Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 19 Sep 1944

Vol. 94 No. 9

Committee on Finance. - Transport (No. 2) Bill, 1944—Money Resolution.

I move:—

That it is expedient to authorise such payments out of moneys provided by the Oireachtas as are necessary to give effect to any Act of the present Session to provide for the incorporation of a Transport Company to be called Córas Iompair Eireann and for the transfer to that Company of the undertakings of the Great Southern Railways Company and the Dublin United Transport Company, Limited, to amend the law relating to railways and other transport undertakings and to provide for certain other matters connected with the matters aforesaid.

It is our opinion that the passing of this resolution will mean, to some extent, throwing good money after bad, and will probably further obscure the transport position in the country. The Taoiseach indicated to-day, in reply to a question by the Lord Mayor of Dublin, that a special committee had been considering a number of plans for the economic development of the country in the post-war period. I asked him whether that committee had considered transport by road or by rail as part of the plans, and he indicated that they had, to some extent at any rate, and that this Bill which the Minister has introduced to the House is a necessary foundation—I think that was the word he used—to their work. It is because it is necessary to have a cheap and efficient transport system in the country as a foundation for the satisfactory development of production and distribution here that we are opposed to the passing of this resolution.

Nothing is more important at the present time than to see that every possible step will be taken to reduce the cost of living on the one hand, to see that the overheads which affected the prices which our people had to pay for the necessaries of life are reduced, and that those overheads which raised the prices of our products here and prevented them from adequately and effectively competing in other markets, will be reduced, too. The proposals in this measure are such as will render it impossible to make any serious attempt to reduce the cost of living in the country, or to prepare our agricultural and other industries for effective competition in the markets we will have to find abroad.

The tribunal which considered the general position of public transport in 1939 dealt with the railways, and dealt also with some of the other transport companies in the country. In dealing with the Dublin United Tramway Company it stated on page 108 of its report that that company, whose capital was about £2,200,000 at the time, had proposals for paying back a certain substantial part of their capital inside ten years. The report states in paragraph 254, that the company proposes over the next ten years—the report was written in 1939—"to repay £1,100,000, which, after payments have been made for new omnibuses, will have the effect of reducing the capital and borrowings from their present figure of £2,210,933 to the £1,360,000 represented by the preference and ordinary stocks." Commenting on that proposal, the report says:

"We are of opinion that the company should not be empowered to charge such fares as may be necessary to earn a net revenue sufficiently large to enable this proposal to be carried out. In our opinion it is unreasonable to expect that for the next ten years the community residing in the areas served by the company should be obliged to pay, not only for the current cost of provision of the services placed at its disposal by the company (which cost would include the amounts required for annual repairs and the liability for renewals when they fall due), but also to provide out of current revenue in such a short period so substantial a sum as £1,100,000, of which £682,100 is for the repayment of debentures which have formed part of the company's capital and borrowings for very considerable periods in the past varying from over 30 years to over 40 years."

The tribunal found that the Dublin United Tramway Company at that particular time were proposing to take a substantial amount of capital and repay it, so that the people using their transport system in the city here not only would have to pay for the upkeep and maintenance of the transport system during that time, and pay for the cost of the money invested in the, tramway company, but would have to pay £1,100,000 more than the cost of running that service, and hand it back to the lenders through the tramway company inside ten years. The proposal which the Minister puts before us is infinitely worse than that. He takes the transport system of the whole country, that is the railway and the roads and the Dublin United Transport Company, and he not only proposes to repay £1,100,000 of capital that is in the tramway company but £700,000 in addition, and he proposes to repay, between this and 1960, £8,048,556. There is a proposal that the new company, between this and 1960, will not only pay for its development, pay for its upkeep, and pay for carrying on the transport system of the country, but will also have to pay £9,875,556 as well. The company which is going to take that money out of the pockets of the transport users is a company which, as far as the railways are concerned, has been shown to be paying out moneys in dividends for a number of years past that it has not been earning.

At the present time, instead of putting additional burdens of that kind on the users of road and railway transport, we should be stripping our whole machinery of everything that might put such a burden on them and that might raise travelling rates either for passengers or goods. We should be trying to get out of the shocking position in which we are at present and increase production and make distribution easier, so as to provide a cheaper living for our own people. We will have to find and hold increased markets abroad for our additional production here, so that it may improve our economy, and in that effort we should be free of unnecessary transport charges.

