Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 7 Dec 1949

Vol. 118 No. 14

Transport Bill, 1949—Committee Stage (Resumed).

Debate resumed on amendment No. 7:—

To delete sub-section (2).—Deputies Martin O'Sullivan, William Davin.

Captain Cowan

Might I ask the Minister if he has considered the point put to him last night—to give the House information as to the type of board visualised by him; whether it is to be a whole-time board; whether it is to be a board of persons who will be concerned with general policy or whether it is to be a board of experts who will have considerable experience in the ordinary technical management of a transport company?

Might I ask the Minister, also, if he has made up his mind on the matters that were dealt with here yesterday evening in regard to the position of the general manager? As the Minister knows, from all parts of the House the general opinion was that it would not be desirable that the general manager of the company should be a member of the board. The point was made that if the general manager is a member of the bcard it may affect the working of the company seriously because the board may have to consider the general manager's own administration, and it was felt that the board, to some extent, would have their hands tied when discussing the administration of the general manager while the general manager himself was a member of the board.

Further, if the board does its work well, as it should be done, naturally they must, from time to time, call in senior experts or officials of the company. These officials or experts may have a viewpoint completely at variance with the viewpoint of the general manager. The position may be that the viewpoint of a particular expert may be accepted by the board and, in those circumstances, the general manager might feel that had it not been for the representations or the evidence or the information given by the particular expert and member of the company, the board might not have taken or adopted a view contrary to his own particular view. In these circumstances, bad feeling could conceivably arise between the general manager and that particular official or expert. That has been known to happen in many concerns. The general manager, being an ordinary human being with ordinary human reactions, may feel that that particular expert or official should be subjected to supervision that was undesirable and that might, in the long run, lead to his resignation.

I would ask the Minister at this stage to indicate whether he has considered the matter since last night and whether he can now give the House his views on the matters that have been raised on this particular amendment.

Mr. Larkin

I feel that the discussion we had last night on this particular matter of the composition of the board will have served a useful purpose. In the course of the discussion many of the members—even while standing on their feet—I think, were in the process of clarifying their own minds. The appeal made by Deputy Cowan to the Minister should be responded to at this moment if the Minister, since last night, has had an opportunity of determining his attitude to the various points put forward.

The board, as such, is, if you like, the keystone of the arch which we are trying to erect and the main part of the operating machinery. While, from all sides of the House, there will be a desire to try and leave this Bill in its final stages in such a manner as will be most effective and helpful to the national transport industry, it is important that, in doing that, we put the right emphasis on the right spot. It occurred to me, listening to the discussion last night, that we have at first two principal questions to decide and on which we would, I think, like guidance from the Minister.

The first is whether the board is going to be what we would call a lay board—a board composed of men and women selected for their general capacity, general knowledge and general competency, and who are of sufficient stature to carry the responsibility that will devolve upon them as members of the board. Alternatively, are we going to have a board composed of technical experts, largely if you like, holding membership of the board because of the technical or executive position which they hold in the company? Having got that particular matter clear, then the question in regard to the general manager would be one of lesser importance—at least to my mind—from the point of view of the value of the board in relation to the Act as a whole.

In so far as we have a general guidance on that principal question, the other matter, I think, that the Minister might give us some guidance on and which would further help to clarify our minds with regard to the position of the general manager, is whether the board is going to be a lay board which will be a board composed only of part-time members or only of whole-time members or whether we will have, as we see now in regard to some analogous boards in Great Britain, a board composed of some part-time and some whole-time members.

I think one point that was stressed here was that if we have a board of part-time members there is quite clearly the difficulty that if on that board are sitting executive members of the company—either the general manager or other officers—it must almost of necessity, by virtue of their weight on the board, bring about a position where the part-time members will find themselves largely dependent upon, and frequently influenced by, the opinions of the technical experts. Quite clearly, a board of part-time members cannot for obvious reasons acquire the same grasp of the general functions of the national transport industry, particularly from such details as would be available to part-time members. They will have other outside commitments. Many of us are aware that where there are part-time members of boards of this character, it often becomes a matter of formal discussion at meetings without any adequate information or any proper perusal of reports which may be available. The part-time members show a readiness to accept the advice given them by the technical experts. That would be more particularly the case if one of the executive officers of the company were actually sitting as a member of the board. Many of the difficulties that have presented themselves to Deputies could be clarified if the Minister were able to assist us on the general principles raised on both sides of the House with regard to the composition of the board. The matter is so important that at this stage we cannot immediately reconcile our views. It is a matter we should not rush because quite clearly unless we do reach agreement as to the type of board best suited to carry out the functions which will have to be discharged under this Act, we shall not be giving the Act a fair opportunity of working successfully and we shall certainly be placing the members of the future board in a position in which they will not have a fair and reasonable opportunity to carry out what is going to be a most difficult and complicated job. If we had some indication as to what way the Minister's mind was working it would help us at this stage of the debate.

Mr. Morrissey

I think I should remind Deputies again of the wording of this sub-section. Many of the speeches that have been made in support of the amendment and against the sub-section have been made as if this sub-section were imposing on the company the general manager as a member of the board. It is entirely permissive, as I said last night. The initiative in putting the general manager on the board must be taken by the board itself, subject to the consent of the Minister. I assume that a board of directors, a board of responsible men, would only seek to appoint the general manager for the time being as a member of the board if they were satisfied that it would be to the advantage of the board and the working of the whole system by having him as a member of the board. As I said last night, there is nothing new in this. It is a very common thing in relation to both public and private companies. I think in every country where a board finds itself with a person of outstanding ability and capacity as its general manager, very frequently is he made a member of the board.

On the question of the board itself and the type of board you are going to have, it is not just easy at this particular stage to say whether it is to be entirely non-technical, partly technical, full-time, part-time or both. One thing I will say: I do not believe that it should be a technical board entirely. Personally, I should prefer to see a board of competent men, men of general knowledge and capacity, men who can bring to bear on the various problems of a national transport concern ordinary commonsense together with a knowledge of business and of commerce, labour conditions, social conditions, etc. But it may be essential to have on the board some technical men. For instance, I would consider myself that the general manager of a concern of the size of Córas Iompair Éireann should be a member of the board. I would further consider that it would be desirable, if a suitable person were available and prepared to accept the position, that a very competent accountant or a person with a very competent knowledge of finance should be a member of the board.

To the question as to whether it should be a full-time or a part-time board, it is not quite easy to say "Yes" or "No". You might be able to get very suitable personnel for a part-time board but it might be very difficult to get the type of person whom you would like to put on a board to act in a full-time capacity on the board. If it is to be a board of laymen and a full-time board, at the moment anyway I find it difficult to see how you can keep them employed full-time if they have not technical knowledge and experience of the various aspects of both road and rail transport. So far as I am concerned— if Deputies want to make any capital out of this they can—I have not, nor has the Government, definitely decided yet as to the exact type of personnel we are going to have on the board. So far as I am concerned I would be influenced to some extent, perhaps to a large extent, by the views expressed here from all sides of the House. I should like Deputies to appreciate that it is not just easy to say at this stage that you are going to have a board which is composed entirely of laymen or a board composed of laymen with some technical men. It is very difficult to say at the moment whether it should be an entirely full-time board or whether some members should be full-time and others part-time. What I am now saying may not be very helpful to Deputies, but in any case I am speaking of the position as I see it at the moment.

