When progress was reported on this Money Resolution at 7 o'clock I was exposing the series of falsehoods upon which Deputy Lemass had based his contribution to the debate. As I said, there was a series of falsehoods, but there were three outstanding. The falsehoods were stated in this House and were repeated the following morning on the front page of the Fianna Fáil organ. Perhaps the Deputy remembers seeing it. He was not in the House when I began my reply and I am glad to see he is here now. In relation to the £17,250,000 capital expenditure scheme by the ex-chairman and Board of Córas Iompair Éireann the Deputy said that those figures existed only in my imagination.
Committee on Finance. - Transport Bill, 1949—Money Resolution (Resumed).
As far as they could be checked from any published document.
Do not start to mend your hand already.
That is what I said. Do not misquote me.
As far as could be obtained from any officers of Córas Iompair Éireann.
Surely the Minister is not quoting from the Irish Press?
I think it would be a pity if I did not. I have already given the reason why the statement was made in this House. The principal reason it was made was to provide this four-column headline in the Irish Press the following morning: “Minister's Figures were Imaginative.”“No Córas Iompair Éireann Pension Fund”—a three-column heading. That was lie No. 2. “Córas Iompair Éireann Now Authorised to Spend £13,000,000”—lie No. 3.
Is that true?
In relation to the £17,500,000, I want to restate in Deputy Lemass's presence that those figures as I gave them were supplied to my Department by Mr. Reynolds, the ex-chairman of Córas Iompair Éireann. The figures which were given to the officers of my Department by the ex-chairman of Córas Iompair Éireann were given to me and I gave them to the House.
Was his own compensation included in that?
Whose compensation? Deputy Lemass does not get any compensation.
It does not arise.
Compensation for the ex-chairman of the company?
Portion of it, not in the capital expenditure.
Would the agreement arise in the capital expenditure?
No.
The Deputy must not interrupt.
I am not interrupting, only asking a question.
I am now challenging Deputy Lemass as to whether he repeats his charge that those figures were a fabrication that they were an invention of mine; or has he the grace to withdraw that outrageous charge of his? I challenge him to go to the ex-chairman of Córas Iompair Éireann and ask Mr. Reynolds whether he denies those figures. I assert still further that Deputy Lemass had consulted Mr. Reynolds and knew, when he was making that statement in this House, that it was not true.
I have already said the contrary.
The Deputy made a speech here on Thursday night that was founded on three major brazen lies. That is number one. Number two was that——
The Minister may not accuse the Deputy of telling lies.
Very well, they were three brazen falsehoods.
Is simple language not to be preferred?
When I am accused in this House and those accusations get the headlines in this rag, when a Deputy like Deputy Lemass, who is supposed to have some sense of responsibility, gets up here and accuses me of being deliberately dishonest in my approach to this whole matter, when he accuses me of deliberately trying to mislead this House and the people of the country, when he accuses me of misrepresentation, of distortion— not only that, but invention—am I not entitled to reply to that, am I not bound to do so, am I not bound to expose the humbug and hypocrisy?
And we are all entitled to know what the truth is.
You are going to hear it. The figures given, number one, the £17,250,000, were the figures supplied by Mr. Reynolds to the Department of Industry and Commerce. I never knew of those figures, nor did I see them, until they were given to me by the officers of the Department. That is truth number one. Number two, the Deputy's statement that there was no superannuation or pension fund and no trustees, that was rammed home here to-day as a falsehood, by the Minister for Finance, and Deputy Lemass was listening and did not question it in his second speech.
Quite the reverse.
Does the Deputy still assert there are no trustees or fund?
There are now.
The Deputy started juggling and throwing millions around the House—he was accustomed to throwing millions around the country for a long time—and arrived at this in the Irish Press the following morning: “Córas Iompair Éireann now authorised to spend £13,000,000.” Sir James Milne and the Bill authorised the new board to incur capital expenditure of £13,000,000! Entirely false and wrong. Those are the three main points. Why should a Deputy base his speech, which lasted for an hour, on three major falsehoods which could so easily be shown to be falsehoods?
Show it. Do not merely say it.
I have shown it. The Deputy is in the last ditch, and he knows it.
I will be speaking again on this Bill.