We are resolutely, opposed to these proposals because, in the first place, as well as simply carrying on the difficult business of transport, it is proposed to charge transport users in the next 15 years £10,000,000 more than that business ought to cost. It is only gradually that we are getting information as to what these proposals mean. Before the tribunal which investigated the question of shares, evidence was given which showed that the proposals contained in this measure did not materialise as proposals until September, 1943. The Minister himself, in his evidence before the tribunal, said that in the earlier stages the reorganisation contemplated was a company with a capital of £10,000,000, to acquire compulsorily the Great Southern Railways system. That, apparently, was the proposal until about September, when it was changed. Responsibility seems to be shirked for the proposals as they are at present. It was indicated by several people, including the Minister, before the tribunal that the proposal for a £20,000,000 company came from the Civil Service and not from the railway company or the Minister. When the new proposal was referred to the Government in September, 1943, the attitude of the Government was— as indicated in the Minister's evidence —that the Government had no objection to the proposal. That is to say, the original proposal was that £10,000,000 would be provided, apparently by the Government. That £10,000,000 would have been sufficient to repay in full all the debenture stock and 65 per cent. of the preference and other stock. At that particular time, the market value of those stocks was substantially below that figure. The guaranteed preference stock was quoted in the market in June, 1939, at 30; the 4 per cent. preference stock at 13¼ and the ordinary stock at 9¼. The £10,000,000 would have been sufficient to pay off the debentures and to pay 65 per cent. of the nominal value of the other shares. That was changed and full value was to be given for the railway shares, while the Dublin United Tramway Company was to be taken over and other great developments were to be gone ahead with, of which we have no information of any kind. Under the present proposals, the full capital of the Great Southern Railway is resurrected. Up to September, 1943, it was not the intention to do that but, under the present proposals, it is intended to do it.

These proposals are likely to put an additional charge on the taxpayer and on the country generally. When the original Tribunal of Inquiry of 1939 reported, it stated, on page 84:—

"In particular, it is of great importance that a clear and dispassionate appreciation of the factors affecting the success or failure of the Great Southern Railways Company under the new conditions should be available before any final conclusions are reached as to its future economic possibilities."

The Minister for Industry and Commerce for the time being in 1941 was of the same opinion. He thought very little of Deputy Davin for pressing to have the report I speak of published; but in his public statements here and elsewhere he said that no satisfactory proposals could be put forward until we got out of the present emergency. In spite of the fact that this tribunal, in a spirit of detachment, indicated in 1939 that, even without any of the disturbing factors that the emergency has brought about, it would take five years before any final conclusions could be reached as to the future possibilities of the railway company, we are now asked to give the full nominal value to the capital of the railway company and to hang that round the State here in future in such a manner that the greater part of it will have to be repaid in 1960.

The only basis upon which the Minister rests the Bill is that he will provide a satisfactorily organised railway and road system. We have got no information—good, bad or indifferent—that would lead us to believe that that is so. The former Minister for Industry and Commerce, again in 1941, made it clear that—in his opinion, at any rate—the people responsible for the poor conditions of the railways were the directors of that time, the shareholders of that time and the staff of that time, and he repudiated the suggestion that anybody else was responsible. It is practically to those people that the general ownership of the new transport company is to be handed over. That makes it quite impossible for us to have any hope that there will be reasonable development or reasonable management. From the figures that have been provided, it is quite clear that, instead of a cheaper transport system being provided now to meet the urgent exigencies of the time, we are to be provided with a system on which enormous unnecessary expense will be undertaken, since something like £10,000,000 is to be taken from the transport users between now and 1960, over and above the actual cost of the transport system. We are therefore opposed to the passing of this money resolution, as we believe that it is merely attempting to throw good money after bad.

This is a Money Resolution in which we are asked to give the Minister the necessary authority for the purpose of underwriting the expenses of this Bill when enacted into law. I take this opportunity to protest against the manner in which the House is being asked to discuss this Bill. We have a Bill described as "Transport Bill No. 2" and on the Committee Stage alone the Minister has submitted approximately 80 amendments, not one of which has been explained on the Second Stage, not one of which has been explained by the Minister in the House, and not one of which has been covered by the explanatory memorandum issued with the Bill in the first instance. These 80 amendments are thrown to the House by the Minister and we are told to fit them into the Bill as best we can, no matter how technical they may be. Then, when the House has spent sufficient time in doing that, we are to look at the Bill, and that is the type of Bill we are asked to accept in Committee. I think that is an unfair way to treat the House. There now seems to be no doubt that there was no urgency for this Bill when it was first introduced. All the elements of speed with which it was sought to enshroud the Bill at that stage have been dissipated completely by the leisurely way in which the Bill has been dealt with in the meantime. It would have been much more satisfactory if the Minister had embodied his amendments in the Bill when it came up for Second Stage discussion in the House. We would then, at least, be able to see the Minister's mind so far as the Bill is concerned. As it is, we have a Bill which the Minister said represented his mind and we have grafted on to that Bill 88 amendments of a highly technical kind and we do not know how many more amendments the Minister may introduce on the Report Stage in this House apart from whatever Ministerial amendments may emerge when the Bill comes up for discussion in the Seanad.

