then was to decide whether the subsidy was going to be continued or were they to subsidise the lorry service through an extra grant to the council for road making along that road between Sligo and Belmullet. Those are things that can be answered. The question really has been raised. The Minister will know, if he has studied this matter at all, that past experiments in the use of Arigna coal were made in relation to the Sligo-Belmullet service.

Mr. Derrig

How does this arise on the Estimate? I submit the Deputy must direct himself to showing how the burning of the Arigna coal arises now.

Mr. McGilligan

It is one of the appropriate things to be spoken of on this Vote.

Mr. Derrig

Payments under this Vote are statutory.

Mr. McGilligan

I am speaking in respect of sub-head C—payments in respect of steamer services. These are not statutory. If the Minister asserts that these payments are statutory I will ask him to produce the statutes.

Mr. Derrig

I said chiefly statutory.

Mr. McGilligan

There is not a line of it statutory. It has reference to the payments or subsidy to the Galway-Aran steamer service. If it is statutory I ask the Minister to name the statute so that that sort of vexatious interruption should not be made. These payments are brought before us in this way in the Estimates in the matter of subsidies which could be refused. There is no statute at all which binds us to grant this subsidy and there is no statute which binds us to grant the subsidy to the Sligo-Killybegs-Belmullet steamer service, seeing that it is disappearing. But on both of these services there was a test made of the use of Arigna coal. If the Minister has the record of the test that was made I think he will find that the extra cost which the Department had to incur by way of subvention was considerable. In fact, there was great expense incurred in these tests and an attempt was made to get the accounts under this service cut down.

Mr. Derrig

Does this question arise on the present financial year?

Mr. McGilligan

I am asking what coal is used under that Vote, whether it is British or Irish or whether the experiments made have been taken into consideration. There is a payment of £300 there, and the question arises whether that particular coal has been used.

Mr. Derrig

I submit that if that contention were admitted there would be nothing to stop the Deputy from opening up the administration of that whole service. On what principle is the coal that is burned in this particular steamer to be raised, and any other question appertaining to the carrying on of that particular service not to be raised?

Mr. McGilligan

I submit I am entitled to raise on the question of the Galway-Aran steamer service the wages paid by that service; the cargo it carries, whether there has been an increase or a decrease of employment; when the vessel was surveyed, and all such matters. There is a wide field of survey if I like to open it up. What are we discussing but this £300 subsidy? I do not want to take on a number of these things, but I do want to ask if there has been any pressure brought, as previously there was, upon those who were getting this subvention, to see that Arigna coal has been used, or if, in fact, the Department has yielded to the arguments brought that to continue the pressure to use Arigna coal would mean that they should apply for an increased subsidy to meet the increased cost of running the service. Arigna coal is not being used. Is any other type of Irish coal used and, if not, have the Department paid any special advertence to the fact that by putting on a particular type of coal they have increased the cost of this service which they are financing themselves? Do they think that that is a good thing? This arises in relation to this service, the Galway-Aran steamer service. The questions asked on this matter have not yet been answered. With regard to sub-head A—payment to the Great Southern Railways Company—we had a statement by the Minister, and it was a good thing to have it—that if there is any strike trouble further on the Great Southern Railway system that the Minister and the Government are going to keep clear of it; that they are not going to come to the aid of either of the parties in order to allow those parties resist the award made by the Wages Board, by granting money out of the taxpayers' pockets. The Minister talked about the Conciliation Branch of the Department of Industry and Commerce. This was his answer to Deputy Coburn's cogent remark.

Mr. Coburn

It did not convince me.

Mr. McGilligan

I want to show that nobody could be convinced by the answer because the Minister does not know what he is talking about. He said that the Conciliation Department was there and that it adhered to and regretted the fact that it had to go there for that purpose but he entirely disregarded the fact that in railway disputes it is not that Conciliation Branch that deals with them. It is the Railways Branch of the Department. The fact that the Conciliation Branch ordinarily tried to bring the parties together in industrial disputes and generally watches those things——

Mr. Derrig

Deputy Coburn's remark was not confined to a particular dispute. He referred to what he called unofficial strikes.

Mr. McGilligan

He referred very particularly to the railway dispute. I want to point to the fact that there is conciliation machinery in the Department, and that that is not ordinarily used in railway matters shows that the Department is very wise. There is a Conciliation department which keeps clear of railway disputes. When there is any trouble there it is the railway section of the Minister's Department which very reluctantly interferes and all that very natural reluctance indicates clearly that the point of view which Deputy Coburn holds is held by the experts of the Ministry which run this Department. There is machinery for conciliation. There is the Railway Awards Board and when there is a dispute either party to this type of machinery has a right to bring that dispute before it. Disputes will be brought before the Board and an award will be made. When an award is given there is trouble because it is found that the Minister is imposing the work of his Conciliation Board on top of the statutory Conciliation Board. I think the Minister did recognise that there was a mistake made in that case. There was a solemn statement by the Minister backed up by a rather weak statement of the Acting-Minister that never again would he interfere if any award given was not abided by all the parties. He said that with great emphasis though it was backed up by the rather flabby remarks of the Acting-Minister.