Of course the Deputy will, and nothing will stop him; but, mind you, there is a difference—the Deputy has been found out. His speech was the speech of a desperate man. There is no question about it, only a desperate man would base an hour's speech on three major falsehoods of that type, that can be so easily controverted and that have been so easily controverted. The Deputy was fighting for his political life. He has been entirely discredited in relation to this whole transport muddle and yet he has the effrontery to get up here and tell me and tell this Government that we are responsible for the position, that it was we who made the company bankrupt.
Let me tell the Deputy something, and I want the House to pay special attention to it. In 1947, the directors of Córas Iompair Éireann approached Deputy Lemass, who was then Minister for Industry and Commerce, for permission to increase charges, to an extent that would enable them to earn an additional £1,000,000. They got that permission and they increased the charges, but notwithstanding the fact that they got the permission in 1947 to increase the charges to bring them in an additional £1,000,000, they lost in 1947 almost £1,000,000.
Why?
Now, that was the effect of allowing them to increase the charges to the tune of £1,000,000—to save them from losing £2,000,000. On the 19th February, 1948, the day after the change of Government, they applied for permission to increase charges still further. Mark the date.
There is no significance in it.
None whatever; but here is something of some significance. I saw the ex-chairman of Córas Iompair Éireann for the first time since I became Minister on the 3rd March, 1948, within a fortnight of the change of Government. We were discussing the parlous financial position of Córas Iompair Éireann as it was then, and amongst other things which the ex-chairman said was the following: "That if the company were an ordinary joint stock company they would now be at the point at which the debenture holders would be putting in the Receiver."
May I ask what the Minister is quoting from?
I am quoting from a note of the interview, made by a very senior officer of my Department.
There is a rule of the House about that, is there not—that the whole of the document must be tabled?
Or the quotation must cease, if objection is taken.
If the Deputy wants to smother the truth——
I want the whole document.
I will give the Deputy and the House the contents of far more documents than he ever dreamt of.
I am merely drawing attention to the rules.
I am accused, and this Government is accused. The Deputy wants the rules to suit his own hand and to change the rules as the game changes for or against him. That is an old trick.
The rules do not change.
No, Sir, but there are certain people who would like to change them to suit their own hand. If on the 3rd March, 1948, within 14 days of Deputy Lemass ceasing to be Minister for Industry and Commerce, the ex-chairman said: "If Córas Iompair Éireann were an ordinary joint stock company at that date the debenture holders would be putting in the Receiver" and in the face of that——
That is nonsense on the face of it. Their debenture interest had been paid in full.
You can go and argue that with the ex-chairman.
That is why I do not think he said it.
Is the Deputy now suggesting—it would be worthy of him if he were—that a senior officer of my Department, an officer who served with distinction under him when he was Minister, has deliberately concocted that?
No, Sir. I say that in March, 1948, debenture interests were paid in full.
It is typical of you. Have you one single decent streak left in you?
Is not that true, that debenture interest was paid in full?
At that date?
At that date.
Do not be quibbling. Whatever had been paid or had not been paid, the position was so serious that the chairman, who had the full knowledge of the facts before him, made the statement that if they were an ordinary joint stock company the debenture holders would be putting in the Receiver at that point. That is the answer to all this frothy nonsense we have had from the other side about our being responsible for it. Deputy Lemass ought to be ashamed of himself, very much ashamed of himself. I suggest that if the Deputy had any real sense of shame he would not speak on this point much less try to shift the blame on to other shoulders. The Deputy had the effrontery to conclude with the sentence that he was not going to allow me to put the responsibility for this mess on his shoulders.
I do not want to go into this thing in very much detail. I can tell the Deputy what the five other directors thought about it. This is a copy of a memorandum sent to me on the 9th April, 1948, by the shareholders' directors of Córas Iompair Éireann. It is signed by: W.E. Wylie, H.B. Pollock, C.D. Hewat, John McCann, J.F. Costello. The Minister for Finance has already quoted from it to show why they made money during two years. May I give a couple more quotations from it? "This year's working——"
I am raising an objection to any document being quoted unless it is tabled. That is the rule of the House.
That is the rule of the House that the document must be tabled.
I knew the Deputy would start squealing.
Would the Chair explain to the Minister the rules of the House?
That is the rule. If objection is taken to a document, it must be tabled in full.
It is a protection for all Deputies.
I knew he would squeal and run away.
Any document, other than a public document, must be tabled, if objection is taken to quotations from it.