I think it is a very clumsy way of dealing with this whole matter of transport. I think it is a very unsatisfactory and very inefficient way of dealing with an important Transport Bill of this character. These are methods which, in fact, resemble the methods of the railway company which we are endeavouring to remedy by the passage of this Bill. Apart from my desire to enter a protest in regard to the manner in which this Bill is being served up to us and the spate of amendments which the Minister has thrown at the House—because virtually that is what he has done—I should like to ascertain from the Minister the present position in connection with the tribunal of three judges which was set up to inquire into allegations of improper transactions in railway shares. We are asked to pass a Money Resolution to finance the cost of implementing this Bill. We ought to know to what extent we may be overdoing expenditure so far as providing compensation to persons who may be found guilty of improper transactions in railway shares is concerned. It was stated in Press reports, some of which claim to be reasonably reliable, that the tribunal had completed its report and that the report was on its way to the Government.

Is there any obligation on Deputies to relate their remarks to the resolution?

What did the Minister say?

It seems to me that this is irrelevant to the motion before the House.

No. The fact that the Chair is permitting me to carry on is the best evidence that I am thoroughly in order. This motion is a Financial Resolution by which we are asked to underwrite the cost of this Bill and we cannot know what we really are being asked to underwrite until we have the report of these three eminent judges. They may come to the conclusion that many "get-rich-quick merchants" have been trafficking in railway shares and are going to be handsomely compensated under the provisions of this Bill. If that is so, quite obviously there is a duty on the Legislature to take steps to ensure that these gentlemen will not enrich themselves any further. I am merely asking, as a person of some responsibility, as a member of the Legislature, whether or not this report has been received by the Government; whether or not the House will have an opportunity of seeing the report before it passes this Bill; and whether or not the public generally will be made aware of the contents of the report so that the public may be in a position to express an opinion on the evidence tendered at the tribunal? I do not know why the Minister should be annoyed every time anybody mentions these irregular dealings in railway shares. I should imagine the Minister would be glad to have all the approbation he could get for a zealous desire on his part to hunt down these gentlemen who frequent stock exchanges——

The Deputy is anticipating or presuming certain findings of a judicial commission, the report of which has not yet been published.

Nothing is farther from my thought.

It does not seem to be far from the Deputy's expression of his thought.

Maybe I expressed my thoughts in a way that might have been avoided but I want to tell the Minister that he ought not to get annoyed simply because we ask to see the report of this tribunal. The Minister knows how annoyed he got on previous occasions when we asked that the Second Reading of this Bill should be postponed pending the report. There is no reason why the Minister should get so annoyed in the matter. My simple query is, has the Minister received the report from the tribunal of three judges, and, if so, when will it be released so that the public and the House may be made aware of its contents?

I strongly oppose the voting of money for this particular piece of legislation. Having regard to the almost revolutionary changes in transport facilities throughout the world and having regard to the existing emergency, I do not think that this is a time when we, as a State, should embark on a vast expenditure of public money in the modernisation of the railway system. It is quite conceivable that changed methods of transport may render railways obsolete so far as this country is concerned. Therefore, it is a dangerous thing to commit public money on such a large scale to such a proposal. It is also highly dangerous for the State so to commit itself in regard to public transport as to become a menace to the small user of the road, to the independent lorry owner conveying his own goods or his neighbours' goods for hire. When the State commits itself to such a huge expenditure it becomes the potential enemy of every small user of the road. I believe our first consideration should be the safeguarding of the interests of the small property owner, whether he is a lorry-owner, a van-owner or a businessman delivering his goods, or a farmer using a lorry to bring his produce to the market.

I might remind the Deputy that he has tabled an amendment for Committee Stage to that effect. Furthermore, the House has agreed to the Second Reading of this Bill. The principles have been approved. Speeches seem to be more of the nature of Second Reading speeches than directed to the financial provisions.

I have no intention of going deeply into these questions but, as we are called upon to vote public money for this Bill, it is necessary to make clear the reasons why we object to such money being provided. It is necessary also, as Deputy Norton pointed out, to take into consideration the fact that the proposals for compensating existing stockowners in the railway company may be altogether too generous and may be proved unjustified by the findings of the tribunal. For that reason, I think the House should be very slow to vote this money. If there were any urgency about this Bill I think it would have been passed some months ago. This House has been in existence for a number of months and if there were real urgency about the Bill the Minister would have seen to it that it was enacted.

I did my best.

I should like to know what would have happened if the Bill had gone through, as first introduced, without all the afterthoughts which have since occurred to the Minister. Apparently, the Minister has discovered that the Bill as originally introduced was altogether wrong and has had to mend his hand considerably. Whether the amendments are improvements or not is a matter for further consideration; but, certainly, the Minister has shown that the Bill, as originally introduced, was ill-considered and he has had to mend his hand. Therefore, he has practically proved that there was no urgency about the matter and that there is justification for further delay and further careful investigation and consideration of the whole problem.