Coming back to the question of the general manager, I would say, whether this is to be a board of laymen or a board which is partly composed of laymen and partly of technical men, I think it should be within the power of the board, subject to the consent of the Minister, to appoint the general manager a director of the board. I would remind Deputies that this board is going to have a very difficult task. Deputies need hardly be reminded of what has been stated over and over again in the debate—it has been mentioned by Deputy Lemass and it is quite true—that the railway end of the problem is the big end of the problem, and it may be necessary, if we can, to get a person who would have railway experience. I doubt very much whether we can or not. There is no doubt that there is a need for a person either on the executive staff or on the board with a competent, practical and experienced knowledge of railway matters. I have no desire to appear to be unduly obstinate about this matter, but I think Deputies ought to realise that all I am asking in the sub-section to which this amendment is down is that it should be made possible for the board, if they so desire, or if, in their wisdom they think it will be an advantage and a help, to have on the board the person who for the time being may be general manager of the company.

Mr. Davin

I am as anxious as any Deputy on this side of the House that the scheme enshrined in this Bill should be a success and I am certain that the success or failure of the transport policy of the present Government will expose itself before the end of the period of office of the members of the board provided for in Section 6. Everything the Minister has said, in my opinion, makes a good case for the setting up or creation of a permanent board or a board of full-time members with experience and knowledge and the desire to clean up the mess which we now find ourselves in so far as the transport industry is concerned. I am not fully convinced, however, by the remarks of the Minister that he has made a good case for this permissive authority to be given to the members of the new board, subject of course to his own sanction.

I hope I am correct in assuming that the present chairman of Córas Iompair Éireann will be the chairman under the framework of the Bill. Whether it is the present chairman or some other person is appointed to the position, he will be the senior member of the board, the co-ordinating officer, the person whose responsibility it will be to see that the members of the board, the executive officers, and all those employed by the company will play their part in making the scheme a success. Supposing we had a general manager with a strong, dominating personality and a good background, is it not possible for such a general manager, if and when he becomes a member of the board, to be in a position at board meetings to persuade the majority of his colleagues to take a view different from that of the chairman? If such a position arose, it would not be a very comfortable position for the person who would be occupying the position of chairman and directly responsible to the Government for the success or failure of the whole scheme.

I have listened very attentively in discussions of this kind to Deputies who talk about the necessity for getting the service of technicians or experts. Do not compare the working of a transport industry, however, with the working of a clothing manufacturing concern. While it is essential to have tailors, cutters, etc., in such a concern, and they are technical people, apparently it is the practice in that particular trade to get as directors not people who have had technical experience of the business, but people who will represent the moneyed interest and who will see that the wages of the tailors and cutters, etc., will not be the first charge on the successful working of the industry, but that the maximum rate of interest to the people who put their money into the concern will be the first charge by way of dividends.

The Minister indicated that it would be necessary, and I agree it will be necessary in a big concern of this kind or any other public service corporation, to have a man with the qualifications of an accountant. Without any disrespect to the best accountants in the country, I suggest that the Government could select one of the ablest accountants but that, if he had no previous knowledge and experience of the working of the transport industry, not alone would he not know what he was talking about at the first board meeting, but if you sent him to a station office to audit the accounts he would not be able to give a truthful certificate as to whether they were correct or not because, without experience and knowledge of rates and charges, he would not know whether the goods had been properly charged up or invoiced correctly. I am only quoting that as one instance.

The general manager idea is running all through this permissive section in the Bill. In the old days, the general managers were born for their job. They belonged to a certain select social circle. Those responsible for putting them in gave them the opportunity to start in the service on the lowest rung of the ladder and they worked up from the bottom to the top. That is, I understand, what was done by Sir James Milne, who is the author of this very informative report. I do not claim to be an expert in transport or railway working, although I have had 40 years' experience of railways. I regard this as the most informative report I have ever read in my career as a railway man and I would say that it is better understood by those who have worked in the railway transport industry than any report of any previous commission set up by this House or by the British Government when they were in control in this country. The other reports were framed by outsiders. This report, and all the information contained in it— and nobody, apparently, appreciates the value of it more than Deputy Lemass——

An Ceann Comhairle

Will the Deputy relate that to the amendment?

Mr. Davin

I was saying that the general managers in those days were born for their jobs. Notwithstanding that, they had to work up from the bottom to the top. If we are lucky enough to find a general manager who has been trained in that school, who has had that experience, and who has a strong personality and a good background, I invite the Minister to contemplate the position which might arise if on the board he is able, by his powerful personality, to carry his point of view and the majority of his colleagues with him against the viewpoint of the Minister.

That is the only point I am putting to the Minister in connection with this. I do not like the idea, but I appreciate what the Minister said—that he is anxious to get the viewpoint of the majority of Deputies before he takes a final decision on the whole matter, or even before he takes a final decision as to whether the board shall consist of persons who would be full-time or part-time or whether they should be technicians or otherwise. Every Deputy is anxious to share the responsibility for cleaning up the mess which exists. I am saying that regardless of who is responsible for the present position. It would pay this House to take much more time over this, as we passed an Estimate only a few days ago for the provision of a sum of £4,091,000 for Córas Iompair Éireann. What does the salary of the chairman or the members of the board or the general manager count for when compared with the necessity for the Government as a body to think carefully over the persons they are going to select to do this work, to give the individuals, whoever they may be, a fair chance and opportunity of carrying out the Government policy on behalf of the people within their first period of office?

Mr. Lemass

I do not think the Minister can have appreciated the difficulty caused for the Dáil by the statement he has just made. It is true that he asked us to express our views upon the character of the board to be set up under Section 6. We have been discussing that now for some time, but it is difficult to do so in view of the uncertainty which exists in the minds of the Government as to the type of board they want.

This is an important section of the Bill. The proposal which was brought to the Dáil in the Bill was that the undertakings of Córas Iompair Éireann and the Grand Canal Company should be acquired from their present owners and entrusted to a board to be established in accordance with the provisions of this section. One would have expected that the Government would have decided, in advance, the type of board best suited, in their view, to carry on these undertakings. One can make certain assumptions from the provisions of the Bill—the assumption that there will be a whole-time chairman and from various reports that have been circulating, of people who have been invited to act on the board, that a whole-time board was contemplated.

Mr. Morrissey

Nobody has been invited to act on the board.

Mr. Lemass

That allays a number of rumours that have been circulating.

Mr. McGilligan

Where did you hear the rumours?

Mr. Lemass

In every quarter of the town.

Mr. McGilligan

I must not have been visiting these quarters.

Mr. Lemass

That must be obvious.

Mr. McGilligan

They may be in the Deputy's imagination.

Mr. Lemass

Perhaps so. It is irrelevant. It seems to me that we can have three kinds of board. We can have a board similar to the Electricity Supply Board composed in part of people who are also holding executive positions in the board's organisation. When the Minister talks about technical people on the board, I take it that is what he has in mind, that the board might consist, in whole or in part, of executive officers of the organisation: the general manager, the accountant, the traffic manager, the works manager and so forth. That type of organisation exists here. The Electricity Supply Board is a fair example, and it is quite common in other countries.

Mr. Morrissey

Does not the sub-section itself, which the Deputy is proposing to delete, indicate that I do not want that type of board?

Mr. Lemass

I am only trying to get the position clarified. My view is that if we are going to have that kind of board it is clear that Deputy O'Sullivan's amendment cannot be persisted in, because if the board is to consist in whole or in part of executive officers of the undertaking, one of the members of it must be the general manager. If you were to have that kind of board, executive officers nominated by the Minister, it would be impossible if, instead of taking the works manager you took a shop superintendent and put him on the board over the works manager. It would be an impossible position if, instead of taking the accountant you took a clerk in the accountant's office and put him on the board. If we are going to have a board, in whole or in part, of executive officers, I think the Dáil should insist on naming the executive officers that the Minister could nominate on the board. If, on the other hand, the board is to consist of persons appointed to exercise a general supervisory function in relation to the organisation and which will not include executive officers, then it seems to me there is point in Deputy O'Sullivan's amendment.