Mr. Davin

Time will tell all about that.

Mr. McGilligan

I do not know how it will. There is a big principle involved in all this, and quite a lot of talk has arisen out of disputes, and as to the necessity for conciliation machinery. The Minister acknowledged the effectiveness of that machinery. One would not like to say what would be likely to happen without the Wages Board. It would be found, I think, that after disputes had lasted some time there would be sure to be an appeal for arbitration. But what better type can you have of an arbitration board than one consisting of representatives of the parties, as we have in this case, with a judicial chairman? Even if you did scrap the Wages Board or if the Minister was foolish enough to think that a railway sub-department of the Conciliation department ordinarily used for trade disputes, could take the place of the Conciliation Board, it would not be long until he found people were not satisfied with their decision, and there would be still objection taken to the personnel. The same kind of foolish intervention might be tried by some other departments in order to get trouble relieved. I think what Deputy Coburn said was quite appropriate, and I regard what was said in reply as very weak. The Board should either be scrapped, or it should be kept there. It could, of course, be scrapped, and then the last situation would be worse than all; but if it is not scrapped it should be kept and acknowledged for the purposes for which it was established, and the Minister should keep from blundering in. So long, of course, as the public purse is there to provide subsidies a weak Ministry could be coerced to avoid immediate trouble irrespective of the extra trouble piling up in the long distance from merely staving it off. It was with regret that I heard the Minister in charge backing away from the phrase that the Minister for Industry and Commerce used when talking on the Supplementary Estimate when it was first introduced upon this matter. He spoke with great vehemence, but I do not know that a great deal can be attached to the particular vehemence with which that Minister says things, because he says everything with so much vehemence, but there seemed to be some idea of stability about what he said on that occasion, and of his sticking to it. There is very little of that about the remarks we heard from the Minister who is now in charge.

Mr. Cleary

It would be of historical interest, and we would be obliged by Deputy McGilligan telling us who wound him up, and how did they succeed?

Mr. McGilligan

I did not get my preliminary winding-up at any rate in Trinity College, Dublin, as the Deputy did.

Question put.

The Committee divided: Tá, 56; Níl, 37.

Tá

• Aiken, Frank.
• Bartley, Gerald.
• Beegan, Patrick.
• Blaney, Neal.
• Boland, Gerald.
• Bourke, Daniel.
• Brady, Brian.
• Brady, Seán.
• Breathnach, Cormac.
• Breen, Daniel.
• Browne, William Frazer.
• Cleary, Mícheál.
• Concannon, Helena.
• Corkery, Daniel.
• Corry, Martin John.
• Crowley, Timothy.
• Daly, Denis.
• Davin, William.
• Derrig, Thomas.
• De Valera, Eamon.
• Doherty, Hugh.
• Gibbons, Seán.
• Goulding, John.
• Hales, Thomas.
• Hayes, Seán.
• Houlihan, Patrick.
• Jordan, Stephen.
• Keely, Séamus P.
• Kehoe, Patrick.
• Kelly, James Patrick.
• Kelly, Thomas.
• Killilea, Mark.
• Kissane, Eamonn.
• Little, Patrick John.
• Lynch, James B.
• McEllistrim, Thomas.
• MacEntee, Seán.
• Maguire, Conor Alexander.
• Moore, Sémus.
• Moylan, Seán.
• O'Briain, Donnchadh.
• O'Doherty, Joseph.
• O'Dowd, Patrick.
• O'Grady, Seán.
• O'Kelly, Seán Thomas.
• O'Reilly, Matthew.
• Pattison, James P.
• Pearse, Margaret Mary.
• Ruttledge, Patrick Joseph.
• Ryan, James.
• Ryan, Martin.
• Ryan, Robert.
• Sheridan, Michael.
• Smith, Patrick.
• Traynor, Oscar.
• Walsh, Richard.

Níl

• Alton, Ernest Henry.
• Beckett, James Walter.
• Bennett, George Cecil.
• Brennan, Michael.
• Broderick, William Joseph.
• Brodrick, Seán.
• Burke, Patrick.
• Byrne, Alfred.
• Cosgrave, William T.
• Costello, John Aloysius.
• Davitt, Robert Emmet.
• Desmond, William.
• Dockrell, Henry Morgan.
• Doyle, Peadar S.
• Esmonde, Osmond Grattan.
• Fitzgerald, Desmond.
• Fitzgerald-Kenney, James.
• Keating, John.
• Lynch, Finian.
• MacDermot, Frank.
• McFadden, Michael Og.
• McGilligan, Patrick.
• McGuire, James Ivan.
• McMenamin, Daniel.
• Minch, Sydney B.
• Morrissey, Daniel.
• Mulcahy, Richard.
• O'Connor, Batt.
• O'Donovan, Timothy Joseph.
• O'Higgins, Thomas Francis.
• O'Leary, Daniel.
• O'Neill, Eamonn.
• O'Sullivan, Gearoid.
• O'Sullivan, John Marcus.
• Redmond, Bridget Mary.
• Rice, Vincent.
• Roddy, Martin.

Tellers:—Tá: Deputies Little and Traynor; Níl: Deputies Doyle and Bennett.

Motion declared carried.