Unfortunately, Sir, as you say, it is true to state that the principles of this Bill have been approved of by the majority of the members of this House.

Approved of by the House.

Yes, Sir, approved of by the House, but I submit that this is the proper time to ask the Minister to say what, in his opinion, is going to be the initial cost to the community of the financial provisions of this Bill. I think it is true to assert, as Deputy Mulcahy has done, that it is going to add to the cost of transport to the community as a whole, and I wonder whether the Minister, in considering the financial provisions of this scheme, has adverted in any way to the cost of similar schemes elsewhere or the method of carrying out huge schemes of this kind elsewhere. This Bill is supposed to be the last word on Government policy and, as somebody has suggested, is supposed to be the foundation of the post-war development plan which, we are led to believe, has been worked out in detail by the Cabinet. Most of us are in complete ignorance as to what, generally, the post-war plan is, although it was asserted by the Taoiseach, when speaking in Ennis on a recent occasion, that they had a detailed scheme in connection with every aspect of planning for all kinds of schemes which, presumably, will be undertaken as soon as the war is over and, again presumably, as soon as materials can be procured to carry out these schemes.

Now, on a previous occasion, in connection with a very big scheme— not as big, I think, as this scheme: I refer to the Shannon Electricity Development Scheme—when it was presented to this House, the Minister in charge of that Bill came before the House and gave particulars, in great detail, as to how the money, asked for on that occasion, was going to be spent. Now, as soon as this Bill passes the House in its present form, not a member of the people's Parliament is to be allowed to come in here and ask one question concerning the administration of the measure, and I think I am entitled to ask now— especially if the majority of the members of the House are going to vote for the sections in the Bill and the amendments proposed by the Minister—how the money provided for in the Bill is going to be spent. I think that the Minister will agree that it is not unfair for me to ask him whether it is proposed, under this Bill, to provide for the electrification of the main lines in this country and, if so, what proportion of the money will be set aside for that particular purpose. If you are going to have rural electrification, I think it is only right to presume that that will be associated in one form or another with the electrification of main lines and particularly with the suburban sections of these lines, after the Bill becomes law.

I quite agree with Deputy Norton that those members of the House who wish to take an active interest in making this Bill a better Bill are not being given a reasonable opportunity of carrying out their duties in that regard. I asked the Minister before the recess—I think it was on that fateful night which led to the general election—to say whether the Bill meant a complete exposition of Government policy or, if he intended to amend it later on, would he take it back and relate it to the speech that he had made. I now ask him whether he would be prepared to take it back and relate it to the speech he then made and to the speeches he made, later on, in the course of the general election campaign, because I think that a great deal of confusion, which is likely to take place in the consideration of all these amendments, could be avoided, if the Minister would agree to take back this Bill now and submit it later on with the principle of these amendments included in the Bill. I do not think there would be any loss of dignity in doing so. Then, each Deputy in the House would know the Minister's final views, if they are final, and could argue them out in this House in favour of their own point of view. It seems to me that there is going to be a good deal of time wasted on these amendments. I do not want to waste the time of the House on this Bill. I appreciate the object of many of the amendments proposed by the Minister, and I appreciate the Minister's intention in bringing them in, but I think that at this stage they will only cause confusion. I have been a member of this House for a good many years, but I know of no occasion since the House was established when a Minister brought forward so many amendments to a Bill. The usual procedure was to bring in Ministerial amendments on the Report Stage, but here we have a Bill with 117 sections—many of them dealing with matters of almost prehistoric interest, and concerned with another Parliament—and there are 88 Ministerial amendments and 10 schedules to the Bill.

That does not seem to be related to the financial provisions of the Bill.

Well, Sir, I hope the Minister will excuse me for saying this—and I say it on my own behalf— that you would require some of the ablest lawyers in the land to explain some of these Ministerial amendments. My point is that it will take considerable time to deal with all these amendments and, therefore, I think it would be a saving of time if the Minister were to take back the Bill, give further consideration to his proposed amendments, and incorporate them in the Bill. Then we could sit down and have a frank and friendly discussion on the Bill as it would be then presented to the House——

And on the Money Resolution.

——and could discuss such amendments as other Deputies might like to have inserted in the Bill. I should like the Minister to take advantage of this occasion—perhaps the only occasion of which we can take advantage, as representing the taxpayers here—to give us in detail, so far as he reasonably can, an account of the way in which the money now asked for in the Bill is going to be spent in the days to come. In that way, we might be able to avoid the imposition of additional and, possibly, unnecessary taxation.