I do not think that some of the arguments advanced by Deputy Davin and by Deputy Cowan were valid. I think that if the board is to consist, in the main, of persons who are not themselves executive officers then the position of the general manager would be weakened by appointment to the board in so far as the general manager has the duty of carrying out the policy decided on by the board and implementing its decisions. I think he will be in a much stronger position in dealing with the organisation and with people having business with it if he faces them as an executive officer of an authority of which he is not himself a member. I think that most people who have experience in business administration will realise the strength of that argument.

The third kind of board is that for which there is the analogy of the Irish Sugar Company and some other State organisations created in closer conformity to the normal business practice, a board that consists of directors remunerated by fee whose responsibility is very largely confined to attending board meetings, and expressing their views at board meetings on proposals brought to the board by the managing director or chairman or executive officers. I do not favour the type of board which would include executive officers. I admit that my experience is not very extensive, but, such as it is, it has, I will admit prejudiced me against that type of board. I think, for the reasons I gave here last night, a board consisting of executive officers will become a prey to the type of internal politics that always grows up in large organisations and will suffer in its efficiency on that account.

I think that the organisation which we are setting up now, one which is to be responsible for the maintenance of different kinds of transport facilities over the greater part of the country, would need a board of whole-time directors without executive responsibility. At least, it should have available to it directors who are free to devote a very large part of their time to the supervision and inspection of the organisation. If that is so, and if the Minister agrees with that type of board, and if the Government ultimately decide in favour of that type of board, then I think we should put into this Bill some provision which will ensure that that is the kind of board we will get. There seems to be, so far as I can follow the speeches that have been made, a substantial amount of agreement in favour of a board excluding executive officers. If that is so, then I think the Dáil should take steps to make sure that it will get that kind of board by putting into the Bill some such amendment as I have suggested.

As the Bill stands the organisation could start off with a non-executive board that did not include executive officers, but persons brought in because of their general competence, and given functions of a general supervisory character. At a later stage it could be transferred into the other type of board under Section 6. The Minister is not limited in any way. He can either pick people of general experience, knowledge and competence and put them on the board and give them supervisory functions, or he can drop them and go into the board's organisation and pick out people who hold, and will continue to hold after their appointment to the board, executive positions there.

Mr. Morrissey

Is that not true of many boards that have been set up and are now in existence?

Mr. Lemass

So far as I know the only board analogous to this one which has been created so far is the Electricity Supply Board. It is a board which consists, with the exception of one, of a number of persons who are remunerated on a whole-time basis.

Mr. Morrissey

What I am saying is that it was not specified in the Bills what the personnel was to be.

Mr. Lemass

I do not know. It is true, probably, as far as statutory organisations like the turf board and the tourist board are concerned, but the other State organisations, the sugar company, the steel company, and so forth, were, I think, established under the authority of law, in conformity with the provisions of the Companies Acts. They were, in fact, directed by boards of part-time directors with, perhaps, a whole-time chairman or managing director.

This organisation we are dealing with is, in many respects, far more important than any of these, excluding the Electricity Supply Board, because of the widespread ramifications of its work and its possible effects upon the whole national economy. We should, I think, have a clear idea as to the type of board that is going to direct it. I can see arguments in favour of the three kinds of board I have mentioned. I have expressed a personal preference for one of them, but it is not a very strong preference. If the Minister expects the Dáil to help him to improve the Bill and to put forward suggestions which will make it work more efficiently, he must tell us his own views as to which type of board it is intended will follow the enactment of the Bill. If we get that information we can consider whether any variation or amendment of the Bill is necessary. Without that information the Dáil will be working very largely in the dark.

I have to decide, assuming Deputy O'Sullivan's amendment is put to the Dáil, whether I am in favour of it or against it. I would be against it if there is any intention to put on the board other executive officers. If there are other executive officers there, the general manager must be there. If the board is not going to include any other executive officers, the weight of the argument is in favour of Deputy O'Sullivan's amendment and the deletion of the sub-section, which mentions the probability of the appointment of a general manager to the board.

The only issue I ever came up against in connection with transport administration which has a bearing on this question was the desirability of having a general manager at all. Deputy Davin will remember when the Great Southern Railways Company had no general manager, when the whole board used to meet to discuss whether a stationmaster would be transferred or a porter promoted to the stationmaster grade. The whole work of the organisation went into slow motion on that account and there was a very strong demand expressed in the Dáil —possibly by Deputy Davin—in 1932 or 1933 that the Great Southern Railways board should be compelled by legislation to appoint a general manager, and when it did the organisation benefited by their action.

There should be an executive head of the organisation, someone who can bring the problems of the organisation to the board. He does not have to be a member of the board if the board does not consist of other persons with executive functions. I think the work which this board will have to do for a large number of years will be of such a character that it will be almost impossible to get it done by members who are not free to give the most of their time to it.

I have considered whether, in the new circumstances, it will be practicable to carry on this organisation under a board of part-time, fee-remunerated directors, and I think it would not. Therefore, I have indicated my preference and on the basis of that preference I would have to support Deputy O'Sullivan's amendment. If, however, the board is going to be of a different character, I may have to take a different view in regard to it.

Captain Cowan

I think the Minister has very fairly said to the House that he would like to have the assistance of the House in making up his mind as to what type of board there should be, and he told us very frankly that he has not made up his mind whether it will be a whole or a part-time board, a technical or a non-technical board. I think that is being very frank with the House and, as the Minister has asked for an expression of opinion, I would like to say that my own view is that the board ought to be a whole-time board. I did express on the Second Reading the view that probably the best type of board for the successful running of the company would be perhaps a board of experts who had grown up in the service of the company and gained experience.

Mr. McGilligan

Whole-time and expert?

Captain Cowan

Yes.

Mr. McGilligan

An expert without necessarily being an executive officer of the board?

Captain Cowan

Transport, I understand, is a very technical business and you can only become really proficient in it by long experience of its working.

Mr. McGilligan

I am merely making the point that a man might be an expert, having grown up in the service of the board, and yet without becoming a member of it.

Captain Cowan

The type of board I can visualise is a board of experts or, if you like, executive members who have an executive capacity and executive knowledge. So far as that particular type of board is concerned, I do not think it would be a success unless there was as chairman of it a member of this House, either a Minister or a Parliamentary Secretary. It would have to be completely a State run organisation. We have a somewhat similar board in the Army—the Council of Defence. The Council of Defence has as chairman the Minister for Defence and it is composed of officers holding certain positions who may be, and in fact are, removed every three years and the board is changed in that way. That board runs very satisfactorily.

I can visualise that type of board where particular executive officers would be members under the chairmanship of a Minister or a Parliamentary Secretary. I can see we have not reached that stage where we could get agreement on that particular type of board, and that being so, I think the general viewpoint and the one that I would support is that that board should be whole-time and should be composed of people of experience, particularly experience in the running and administration of a transport company.

Mr. Lemass

That limits the field of selection to the existing directors.

Captain Cowan

I do not think it should be limited to that. It should include that type of member and there should also be on it competent people with business experience and also competent people who would have their ears to the ground so far as the country is concerned. In other words, they would not be so far removed from the ordinary running of the country. They should know how the costs of transport affect the community and where services should be made available for both passengers and goods. That seems to be the general type of board visualised. My view is that it should be whole-time and the members should be paid well enough to enable them to devote their whole attention to their work. I think in those circumstances no officer who holds an executive position in the company should be a member of the board. I think Deputy Lemass, Deputy Davin and I are agreed on that point. It may be that when the Government and the Minister come to consider the establishment of this board they may go into their own rail services, or even into the canal service, and find there a competent official whom they would appoint to the board. If such an official is appointed he should cease to be an executive officer of the company and should become a full-time member of the board. I support what has been said on both sides that it should not even be permissive for the board to appoint its general manager a member because difficulties and complications may arise. Those difficulties have already been adverted to. This House has a serious responsibility in regard to the financing of the board and it must not place itself in the position of appointing a board in which controversies may arise between the general manager and the chairman, between the general manager and other members of the board, or between the general manager, as a member of the board, and the executive officers of the company whose duty it will be to implement the orders of the board as given to them by the general manager. For that reason I ask the Minister to give careful consideration to the viewpoints that have been expressed and to the general opinion held that this particular sub-section should be deleted.