He can quote any part, if he tables it.
The Deputy is not able to listen to the truth and the Deputy does not want the House or the country to learn the truth.
Will you table the truth?
Run, rabbit run!
I would not ask the Deputy to run but he had better not interrupt.
I am not seeking to put anything over on the Deputy. I am giving him the date on which it was sent, by whom it was sent.
Will it be tabled.
The Deputy wants to run away from it.
The Minister is doing the running now.
The Deputy is entitled to any little petty cheap subterfuge——
Is it in order to call an attempt to enforce the rules of the House a petty cheap subterfuge?
The rule of the House is that, unless it is a public document available to the House, if objection is taken to quotation from it, quotation must cease or the document must be tabled. That is the law.
On a point of order. Is a document signed by directors of a public company a confidential document?
I made it quite clear. If it is a public document available to everybody, all right. If it is not, and objection is taken, it must be tabled so that all will be on an equality.
If the document is signed by responsible officials, I think it is unfair to question their integrity.
We only want to see the document.
I have no doubt that what is in it is true.
Have you seen it?
I will accept that the senior officers of the Department are telling the truth.
So will I, but I want to see what they are saying.
This is from the five directors, not from a senior officer.
Are they the directors of a private company or a public company? Was Córas Iompair Éireann a private company?
That is not a point of order.
It may be a point of information. I would like to know from the Minister if they were directors of a private company or a public company.
Deputy Lemass has now served his purpose.
I would prefer to have the document tabled or a promise that it will be tabled. On that, I will agree to the Minister quoting any part of it.
I am prepared to table this document.
Then quote away. The document will be available to all of us.
The document, which was signed by the five directors, was sent on the 9th April. Is the Deputy disappointed?
No.
"This year's working to date has satisfied us that losses are fundamental to the transport system at present in operation and that exceptional circumstances, such as fuel shortages, strikes, wage increases, etc., only accentuate the losses. We are regretfully driven to the conclusion that there is no middle way and that the combination of public policy and private profit-earning capital cannot succeed. In conclusion, we are of the opinion that if a national transport system such as exists to-day and which we are satisfied cannot be operated except at a loss, is necessary for the country's welfare, then the private capital invested in such undertaking should be adequately safeguarded and ensured of a fair return."
They said that publicly.
I gave you, as on the 3rd March, 1948, within 14 days of Deputy Lemass leaving the Department of Industry and Commerce, what the ex-chairman thought about the company. I am now giving you, as on the 9th April, six weeks after the change of Government, what the other five directors thought about it and its future, and I am giving that to refute this outrageous charge and suggestion that this Government is or was in any way responsible for the financial position. That was the position when we took over and nobody knows that better than Deputy Lemass. The Deputy and his colleagues have been trying to suggest that, because I did not agree to the proposals made to me by the company, that is the reason they are in their present financial situation. The Deputy took very good care, when he was speaking this evening, not to enumerate the proposals they made to me. The Deputy did not give us any indication whether he would or would not have sanctioned these proposals.
I think I did.
Would the Deputy have sanctioned the proposal for still further increases; for cutting down on maintenance to the tune of 2,500 men?
I would not, and I said so.
The Deputy heard the Minister for Finance this evening. He did not challenge him.
When I was speaking I specifically dealt with all these points —the branch lines, maintenance and charges, and expressed my own view on them.
The Deputy did not deal with the four proposals put up to us.
I did.
The four proposals were: increased charges, cut on maintenance to the tune of dispensing with 2,500 men, close down of branch lines —there was no such thing as qualification about economic or otherwise—all branch lines, to the tune of dispensing with another 1,000 men—and restricting private transport. Those are the proposals on which I am to be carpeted here by Deputy Lemass because I did not agree to them.
I did not say so.
The Deputy is always changing his stance—just quibbling and shifting from one place to another.
What seems obvious is that you did agree to it. That is what your Bill suggests.
Private transport has not been restricted.
Is it going to be?
Two thousand five hundred men have not been dismissed.
Are they going to be?
All the branch lines have not been closed down.
Are they going to be? There are three questions—answer them.
Does the Deputy think he is in a little Fianna Fáil cumann or in Dáil Éireann?
Somebody is dodging the questions.
I have quite a number of other documents which I should like to go through. I always keep a little of my ammunition dry and ready and there is plenty of it here to show that, if there was ever a case of shortsighted policy, this is clearly it.