The passing of this resolution implements the proposal to operate, with a State guarantee of something like £16,000,000, a national transport organisation that will be controlled, virtually, by the Minister, and put him in the position of a dictator. I hope that the House will not lightly pass a sum of that magnitude— a very substantial sum to a small country like ours—without being satisfied that that money will be spent in the national interests. We have heard a great deal recently about planning, and about the necessity for vigorous post-war planning in connection with many branches of activity, both in the industrial and agricultural spheres. One thing that, I think, we should realise with regard to the post-war situation is that, if we are anxious to restore our position in the export market to what it was in the past, the provision of a cheap and efficient national transport scheme is vital. I do not think that the Minister has satisfied the House that the organisation he proposes to set up here, and under which we are asked to vote this sum of money, will give us a cheap and efficient transport system for the type of community which, in the special circumstances of the rural life we have here, will be needed by our community.

It has been pointed out by the Leader of the Opposition that there are very substantial commitments involved in this Bill that have to be repaid in a very short period. The Minister may reply by saying that the company will have power to issue new debenture stock, to borrow money and that these repayments can be made by new borrowings. So far as we are concerned, we have argued before, and we are still convinced, that the existing stock, the holdings of stockholders in the wasting assets of the old company, are certainly over-valued. That will throw a very substantial burden on the new company and will inevitably result in costly transport.

From the agricultural standpoint, I feel that we must have cheap and efficient transport because I believe that post-war competition in the export market in which we have sold our surplus products in the past will probably be keener than ever before. The war inevitably has brought a newer technique in methods of production, more efficient methods in production and possibly more efficient methods in transport as well. We must be alive to all these circumstances which are developing outside. We must be pre pared to face up to that keener competition which is the result of these new developments. The Minister has not attempted to satisfy the House on these points. The paucity of information leaves the House in the position that Deputies cannot make up their minds definitely that the matter has been closely examined. The Transport Tribunal which reported in 1939 recommended, whatever transport organisation may be necessary here for our post-war requirements, that there should be an experimental period, a period of trial. They referred to the revolutionary ideas in world transport generally and suggested that we might at the end of a period of five years decide on fundamental changes in the type of transport that is necessary in this country.

Taking all the circumstances into account, and the fact that we are asked to write down the stock of the Great Southern Railways Company, that the Minister assured the House some time ago that the assets were almost completely wasted, that the whole system—railway stations, rolling stock and everything else—required to be renewed and reorganised, I think the valuation of this old stock will mean a very severe burden on the new company. That burden will inevitably be passed on to the taxpayer and to the people who want cheap and efficient transport in the country. I think that will eventually react on production in the country. That is what has made me personally critical of these proposals. The Minister, at all events, has not satisfied me that we are going to get that cheap and efficient transport about which he spoke.

In the course of the debate you, Sir, made the point that a number of matters referred to by various speakers were matters of principle which had already been accepted by the House on Second Reading. I think it would be well, in view of our experience here in the debate on Second Reading, to qualify that ruling, if not technically, at least so far as actual truth is concerned, by saying that the Bill has been accepted by the silent portion of the House, but has been vociferously opposed by those who chose to express any opinion on it. With the exception of one or two members of the Government Party who, judging by their remarks on Second Reading, had not even taken the trouble to read the Bill, seeing that they expressed violent disagreement with the proposals in the Bill or took an entirely new viewpoint that was not justified by the Bill at all, the Bill was opposed by almost every Deputy who took part in that debate. It is quite true that we are not at liberty to discuss again the principles which we have accepted, but there is one principle that we are still entitled to discuss when we are dealing with the question of money to implement the Bill. We are entitled as public representatives to consider the utilisation of the money which we are now going to authorise.

In this Bill we are presented with a very wide scheme of reorganisation so far as the management and control of public transport in this State is concerned, but there has been a complete lack of information from the Minister that would give us any visualisation as to how the moneys we are asked to underwrite will be expended. Even though these moneys may be raised from private sources, in so far as we are giving legal authority and a legal monopoly to certain gentlemen to undertake public transport in this country, we are entitled to know the main lines of technical development which they foresee in regard to transport as a whole.

It is quite true that in the course of the next five years there will possibly be revolutionary changes in the technical basis of transport but that would not fundamentally affect the general long-range view of those who have undertaken this reorganisation scheme nor relieve them of responsibility to set before this House some justification for the expenditure of the finances we are asked to underwrite. If we had no precedent to go on it might be said that we were expecting more than ordinary human beings were able to perform in asking that they should give us some perspective in regard to the technique of transport in this country, but only recently another department of public service in this country, also largely under the influence of the Minister, presented a very fine report, the report on rural electrification. That report was so detailed that it even dealt with the steel bolts that were to be utilised in the overhead wires. If the Electricity Supply Board could present us with that mass of information, not only of a technical character but in respect to the actual transmission services to the rural consumers and even dealing to a certain degree with the social effects on the areas they were going to serve, surely it is not unreasonable to ask that we should be given some enlightenment as to the lines of development in the minds of those charged with authority in regard to public transport when this Bill becomes law.