Mr. Sheldon

I do not like to intervene in a discussion among experts, but I find myself becoming more and more confused as the debate goes on. I missed the Minister's statement, but I take it that he admitted he had not definitely made up his mind yet as to the type of board that should be established and he asked for the advice of the House on that particular matter. Considering the size of the Bill, the position is a rather peculiar one. No doubt it is very flattering to the House that the Minister should seek its opinion, but I think the House should have a stronger lead than just leaving such a matter to this very wide interpretation.

There are one or two points upon which the Minister may be able to clear my mind. Deputy Lemass spoke about the three types of board he could visualise. He referred to a board of technical experts and, at that point, the Minister interrupted and said that it should be obvious from the sub-section, which Deputy Martin O'Sullivan proposes to delete, that he did not visualise a board of technical experts. Deputy Lemass referred to the fact that if we did not want a board of technical experts some clause should be incorporated in the Act rendering it impossible to appoint that particular type of board; he instanced the case of the Electricity Supply Board and pointed out that it was staffed with technical experts. The Minister pointed out that the Electricity Supply Board had not been subjected to any such restrictions under the Act. But look at what happened. The board, as far as I can see, is a board of technical experts.

Mr. M.J. O'Higgins

Deputy Lemass was suggesting they should be named in the Bill.

Mr. Lemass

If it is to be that kind of board.

Mr. Sheldon

I am trying to get the Minister's mind on this. First of all, he tells Deputy Lemass that, because of the sub-section which it is proposed to delete, he does not intend to have a board of technical experts. Then he says it is unnecessary to take Deputy Lemass's amendment No. 8 because such a clause is not in the Act which set up the Electricity Supply Board. As far as I can see, the Electricity Supply Board is a board of experts.

Mr. McGilligan

I would deny that.

Mr. Lemass

It is a board consisting largely of executive officers.

Mr. McGilligan

There is the change. It is certainly not a board of technical experts as a whole.

Mr. Sheldon

That puts a different complexion on the whole argument.

Mr. McGilligan

I am speaking of reality.

Mr. Sheldon

That clears up my difficulty. At one moment we were being told that we did not need this because we had that, and then we were told that was not there at all.

Mr. Morrissey

I said it should be clear from the sub-section with which we are now dealing that we are not contemplating a board of executive officers. If we were, then it would not be necessary to make special provision for the general manager.

Mr. Sheldon

Having settled that point, I would like to go on now to another point. With regard to the permissive action the board may take in relation to putting the general manager on the board, it is not clear to me what precise benefit would accrue to the board, to the company or to the country in general by making the general manager a member of the board. I have practically no knowledge of public transport, but I cannot conceive of anything the general manager could do as a member of the board that he could not do as general manager from the point of view of the efficient running of the transport organisation. So far I have not heard any explanation on that point. The Minister said certain things might be of benefit, but that is just a bit too general. The Minister should give us some more precise information as to what extra help he thinks the general manager would be to the board if he was a member of the board.

Mr. McGilligan

The general run of things here and elsewhere is that, if you have an exceptionally good general manager, he becomes a member of the board.

Mr. Allen

But he then ceases to be general manager.

Mr. McGilligan

He does not.

Mr. Morrissey

It was specifically laid down in the Turf Development Act that the managing director should be a member of the board.

Mr. S. Collins

I want to press the Minister, too, along the same lines as those adopted by Deputy Sheldon just now. I asked the Minister a question last night. I can myself conceive no satisfactory answer to it. Is there anything further the board could get from the general manager by making him a member of the board? I do not think there is. On the contrary, I think it would result in making the board less effective. If this board is responsible in the main for policy and its implementation, plus the general supervision of the company, then I can visualise a position in which, on the level of the general manager himself, the board may have to take action. I think it would be far from being in the best interests of the board that the general manager, so criticised, would be a member of the board itself and might be in a position to vote on certain actions to be taken by himself.

I am not approaching this matter in any contentious spirit. I am open to conviction. I want to be convinced, if such conviction can be pressed home, that there is something extraordinary about making this general manager a member of the board. I say without fear of contradiction that it might be a good thing if this extraordinary general manager did exist to make him a member of the board, but that he must cease to be an executive officer of the company if the board is to carry out its functions in the most untrammelled way we can conceive. There is the natural consequence that a man carrying the responsibility of being chief executive officer of a company of this magnitude if he is to be efficient will be a man of strong personality and a man of no mean ability. His membership of the board might virtually make him too strong to be on the board. In the set-up of directing general policy you might have permeating through the general manager's own mind what might be the executive mind of the company rather than the broad approach of people who were not concerned with the executive control of the company or with the direct administration of the company.

As I said at the beginning, I can see hundreds of reasons why the general manager should not be a member of the board. However, I am still not convinced, and the Minister has said nothing in this House to convince me, that there is any special benefit to be accrued to the board by making the general manager also a member of the board. The Minister will have to face the situation that he is either going to have a distinct type of board or not. If he is going to have the type of board that is a board composed of men outside Córas Iompair Éireann or a board of people who if they are in Córas Iompair Éireann are going to cease to be executives and become whole-time members of the board, I urge that, to avoid certain practical difficulties that might arise, it would be better to have that board unfettered in its membership by having anyone who is an executive officer of the company on it as such. They would then be in a position to deal with the company in general and to use their general manager in every way that they would use a chief executive officer. They would be able to get from him the benefit of the collective information from the heads of the various departments, as sifted by him in relation to any particular point of view, but they would not be subject either in respect of voting or in respect of impetus because of his being a member of the board. If that board is conceived, the general manager should not in any circumstances be a member of the board.

With regard to the other type of board, let me say that whether it might consist of people from outside, and also of certain experts within the company itself, even if it were only to be broadened to the extent of having the general manager, this is making for a dual type of board that will damn the concern before it starts. The Minister will have to stand on either of two legs: (1) the type of board which I would hate to see formed, that useless type of board—or, at any rate, I could conceive it being useless—with various heads of departments and a general manager coming together as a board in a type of departmental conference, more or less. The Minister should step out and get five or six men of breadth of vision, of human experience, some of them of proven business capacity, some of them of proven knowledge of dealing with the complex and difficult labour problem that will arise within the company itself, and more of them knowing the fundamental principles necessary in a good transport system. If the board is composed of that type of man, to whom he will give a specific remuneration, the Minister will get from the board a breadth of vision and a formation of policy that will be of very great value indeed.

Mr. Allen

I agree with Deputy Collins that the Minister should accept Deputy O'Sullivan's amendment. It would be fatal to the composition of an intelligent board to have the general manager a member of the board.

Mr. McGilligan

Did you say that on the Turf Bill?

Mr. Allen

We say what we think now. What we thought long ago does not matter.

Mr. Lemass

There is a difference between a general manager and a managing director. It is a different organisation.

Mr. McGilligan

I would prefer the excuse that you thought better.