I want to remind Deputies again of some of the reasons why the chairman, or ex-chairman, found himself in the position on 3rd March in which he made the statement I have already quoted. I do not want to go back over them or to repeat any of the things I have already said, but I want to remind Deputies that, in June of 1948, this company was unable to pay the interest due on the debentures. I want to remind Deputies that, in October, 1948, in the middle of the Milne inquiry and investigations, when I was informed of the company's intention to proceed with another scheme at a cost of nearly £1,000,000 at Broadstone, I sent a request to the company and the answer I got was that they regretted they could not see their way to accede to my request as Minister to postpone or defer the Broadstone £1,000,000 scheme, until such time as the Government got the report of the experts who were considering the position. Only very reluctantly at a time which was within two weeks of the time when they had not got enough money in the till to pay the wages of the staff, did they agree not to go ahead with that scheme, and only very reluctantly and after trying to put the greatest possible persuasion on me, did they agree to take whatever steps could be taken at that stage to cancel the contract for the 90 or 94 locomotive boilers, which were not only entirely unnecessary but, even if they had been supplied, would have been of the wrong design. We got the headline in "Truth in the News" the previous day: "£4,000,000 Subsidy for the new Transport Board." That was on Thursday morning and on the Friday morning we got this headline. I got all that from the Deputy who got up here on Wednesday last to lecture me on truth, on honesty and on being straightforward.
It is very hard for the general public to know what was the truth.
As regards the general public, or that small proportion of the general public who confine their reading to this paper, they will never get the truth. May I ask Deputy Lemass if he will be kind enough to consult Mr. Percy Reynolds with regard to this sum of £17,250,000, even for his own peace of mind? I know that the Deputy would be terribly uneasy if he had made any accusation against me which was not absolutely true, and I would be worried if the Deputy's mind should be disturbed. His mind will, and can be, set very easily at rest on this matter by Mr. Reynolds.
Is the Minister seriously suggesting that that was put forward as a programme?
Yes; does the Deputy still challenge it?
Over what period of time?
Are you shifting your ground again?
Over what period of time? That is a fair question.
Some of it, seven years, and some of it, ten years. I think that, in relation to the £6,000,000 for locomotives, it was between ten and 20 years.
And it compares with £13,000,000 for five years.
There is no £13,000,000, and the Deputy knows it. Do not be repeating what is so obviously false.
How much has been spent in five years?
There is no £13,000,000.
How much is there?
The Deputy is not going to catch me with his little tricks.
The Minister said he was accepting Sir James Milne's estimate of capital needs.
Who said it?
You said it introducing the Bill. I will read the quotation, if you like.
The Deputy can read what he likes, but he will not find £13,000,000 in the Bill.
£10,500,000 and £2,500,000 make £13,000,000.
There is no £13,000,000 in the Bill. There is a sum of £7,000,000.
Plus the £2,500,000 we voted last week. Is that not right?
I am not admitting that.
What is going to happen to the £2,500,000 which we voted last week?
It will go very largely to pay the debts incurred——
The £2,500,000 for capital purposes.
It will be spent between now and 31st March. It does not go into the Bill.
It is still £2,500,000 on to £7,000,000, is it not?
The Deputy is not going to get away with that. £13,000,000 —read the Irish Press again. I know that you can scarcely believe you put it in, but it is there.
£10,500,000 and £2,500,000 make £13,000,000.
There is no £10,500,000.
Sir James said there should be. Will you agree to that?
The Deputy spent the first few days denouncing Sir James Milne as a British expert. He had nothing but contempt for him, but I declare that he and Deputy Derrig have wrapped Sir James and his report around their necks. They are sleeping with it. They cannot get up here and talk on this transport business for five minutes without quoting Sir James Milne. I am delighted to know that he made such an impression on the two Deputies. Does Deputy Childers wish to say something?
The Deputy said that we would know nothing at all about the Bill, if we had not read the Report.
Sir James is by far the most lucid of any of us in his observations about railways.
That is not paying a very high compliment to him. I do not know whether you, Sir, or the House, learned much about the Money Resolution, but I move the Money Resolution as on the Order Paper.
I understood the Minister for Finance to say to-day that, although £7,000,000 is the limit put in the Bill on the new transport stock that may be issued, it is in fact unlikely that it will be issued. Was I correct in that understanding?