Speeches have been made by eminent persons associated with the railways within the past few years in which they gave very definite indications that they had already considered this matter, that they had certain viewpoints in regard to the re-equipment of the railways and of the possibility of acquiring certain new forms of technical means of transport. Undoubtedly, they would not have entered upon—and neither would the Minister nor his advisers—the consideration of this Bill and of the finances required for it without having given some consideration as to the kind of transport system they were envisaging for the development of this country following upon the passage of this Bill into law. We have been given nothing at all to go upon, and yet we are being asked to pass this Money Resolution and to give this public commitment on behalf of the citizens. On that ground alone we are entitled to some information before we agree to it.

There is another very important factor which has been surrounding the whole of this debate, a debate which should have been kept within the sphere of public transport but which unhappily had to be coloured by the discussions of matters on the stock exchange. There has been that unhappy atmosphere of trying to disabuse our minds of extraneous factors and to concentrate purely on the principles of railway organisation. That has been due to certain happenings outside this House. This House was perturbed at these happenings. A committee of inquiry was set up which has now been in session for a considerable period. Whether that committee has reported or not I do not know. Whether the committee has found it difficult to arrive at its findings we do not know. We are not entitled to say that it has been unduly dilatory in the matter, but we are entitled to ask questions. On repeated occasions in this House we have been assured both by the Minister and the Leader of the Government that an opportunity would be afforded to Deputies to review the financial commitments, and the basis of the transfer of ownership of the stocks in the dissolved companies into the new company in the light of any findings contained in the report of the committee. Now, we have met again in September, and still we have no information to go on. It is quite possible that, when the Bill has become an Act and the transfer of ownership has taken place, when, possibly, we are already on the verge of being asked to face financial commitments already entered into, we will then have the report. We may then be told that the Government do not see any ground on which to afford us an opportunity of reconsidering the whole matter.

This is our last chance of expressing the viewpoint of the ordinary citizens outside the House who, regardless of the views of the Government or of those who sit on the Government Benches, have felt all along that there were reasons why we should pause and consider before we took definite action —until such time as we knew exactly the grounds on which we were being asked to guarantee certain commitments out of the public Exchequer. We have not yet got the report of the committee. Therefore, one has to utilise this opportunity of making a protest. I think it would be invidious on the part of those who have been making protests consistently in this House and outside of it and who accepted the responsibility of bringing the matter before the public at the general election, if they were to allow this occasion to pass without making one further protest. For the two reasons I have mentioned, I think we are quite justified in suggesting that this is not a matter which should receive the confidence of the House. We are being left completely in the dark as to the means or methods by which these large sums of money will be expended. It is now almost seven months since the committee of inquiry was set up by this House. We are still in the dark, and still left without any means of protecting those who sent us here against the possibility of inroads being made into their pockets by certain gentlemen outside this House.

The Minister to conclude.

Are we not in Committee?

Quite so, and if any other Deputy desires to intervene he may do so now. Usually, if no Deputy so offers, the Minister is called on to conclude.

I merely wanted to know whether we were in Committee. Some points may arise out of the Minister's speech.

An opportunity for putting questions will be afforded within reason. I take it the Deputy does not desire to make a second speech.

This Bill has been very fully debated. Probably no Bill has come before the House since it was established that has been more fully debated than this one. Not merely was there a protracted Second Reading discussion on it, but there was, following that Second Reading discussion and the Vote which ensued, a general election in which the Bill was almost the main issue of contention from public platforms. It was reintroduced, and again debated on Second Reading in the House. I suggest to the House that we have discussed the principles of the Bill sufficiently, and that those, no matter how they may vote in divisions on the Bill, who are interested in the measure must now recognise the fact that the principles of the Bill have been accepted by the House. Our duty now is to go through it, clause by clause, and see if the machinery which the Bill proposes to establish to give effect to the principles of which the House has approved is the most efficient that can be devised for that purpose.

I have circulated a number of amendments. A large proportion of these amendments propose to effect only drafting changes. Some of them were inspired by the amendments submitted since the Second Reading by other Deputies. A few of them represent additional provisions which I think it is desirable to make. It is true that it is the usual practice for a Minister to introduce his amendments to a Bill on Report Stage. The fact that I did not follow the usual procedure has been questioned by Deputy Davin. Now, I did not follow the usual procedure. I circulated the amendments before the Committee Stage at the express request of the Leader of the Labour Party. Am I now to be pilloried for doing what I was asked to do?

I asked for a reprint of the Bill.

I circulated much earlier than usual the amendments which I intended to propose, and particularly the amendments which would indicate the extent to which I was prepared to meet the suggestions put forward in the Second Reading debate or which might subsequently be put forward in amendments by Private Deputies.

Is that all there is in the Minister's amendments?