Mr. Allen

Two things can happen. The board might set out to manage the manager. That could happen quite simply. Again, if the manager is a strong-minded person, he could influence the board in any possible direction. There are plenty of members of this House who have had some slight experience in that direction, one way or another. It would depend on the general manager himself as to whether he would function as an ordinary member of that board or whether he would bring his superior knowledge of all the affairs of the company to bear on his colleagues or not. That is the danger.

If the Minister wants an independent board, a board which will act independently and on their own, irrespective of the views of the manager, at all times, it would be much better to have the general manager outside the board rather than that he should be a member of it.

Mr. Dockrell

This discussion is very unreal. First of all, a legislative assembly is attempting in this amendment to do something which it cannot really do. As a Parliament, we can only set up a board and set it up as untrammelled as possible. Sub-section (2) is permissive. It does not force the board to appoint the general manager on the board—it only permits them to do so if they want to do it. Then there is a further check in that, if the Minister allows it, the general manager will be a member of the board. He will, first of all, have to pass the hurdle of the board. Then he will have to pass the hurdle of the Minister. That is a double check on the suitability of the individual for the seat on the board. After that has been settled, we come upon a whole series of incongruities. We do not know who will be sitting on that board. Even if we did know, we could not here, in this Assembly, start to discuss the individual character and characteristics of the members of the board of this company or of any other company.

It seems to me that, as I said earlier, we are trying to do something which is impossible and that, in trying to do so, we are tying up the board in a way in which I do not think we should. This is the one individual whom the board may appoint, again with the sanction of the Minister. I take it there is no other person the board can appoint. I think we should leave it that freedom subject to the sanction of the Minister.

Various Deputies have spoken about the desirability of having an executive officer there. I have no personal experience of transport companies but I think that when they are conducting the company's business, they must act in a similar manner to other commercial concerns. They are not just so different from any commercial concern that the same fundamentals which apply in commercial practice do not also apply to them. At least that is the way I look at it.

There are undoubtedly some differences between transport companies and other companies but there are also points of similarity. In most other companies there are high executive officers on the board and they are able to bring to the deliberations of the board a very precise knowledge which no other individual could supply. The fact also that the general manager is made a director enhances and makes his position all the better in dealing with certain types of business. He wins his spurs, as it were, when he is put on the board. There may be certain drawbacks in having him a member of the board but that largely depends on the character of the general manager. There are certain drawbacks on almost everything done in business life. No business or board knows precisely when they appoint a person to a position whether or not he is going to be 100 per cent. successful. They appoint the very best person they can and they give that person as many powers as they can. After that, it depends on the character of the individual. We as a Parliament can only rely on the commonsense and judgment of the future board, whatever its composition may be. We have got to assume that it will be a board of sensible people. I think if anything emerges from this discussion it is that the amendment limits the power of the board because it prevents them putting on the board the highest executive officers in the company. That I consider would be a mistake.

As regards the composition of the board, the Minister apparently asked for enlightenment from certain people. I believe the best board is a board which is neither exclusively composed of executive officers, experts nor ordinary individuals but a board which is a mixture of all three. I shall just mention one board set up some years ago, namely, the Port and Docks Board. I regard that as one of the finest boards with which I am connected. I think its success— and everybody will admit it is a success—arises from the fact that you have all the various interests well represented on that board. You have shipping interests, commercial interests, manufacturing interests and representatives of labour and of the corporation.

Mr. Lemass

The general manager is not on the board.

Mr. Dockrell

That is so but, of course, there is a special section of the Act dealing with his powers. I believe that the success of any board is in direct proportion to the diversity of interests represented on the board. When I say "interests" I do not mean that it should be a question of "pull baker, pull devil", but the various representatives of those interests bring to the deliberations of the board a special knowledge of the problems which face them by virtue of their various occupations and, in addition, they are enabled to bring an enlightened commonsense to bear on every subject that is put before them. In that way, you have a successful board. I think it would be very foolish to press this amendment because I think it limits the board's powers, and I should like to see the board left with all the freedom we can give them. They may not need it very much but I think it is no harm to give it to them.

Mr. C. Lehane

I think that the consideration of the amendment in Deputy Lemass's name, and that in the names of Deputies O'Sullivan and Davin, would have been much more helpful to the Minister if the House first had had a clear idea of the type of board that is in the Minister's own mind. I think that that is the difficulty many of us have experienced, after listening to the various points made, in arriving at a conclusion. In default of a clear picture of what is in the Minister's mind, we are compelled to be guided by general principles. Probably it may be said that we would be guided by general principles in any event but some of us perhaps suffer from that form of mental laziness which makes it easier for us to consider the concrete rather than the abstract or the general. I must confess to a great deal of sympathy with both amendment No. 7 and amendment No. 8 but I am in the difficulty, and I am sure there are many Deputies in a similar difficulty in approaching these amendments, that the general structure envisaged, not being that nearest to the heart's desire of many of us, our views on these amendments are coloured by that fact If, for instance, I were satisfied that this House had effective control over the general policy of the company then I would be readier to say, subject to that control: "Let the board have that untrammelled freedom in operation for which Deputy Dockrell made a case."

Deputy Dockrell made a plea for a freedom for the board as broad and as untrammelled as possible. He thought that what Deputies were trying to do in these amendments was impossible. I cannot subscribe to that view. I think that in the light of the fact that the control which this House will exercise will be of such a remote nature, the closest scrutiny must be given to every line in this Bill and to every amendment tabled to every section. Deputy Dockrell carried me with him a good deal of the way on many points, but, if he will forgive me for saying so, I think he was basing his arguments on a false premise. He spoke of the desirability of having executives with experience free to act on the board. He instanced the Port and Docks Board as the ideal type of board which he envisaged. I have no quarrel with that statement. I think, however, I am in the company of Deputy Davin and Deputy Cowan when I say that their attitude is that if there is a useful executive available for service on the board—the same would apply to the general manager— by all means let the board have the benefit of his assistance as a member, but, if so, he must cease to be an executive. If he is to remain as an executive, the board can still have the benefit of his advice and experience by calling him into consultation. I do not think, however, that the difficulty which Deputy Dockrell created for himself actually exists.

The Minister asked Deputies for their view of the type of board which should be set up. I am sure this point has been covered by somebody, but, lest it has not, let me make it briefly. I suggest to the Minister that on that board there should be at least one direct representative of the workers. I suggest to the Minister that if he is to have such a representative he should not necessarily be a trade union official or somebody connected with the administration of union affairs, but that he should be somebody from the rank and file of the ordinary workers. There are amongst the workers in Córas Iompair Éireann at present, and amongst all our organised workers, hundreds and probably thousands of men of ability and intelligence who would be of real assistance to the board in their administration of the undertaking which we envisage. I do not think there is any need to impress this on the Minister, but I would hope that the Minister would not even for a second be so foolish as to contemplate a board composed exclusively of experts. In my submission, that would be disastrous.

This undertaking has to be regarded as an important part of our national economy. If he confines the administration of that undertaking to experts, even experts in another sphere, and excludes from it men who will be able to take a broad national viewpoint on many matters which would have no immediate connection with transport problems, the Minister will have done something very foolish. I do not think, however, that there is the slightest danger of the Minister's making that mistake. I think the board should be a whole-time job. I do not see how the House or the Minister could hope to have this important transport undertaking satisfactorily operated by part-time directors. Deputy Lemass made a reference to the Irish Sugar Company. I am not quite clear whether he was recommending to the Minister that type of board. I take it he was not.

Mr. Lemass

No. They are established under the Companies Acts. There is a whole code of legislation there.

Mr. McGilligan

The legislation with regard to that company could have done what is attempted to be done here.