If the Deputy had any doubt about it, he should have addressed that question to the Minister for Finance.
The Minister for Finance adopted his usual tactics of running out of the House as soon as I spoke.
He is afraid of his life of the Deputy.
I think so.
There is no doubt about it.
He has not been here in the House while I was talking once in 20 years.
You could not blame him for that.
It shows his discrimination.
Question put.
The Committee divided: Tá, 74; Nil, 51.
Tá
- Beirne, John.
- Belton, John.
- Blowick, Joseph.
- Brennan, Joseph P.
- Browne, Noel C.
- Browne, Patrick.
- Byrne, Alfred.
- Byrne, Alfred Patrick.
- Coburn, James.
- Collins, Seán.
- Commons, Bernard.
- Connolly, Roderick J.
- Corish, Brendan.
- Cosgrave, Liam.
- Costello, John A.
- Cowan, Peadar.
- Crotty, Patrick J.
- Davin, William.
- Desmond, Daniel.
- Dockrell, Maurice E.
- Donnellan, Michael.
- Doyle, Peadar S.
- Dunne, Seán.
- Esmonde, Sir John L.
- Everett, James.
- Fagan, Charles.
- Finucane, Patrick.
- Fitzpatrick, Michael.
- Flynn, John.
- Giles, Patrick.
- Halliden, Patrick J.
- Hickey, James.
- Hogan, Patrick.
- Hughes, Joseph.
- Keane, Seán.
- Keyes, Michael.
- Kinane, Patrick.
- Kyne, Thomas A.
- Larkin, James.
- Lehane, Con.
- Lehane, Patrick D.
- McAuliffe, Patrick.
- MacBride, Seán.
- MacEoin, Seán.
- McFadden, Michael Og.
- McGilligan, Patrick.
- McMenamin, Daniel.
- McQuillan, John.
- Madden, David J.
- Mongan, Joseph W.
- Morrissey, Daniel.
- Mulcahy, Richard.
- Murphy, William J.
- Norton, William.
- O'Donnell, Patrick.
- O'Gorman, Patrick J.
- O'Higgins, Michael J.
- O'Higgins, Thomas F.
- O'Higgins, Thomas F. (Jun.).
- O'Reilly, Patrick.
- O'Sullivan, Martin.
- Palmer, Patrick W.
- Pattison, James P.
- Redmond, Bridget M.
- Reldy, James.
- Reynolds, Mary.
- Roddy, Joseph.
- Rooney, Eamonn.
- Sheehan, Michael.
- Sheldon, William A. W.
- Spring, Daniel.
- Sweetman, Gerard.
- Timoney, John J.
- Tully, John.
Níl
- Aiken, Frank.
- Bartley, Gerald.
- Beegan, Patrick.
- Boland, Gerald.
- Bourke, Dan.
- Butler, Bernard.
- Carter, Thomas.
- Childers, Erskine H.
- Collins, James J.
- Corry, Martin J.
- Crowley, Honor Mary.
- Davern, Michael J.
- Derrig, Thomas.
- De Valera, Eamon.
- Flynn, Stephen.
- Friel, John.
- Gilbride, Eugene.
- Gorry, Patrick J.
- Harris, Thomas.
- Hilliard, Michael.
- Kennedy, Michael J.
- Kilroy, James.
- Kissane, Eamon.
- Kitt, Michael F.
- Lahiffe, Robert.
- Lemass, Seán F.
- Brady, Seán.
- Breathnach, Cormac.
- Brennan, Thomas.
- Buckley, Seán.
- Burke, Patrick.
- Lydon, Michael F.
- Lynch, John.
- McEllistrim, Thomas.
- MacEntee, Seán.
- McGrath, Patrick.
- Maguire, Patrick J.
- Moylan, Seán.
- Ó Briain, Donnchadh.
- O'Grady, Seán.
- O'Reilly, Matthew.
- Ormonde, John.
- O'Rourke, Daniel.
- O'Sullivan, Ted.
- Ruttledge, Patrick J.
- Ryan, Mary B.
- Ryan, Robert.
- Sheridan, Michael.
- Traynor, Oscar.
- Walsh, Richard.
- Walsh, Thomas.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies Doyle and Kyne: Níl, Deputies Kissane and Kennedy.
Question declared carried.
Resolution reported and agreed to.