I did not say that. On the contrary, I made it clear that there were other provisions which it appeared to me to be desirable to insert in the Bill and which are also provided for in the amendments I have circulated. If Deputies resent my action in producing my amendments, which are designed to give more definite effect to their ideas, the ideas which are contained in the amendments circulated by them, I am prepared to withdraw these amendments. I thought Deputies would appreciate the trouble I went to in trying to facilitate them by indicating in advance the extent to which I was prepared to meet their views.

In so far as I could follow the remarks of Deputy Mulcahy, they were mainly directed towards proving the contention that the obligation which it is proposed to place on the new transport organisation to redeem, before 1960, the whole of its substituted debenture stock is too onerous, and will involve an unduly high price for transport in the intervening period. That is a matter we can discuss on the relevant section of the Bill. I think I can satisfy the House that it is not too onerous an obligation. I hope, in any event, to satisfy the House that it is the safest provision to make. It is quite clear, however, that if the company makes an attempt to discharge that obligation, whether it succeeds or not, there will be no question of the State guarantee of the debenture interest having to be called upon. If the State guarantee of the debenture interest has to be called upon, then the company will not be able to make any provision for the redemption of the stock. If, in fact, there is redemption of the stock, the company will be in a position to pay the debenture interest and the State guarantee will be purely nominal. I do not wish to discuss the matter now. I think that discussion on it will arise more properly on the appropriate section.

In so far as the Bill will involve administrative expenses, I can assure the House that they will be practically nil. Although some administrative expenses will result in connection with the setting up of the advisory committee, I thing they will be less than the administrative expenses that arose under the 1924 Act in connection with the operations of the Railway Tribunal which this Bill proposes to abolish. It is, I think, a fair assumption that there will be revolutionary changes in methods of transport as a result of recent developments, particularly developments occasioned by military necessity during the war. I fundamentally disagree with the view expressed by Deputy Cogan—a very foolish view, in my opinion —that, because there are to be changes in methods of transport, we should postpone indefinitely the creation of the organisation which is going to investigate those changes in methods of transport and apply them to the circumstances of this country, if found suitable. It is too late to commence to thatch your house when the storm has broken. The right time to establish the organisation which is to handle our transport problems is now, before the operation of new methods of transport is practicable and before it is even possible to decide what new methods are suited to our circumstances. It would be unwise to attempt to decide now what new type of equipment or what new methods of operating transport services are suitable to our circumstances. Even if it were the time to decide, neither this House nor the Government is the body which should be given the responsibility of making the decision. We have not the technical competence to arrive at such a decision. We are proposing to establish a company and to charge that company with the responsibility of providing efficient transport services for this country, using whatever methods are most suitable in the opinion of the technical experts in its service. We are proposing that that company should be secured finance adequate to enable it to apply to this country whatever system appears to be best suited in its judgment to our circumstances. It may be some time yet before it will be possible to arrive at satisfactory conclusions as to whether new types of equipment and new methods of operation are practicable and desirable. I do not think that that is a reason why we should delay the establishment of the organisation which is to have the responsibility of making that decision. I should strongly resist any proposal that decisions of purely technical questions of that kind should be made by this House or a Government Department, which has not at its command the technical experience which would be required for the making of such decisions.

I think that this Bill is urgent. I thought that it was urgent months ago. I think that it is desirable that we should not lose any more time in getting rid of the deadwood which has hampered transport development in the past and that we should lose no time in creating a new organisation which will be not merely efficiently devised but competent to proceed without delay with the execution of whatever plans it considers most suitable. We have already lost valuable time and we have now to make that good by securing the enactment of this measure, with whatever amendments the Dáil may consider necessary, before the end of the year.

Deputy Mulcahy made some reference to evidence given before the tribunal of inquiry into stock exchange transactions. I do not want to accuse the Deputy of deliberate misrepresentation, but it is not true that it was stated at the tribunal that the proposals in his Bill were the product of civil servants and it is not true that it was stated that, when these proposals were brought to the Government, they evoked from the Government merely the decision that they had no objection.

The Minister gave that evidence.

That is not so. The decision of the Government related not to the proposals in the Bill but to the intentions of the Board of the Great Southern Railways to circularise the shareholders. The decision of the Government was that it had no objection to the Board of the Great Southern Railways circularising its shareholders, making it clear that the circularising of the shareholders did not commit the Government. The Deputy may have misread what appeared in the paper but, if he reads it again, I hope he will endeavour to correct any misapprehension his remarks may have caused.

I have the paper here.

The report of the tribunal was received by me to-day at 12.15 p.m. Copies are now being made, and I assume that it will be the desire of the Government that the report should be published as soon as possible. I do not imagine that the House would desire to have my version of the conclusions arrived at by the tribunal. The report will be available soon.

Before we finish the Committee Stage?

In my opinion, it is highly probable the report will be available before the Dáil will have finished the Committee Stage of the Bill unless my anticipations as to the length of time the Bill will take in Committee are entirely wrong. I suggest that discussion of the principles of the Bill upon the money resolution is, more or less, a waste of time and that the Dáil could more usefully occupy itself now in getting down to the business that arises—consideration of the sections of the Bill and the various amendments proposed to the sections.