Mr. C. Lehane

The Minister for Finance is pursuing a different point from the one I am trying to make. The only reason I mentioned the Irish Sugar Company is that I wanted to assure myself that Deputy Lemass was not recommending that type of board to the Minister. I merely mentioned it to reinforce my argument that what ever type of board is appointed should be a whole-time board. I suppose this arises on these two amendments and on the Bill generally. The nearer the Minister can get to a board subject in major matters of national policy to this House, a board composed of whole-time directors, the nearer he can get to ensuring that the workers will be directly represented on that board——

Mr. Lemass

Does the Deputy mean workers employed by the company?

Mr. C. Lehane

My suggestion was that on that board there should be one —I do not want to call him a representative——

Mr. Lemass

That is the key word.

Mr. C. Lehane

——one working railway man. The view may be taken that there is not amongst the ranks of the workers in a railway system men with sufficient experience to enable them to fill the position of director. If that view exists, it is a view from which I dissent.

Mr. McGilligan

I take it that if you put a railway employee on the board, he must cease to be an employee?

Mr. C. Lehane

He must cease to be an employee. I may not be making myself perfectly clear. The purpose which I would seek to achieve is that there would be on that board a mind which would understand, not at second-hand, the outlook and the attitude of those working in the industry. That may be a plea which it is premature to make. I may be a little bit before my time in suggesting that to the Minister. It may fall on deaf ears now. But, at some time in the future, in this and many other industries, it is a plea which will be hearkened to and I believe, hearkened to with good results for the undertakings concerned and the nation. I think that, before the Minister allows the discussion on these two amendments to proceed further, he should indicate to the House the type of board that he envisages.

Mr. P.S. Doyle

I support the retention of sub-section (2) in the Bill. I do not wish to reflect on the shortcomings of the late board of Córas Iompair Éireann. In my opinion, the board suffered from one very serious defect in that it was more or less lopsided, to the extent that it had in the chairman, Mr. Percy Reynolds, a very able man and one who certainly made his mark so far as road-transportminded people are concerned. He devoted all his energies to road transport when he occupied that position. There was no balancing influence and no progress from the railway point of of view. As far as the composition of the new board is concerned, it is essential that there should be on it a man with some knowledge of railway administration. That is necessary, in my view, if any progress is to be made in the way of bringing the railways back to the position which they should occupy. The railways are a national asset, and so the members of this House should do everything in their power to help the Minister to carry out suggestions which have been made from time to time. It should be our duty to see that the railway point of view will be specially considered by whatever board is appointed to run this concern.

Mr. Sheldon

There is one question which I wish to ask. It has been stressed that sub-section (2) is purely permissive. Would the Minister clear up this point for me? I have a sort of a recollection that, fairly recently, there was a court decision to the effect that the word "may" and the word "shall" in the section of an Act have the same force.

Captain Cowan

Not here, unfortunately.

Mr. M.J. O'Higgins

I think the decision was the opposite.

Mr. Sheldon

I have stated what is my recollection.

Mr. Lemass

The Deputy is correct, but we have the qualifying words here "with the consent of the Minister".

Mr. M.J. O'Higgins

I agree almost entirely with the arguments advanced by Deputy Dockrell on this amendment. I cannot get rid of the feeling that we have been spending a great deal of time in talking about something that really does not matter a whole lot, one way or the other. I believe that Deputy Dockrell was correct in describing it last night as "much ado about nothing". I do not want to adopt the attitude that some of the points made by Deputy Davin and Deputy Martin O'Sullivan may not have very great force in certain circumstances. I think that is so. I agree with the viewpoint expressed by Deputy Dockrell that we are discussing this whole thing on a purely hypothetical basis. We are seeing fears which may, in fact, never materialise. Some forceful arguments were put forward by Deputy Davin, Deputy Cowan and by Deputy Martin O'Sullivan. The one that struck me as being the most forceful was this: if, first of all, this section is passed, secondly, if the board that is appointed decides to take advantage of the section; thirdly, if the Minister gives his consent to do that, then the general manager becomes a member of the board and you get the fourth "if". If the general manager is a man of particular stature, if he is very strongminded and is able to overawe the remainder of the board, you get the fifth "if", and if the rest of the board are so weak that they are going to give way to him and be completely overawed by him, then in that event there is force in the arguments which Deputy Davin and Deputy Martin O'Sullivan made against the inclusion of this section. If you get over all these fences, and all the "ifs", then I agree there is force in the argument.

The simple issue involved is this: is it possible that there ever will be circumstances in which it might be advisable or desirable to have the general manager a member of the board? If the Deputies answer that question by saying "No" then I think this section should go out, but if Deputies agree that, some time in the future if not at present, circumstances might be such as to make it desirable to have a particular general manager a member of the board, then surely, our duty is to pass this sub-section in its present form as a permissive sub-section to enable that to be done.

I think that Deputy Con Lehane may have misunderstood Deputy Dockrell's argument regarding the untrammelled freedom of the board. Deputy Seán Collins urged the Minister to accept this amendment. He did so on the basis that, if the general manager should ever become a member of the board it was not going to be a free and untrammelled board: that it was going to be influenced by him, and that all the other members —there might be six of them—were going to give way to and to defer to the opinion of the general manager. I think that what Deputy Dockrell intended to point out was that, while the argument was put forward on the one hand that the freedom of the board would be interfered with, the trammelling of the board would be by those who wanted to delete this sub-section because, as it stands, and if it is carried, the initiative will lie with the board and not with the Minister. As I say, there are so many "ifs" in the argument and provided all the fears materialise, then I can see that there is a certain amount of substance and solidity in the arguments. I do not think it is probable that all those circumstances will exist at the same time and I think it does boil down to a simple issue as to whether or not Deputies are of opinion that, at some time in the future, if not in the present, circumstances may arise where it might be desirable to have the general manager a member of the board. If there is even a possibility, we should not close the door.

Captain Cowan

Could the Deputy consider any circumstances in which the city manager would be a member of the Dublin Corporation?

Mr. Lemass

Or the secretary of the Department of Industry and Commerce as a member of the Dáil?

Mr. M.J. O'Higgins

I do not think there is a parallel there.

Captain Cowan

An absolute parallel.

Mr. M.J. O'Higgins

It may be there is more force in that question than I can see, but I think that in order to answer it fully I would have to go very much off the rails. I would have to discuss the relative powers of councillors, as distinct from members of the board; the remuneration of councillors, which is nil, and the possible remuneration of members of the board. There are various questions of that sort, and I do not think there is any parallel in the Dublin Corporation or any other corporation. Members of this board will not be elected by adult suffrage, and I really cannot see any parallel.

If there is any possibility that the appointment of a general manager at some time in the future might be desirable and might, in fact, be necessary for the proper operation of the concern, we would be wrong to pass this amendment and to close the door in that way. If, on the other hand, Deputies were satisfied that under no conceivable set of circumstances could a situation arise where the addition of a general manager as a member of the board would be a matter that might be necessary or desirable, then I think the amendment proposed by Deputy O'Sullivan should be accepted by the Minister.

Mr. Fitzpatrick

There is one aspect in relation to the appointment of the manager that I have not heard any Deputy referring to. If the manager died or resigned or was removed and if the board felt that one of their members, an outstanding member, would be best fitted to become the general manager, it might be advisable in these circumstances to give freedom to the board to appoint him as the general manager. I do not think that case was made and it might be worthy of consideration.

So far as the constitution of the board is concerned, I do not agree with Deputies who suggested that the board should be comprised of men with business experience and without any practical knowledge of the running of a railway or a transport company. Deputy Cowan made a comparison between this board and the Army Council. He suggested that a Minister or Parliamentary Secretary might become chairman. He pointed out that the Army Council has worked satisfactorily. So far as the Army Council are concerned, the majority of its members, I am inclined to think, came from the ranks. If that council is taken as a comparison, would it not be practicable that we should recommend to the Minister, when he is appointing this board, that he should appoint men with practical knowledge of rail and road transport, men who, because of their experience and ability, have raised themselves to the position of being quite capable and competent to direct road and rail transport? I think that type of individual would be best suited as a member of this board.

I make a special appeal to the Minister to have the majority on this board composed of men with a practical knowledge of the running and development of road and rail transport. I feel the door should not be altogether closed from the point of view of the general manager being appointed from amongst the members of the board. That should be a matter entirely for the board and the Minister should not take it out of the hands of the board. I can visualise a very capable and experienced member of the board at some time being recommended to replace the general manager.

Dr. Brennan

I should like the Minister to clear up a doubt which appears to exist. One sub-section sets out that the membership of the board shall not exceed six. If this other person, the general manager, is brought into the board, does that mean that the board will consist of seven persons?

Captain Cowan

Yes.

Dr. Brennan

It seems to me there is some ambiguity as to the exact position. If the Government are limited to appointing six members, would the appointment of the general manager to the board mean that there will be seven?

Mr. Morrissey

Yes. Say that the Government appoint six members, the seventh position could only be filled by the appointment of the general manager to the board, subject to the sanction of the Minister. If the board do not decide to appoint the general manager as a member of the board, then the board could not exceed six members.

Mr. Fitzpatrick

If the board do not decide to recommend the appointment of the general manager as a member of the board, what is the general manager's association with the board? Can he attend board meetings as an ex-officio member and take part in the discussions? If he cannot do that, I can see a very awkward situation arising whereby the board will be coming to a decision and will then have to convey this decision to the general manager.

Mr. M. O'Sullivan

I must say my colleagues and myself are exceedingly gratified at the attention that has been given to this amendment. May I confess that when it was put down we did not contemplate that its consideration would have extended to the time that it has now taken? The members of the House who have taken part in the discussion are to be congratulated on their interest in a very deep subject. They have shown a very intimate knowledge of the important points at issue.

I think, too, that we can congratulate ourselves on the fact that this amendment has given the House an opportunity they would not otherwise have had of discussing the composition of the proposed board. In that respect may I say that the Minister himself and the Deputies who have spoken do not seem to be fixed in their ideas and convictions as regards the composition of this board? The Minister has said that he has not finally made up his mind as to whether it should be a non-technical, a part-time or a full-time board. Each Deputy has placed on record his views on this subject. May I extend what I have already said by making it clear that last night I had no use for a board composed of executive officers? I gave my reasons. This afternoon a good deal of play has been made with technicians. Equally, I am not in the least attracted to a board the outstanding qualifications of the members of which will be their technical ability. A good deal of the discussion that has taken place in connection with Córas Iompair Éireann in the last few weeks has centred upon the fact that the technical assistance at the disposal of Córas Iompair Éireann in the past was not fully availed of by the board. In formulating the types of persons the Minister might consider suitable as members of the board he did say that an accountant might be appointed because he was an accountant. I sincerely hope that that will not be his approach. If he starts on that premise he must carry his argument to a logical conclusion and he may find himself placed in the position of having to have an engineer, because he is an engineer, and, if an engineer, why not a lawyer too?

Mr. Lemass

Or a farmer?

Mr. O'Sullivan

I can well visualise such a board. If Mr. Courtney is appointed chairman—and I hope he will be—I can well visualise the battle royal he would have in presiding over a board of that character. I do not think the selection of the personnel of that board will be such an impossible task as it has been represented to be. If the Minister approaches this as a large commercial concern designed to serve the national interest, then it should not be impossible for him to select half a dozen competent people for that board. If the Minister is wise, in the interests of our transport system in the years to come he will give preference to people who are experienced in the transport industry.

It may be said that Deputy Davin and I have harped a good deal on this question of experience. May I take this opportunity of saying that neither Deputy Davin nor I will be eligible for any of these positions? We have no personal interest in them. The Minister should make up his mind in advance that this will be a whole-time board, otherwise the mistakes of the past will be repeated when we had part-time directors chasing around to bank, insurance and every other kind of meeting and paying a very casual interest to transport. Transport should be a whole-time job. If the Minister has any apprehensions as to how the board will occupy its time, any experienced railway man will give him all the guidance he wants in that respect. He will have it from his own technical experts. He can rest assured that all the directors can be easily allocated to the various sections of the transport concern. I can assure the House they will have a full day's work every day of the week.

I and my colleagues are very grateful for the attention that has been paid to this particular amendment. The Minister has admitted that he is not yet in a position to indicate to the House the type of board he proposes to establish. May I put this question to the Minister in an attempt to bring this debate to a satisfactory conclusion? Is the Minister prepared to examine this matter before the Report Stage and will it then be possible for him to refer to it again? In view of the fact that he has told the House he has not finally made up his mind, the House will be indulgent and, if he gives a satisfactory answer to my question, that will make it easy for us to adopt a certain course in relation to this amendment.

Mr. Morrissey

I must confess I do not feel like craving the indulgence of the House because I did not come in here with a fixed idea. I have been reprimanded because I did not absolutely and definitely make up my mind as to the type of board I wanted and because I did not come in and present that to the House with the intention, no matter what was said here, of never changing my mind. That is a new slant. I feel that occasionally, at least, this House should be treated as a deliberative assembly rather than as a mere recording machine. It is interesting to know that it is a sign of weakness if one wishes to consult the House as to what is the better line to pursue.

Captain Cowan

I do not think that was really put.

Mr. Morrissey

It certainly was. Every Deputy who spoke has rebuked me for not having an absolutely clear mind and a fixed idea as to which would be the better board—not only that, but as to which would be the perfect board. The extraordinary thing is that no two Deputies agreed as to which would be the better type of board. Deputies spoke about three or four different types of boards. Deputy Lemass quite rightly said that there were at least three different types of board for each of which one could make a good case. That is quite true. I have very definite views of my own. I have no objection to giving them to the House. At the same time I will not say to the House now, any more than I said it at the outset of this discussion, that I am sticking to those views irrespective of what the House may think.

I believe we should have a board consisting of a full-time chairman and and five practical, experienced men with knowledge of the economic life of the country. Transport is the biggest undertaking we have in the country and, if these men are considered competent to manage an expenditure of £1,000,000, to handle over 20,000 employees and be responsible for the entire transport of the country, then surely such a body ought to be competent to decide whether it is or is not a wise thing to ask the Minister's permission to make their general manager, of whom they have experience, a member of the board. Is that not the issue?

Captain Cowan

Will those five men be whole time?

Mr. Morrissey

On that it is easy to say that you have to make up your mind. Again, I am going to be quite frank with the House. That, to a very large extent, depends on the type of personnel you want. There are certain men who probably would make excellent members of a transport board. They are known probably to many Deputies of the House—men of a type. I can assure the House that nobody has been consulted and that it has not been suggested to anybody that they are going to be members of the board in any way whatsoever, good, bad or indifferent. There are no commitments, either on my part or on the part of the Government, to any individual as to his being a member of the board. But there are men who might make excellent members on the board but who, if you insisted on making it a whole-time job, would not accept the position.

Captain Cowan

If you paid them well?

Mr. Morrissey

That is another question. But surely Deputies will admit that it is at least open to argument as to whether the board should or should not be full time. Will Deputies concede that?

Mr. Davin

A full-time job.