Can the Minister not give any information, even in millions, as to how the money to be spent in the post-war period is to be allocated?

I tried to make the position clear to the House on previous occasions. Some Deputies have, apparently, a misunderstanding of the provisions of the Bill in that regard. We are setting up a company. Like any other company, it has a limit fixed to the capital liabilities which it may enter into. This company will have a nominal capital of £20,000,000, of which £13,500,000 will be paid up. The extent to which new capital may be utilised in the future will be determined by conditions in the future. The company may issue additional debenture stock, with the consent of the Minister for Finance, up to a limit of £6,500,000. We do not decide that it will have to issue any particular sum—£1,000,000, £2,000,000 or £3,000,000. We merely give the company power, with the consent of the Minister for Finance, to issue additional stock up to a limit. That limit cannot be exceeded without legislation.

That stock can be issued without consulting this House if the Bill be passed?

Yes. The House has passed numerous measures, establishing companies, with similar provisions —laying down a maximum capital liability, which cannot be exceeded without fresh legislation—without contemplating that these companies would immediately avail of their full power in relation to the raising of additional capital.

Can the Minister say anything about the proposed electrification of the main line system as related to rural electrification?

I have no opinion to express on that matter. If the Deputy contemplates electrification by means of an overheard wire or by a third rail, that is, in my opinion, improbable.

There is no Government decision on the matter?

Question put.
The Committee divided: Tá, 62; Níl, 36.

  • Aiken, Frank.
  • Allen, Denis.
  • Beegan, Patrick.
  • Boland, Gerald.
  • Boland, Patrick.
  • Breslin, Cormac.
  • Briscoe, Robert.
  • Buckley, Seán.
  • Burke, Patrick (Co. Dublin).
  • Butler, Bernard.
  • Carter, Thomas.
  • Childers, Erskine H.
  • Colley, Harry.
  • Corry, Martin J.
  • Crowley, Fred H.
  • Daly, Francis J.
  • Derrig, Thomas.
  • De Valera, Eamon.
  • Flynn, Stephen.
  • Fogarty, Andrew.
  • Fogarty, Patrick J.
  • Friel, John.
  • Furlong, Walter.
  • Gorry, Patrick J.
  • Healy, John B.
  • Hilliard, Michael.
  • Kennedy, Michael J.
  • Killilea, Mark.
  • Kilroy, James.
  • Kissane, Eamon.
  • Lemass, Seán F.
  • Brady, Brian.
  • Brady, Seán.
  • Breathnach, Cormac.
  • Breen, Daniel.
  • Brennan, Thomas.
  • Little, Patrick J.
  • Loughman, Frank.
  • Lydon, Michael F.
  • McCann, John.
  • McCarthy, Seán.
  • MacEntee, Seán.
  • Morrissey, Michael.
  • Moylan, Seán.
  • O Cléirigh, Mícheál.
  • O'Connor, John S.
  • O'Grady, Seán.
  • O'Loghlen, Peter J.
  • O'Reilly, Matthew
  • O'Rourke, Daniel.
  • O'Sullivan, Ted.
  • Rice, Bridget M.
  • Ryan, James.
  • Ryan, Mary B.
  • Ryan, Robert.
  • Sheridan, Michael.
  • Skinner, Leo B.
  • Smith, Patrick.
  • Traynor, Oscar.
  • Walsh, Laurence.
  • Walsh, Richard.
  • Ward, Conn.

Níl

  • Beirne, John.
  • Blowick, Joseph.
  • Browne, Patrick.
  • Byrne, Alfred.
  • Cafferky, Dominick.
  • Coburn, James.
  • Cogan, Patrick.
  • Coogan, Eamonn.
  • Corish, Richard.
  • Cosgrave, Liam.
  • Costello, John A.
  • Davin, William.
  • Dockrell, Henry M.
  • Dockrell; Maurice E.
  • Donnellan, Michael.
  • Doyle, Peadar S.
  • Flanagan, Oliver J.
  • Hughes, James.
  • Keating, John.
  • Keyes, Michael.
  • Larkin, James.
  • Lynch, Finian.
  • McFadden, Michael Og.
  • McGilligan, Patrick.
  • McMenamin, Daniel.
  • Mongan, Joseph W.
  • Mulcahy, Richard.
  • Norton, William.
  • O'Donnell, William F.
  • O'Higgins, Thomas F.
  • O'Leary, John.
  • O'Sullivan, Martin.
  • Pattison, James P.
  • Roddy, Martin.
  • Sheldon, William A. W.
  • Spring, Daniel.
Tellers:—Tá: Deputies Kissane and Kennedy; Níl: Deputies Doyle and Keyes.
Motion declared carried.
Top
Share