Mr. Morrissey

That is debatable. All I want to make clear is that I have very definite views of my own. I am prepared at all times, I hope, to listen and to give attention and consideration to the views put forward by responsible members of this House and particularly if those views are put forward from all sides of the House. I must confess that when I was charged from all sides of the House, and from behind my back, with not having made any case for giving the board permission to ask the Minister's permission to appoint the general manager, I felt myself that the case made against the sub-section was a very poor one. I do not think there was any case made against it—certainly not any very convincing case. However, being that rather unusual type of Minister who believes that the House should be listened to, that some attention should be paid to what is said, and because I want to get this Bill through this House, when it has finally been got through it, rather as a Bill that will be passed by the House and the whole House than as my Bill, I am prepared to consider any points put up.

Personally, like Deputy M. O'Sullivan, I welcome the spirit in which this particular amendment and the section was discussed. I hope that it will be in that spirit and in that atmosphere that the Bill will be discussed for the remainder of its stages. Frankly, I should like to have the assistance of all the members of this House in trying to make this the best measure we can get for the future guidance of those who will be in charge of the national transport of the country. In that spirit, I am prepared further to consider the question of this amendment —I am not prepared to commit myself beyond that—between now and the Report Stage, if Deputies are satisfied with that.

Mr. Larkin

Will that also include the question of whole-time membership of the board and the question referred to in Deputy Lemass's amendment, that it, the question of executive officers of the company holding membership of the board?

Mr. Morrissey

The question of full-time or part-time membership of the board will have to be considered but I think that both this amendment and Deputy Lemass's amendment can hold together.

Mr. Lemass

Let me get this clear. What the Minister intends is the type of board that will be made compulsory by my amendment, that is a board that would not include, as a general practice anyway, executive officers of the company. The Minister will appreciate that if that point of view is shared generally, and I think that it is, the Dáil would like to see in the Bill some provision to make it certain that that is the type of board they will get either next year or in five years' time—that the Bill should not be drawn so widely that at any time the type of board could be changed without legislation and a completely different type of organisation substituted.

Mr. Morrissey

I have no objection to that. I have no desire to have any position which would enable the complexion of the board to be changed at the whim of any particular Minister or any particular board, for that matter. But Deputy Lemass's amendment deals with a different point or deals with this matter from a different angle—that is, that a member of the board should not be an executive officer——

Mr. Lemass

It was the easiest way I could put it.

Mr. Morrissey

I think it is a remote contingency.

Mr. Bartley

Does the Minister favour a part-time board because he thinks it desirable to get a certain type of director who cannot be got for a full-time job?

Mr. Morrissey

The Deputy will appreciate that the main consideration must be the getting of the best types of persons available for the particular job to be done. I think the House will agree with that. It is a matter that must be taken into consideration. If my choice, or the choice of whoever may be in my position, is so limited by the insistence on its being a full-time job, so to speak, you may then defeat the very purpose you have in mind. Alternatively, it may force the Government to offer salaries at such a high figure that will entice persons of that type to give their full time to the job and to surrender whatever other occupations they have at the moment.

Mr. Bartley

Is it not obvious to the Minister that a board composed of part-time directors are, almost inevitably, going to appoint a general manager for the purpose of, in practice, delegating the entire job, and that there is a danger of a repetition of what has already been condemned as having been unsuitable in the past?

Mr. Morrissey

I do not think so.

Mr. Davin

From the Minister's own experience, will he agree that it is not the man who gets the most money who earns it?

Mr. Lemass

The man who gets the most money would not agree with that statement.

Mr. Fitzpatrick

Would a part-time board exclude the appointment as directors of employees?

Mr. Morrissey

That is a different point.

Captain Cowan

I think the Minister misunderstood some of the references that were made. I complimented him on asking the assistance of the House in this matter. I think that was the feeling of a number of Deputies that spoke. I do not want the Minister now to go away with the feeling that we have been criticising him. I think he was perfectly right in getting the assistance of the House and—having got it, as is the position now—I think he has done the right thing in saying that he will further consider the matter and that he will deal with it on the Report Stage.

Amendment No. 7 withdrawn.

Amendment No. 8 not moved.

Captain Cowan

I move amendment No. 9:—

To add a new sub-section as follows:—

(4) The Government shall, within seven days from the day they appoint a person to be a member of the board, lay before each House of the Oireachtas a statement in writing of the fact of his appointment and of his qualifications for appointment as a member of the board.

It is a very simple amendment.

Mr. Morrissey

Oh, very.

Captain Cowan

I must honestly say that my amendment was attracted by sub-section (4) (c) of Section 7. It says that:—

"If and whenever the Government remove from office under this sub-section any member of the board, the Government shall lay before each House of the Oireachtas a statement in writing of the fact of his removal from office and of the reasons for such removal."

I think that from the public point of view it is more important that the reasons for the appointment rather than the reasons for the removal should be laid before both Houses. If the Government considers it desirable in the event of a removal from office that there should be such publication I think the same principle applies with regard to the appointment. If the Minister does, as I am perfectly satisfied the Minister will when it comes to the question of appointing a board, consider the merits of the different people who may be recommended to him as suitable members for the board or that he may himself consider as suitable, that will lead to a consideration of the qualifications of the particular persons for appointment. The amendment proposes that when the Government appoints—and I take it the Government will appoint on the recommendation of the Minister and that that recommendation will set before the Government the qualifications of the particular people nominated — the Government will lay before Parliament a statement setting out the appointment and the qualifications of the member. I think that is a safeguard and a wise thing to do. I think it would be very wise if it were done in all cases of public appointment so that the public would see the qualifications of persons appointed to positions of this responsibility. I take it that if the Government makes an appointment of a particular person as a member of the board it will be prepared to stand over that appointment in this House or elsewhere. That being so, I think there would or should be no objection to placing before the House within seven days a statement of the qualifications of the particular persons whom it is proposed to appoint as members of the board.

I want the Minister to accept this viewpoint. We all hope that when this Bill is passed into law, it will establish a new board that will make a success of the transport undertaking. For many years to come Governments will be appointing members to the board under the powers conferred by this Bill and it will be a very useful thing in the future to have the provision contained in this amendment. I can see no objection to it and I take it the Minister has no objection to it, that he will accept it as an amendment that helps to complete the Bill, and make it more satisfactory from the point of view of the general public.

Mr. Morrissey

I thought the Deputy was going to say "finish" instead of "complete".

Mr. S. Collins

I would urge that the Minister should not accept this amendment. I should like to make the reverse case to that made by Deputy Cowan. I think that by accepting the amendment the House would be imposing on the Minister limitations that might be very dangerous because we cannot have it both ways. It might happen that there would be a man who would be admirably suitable to act on the board but who, if considered in the light of normal qualifications, could be described as having none. Yet, from the point of practical ability, he might be an infinitely suitable man for the job. You might put the Minister in the position of having to face an argument in this House as to whether a man with certain qualifications could or could not be considered suitable for the job.

In other words, you are going to try to limit the Minister in his scope and outlook on certain types of qualifications. I think that if you do that you are going to defeat the object of getting the best possible board. I can conceive, and I am sure Deputies with more experience than I have will agree that a man who, within the narrow meaning of the word "qualifications", might have none, yet might have an infinitely longer experience and more practical ability that would make him definitely more suitable as a member of the board than a man who some people might consider as having the necessary qualifications. I think the Minister has sufficiently safeguarded the position in that he is going to consider between now and the Report Stage the arguments put to him on the last amendment and, as I interpreted it, he is going to have his mind fixed in a more definite and decisive manner by the Report Stage on the type of board to be established. I think that this amendment might leave the House open to be criticised in a way that would not be of advantage to the House or of advantage to the board that will ultimately be appointed.

Mr. Larkin

I hope the Minister is not so simple or so naïve as Deputy Cowan seems to assume in asking us to accept this amendment. Of course the comparison which Deputy Cowan has drawn between an appointment to the board and a removal from the board does not hold water at all. It does not follow that because the Minister makes a report to the House of the reasons why a member of the board was removed from office he should also furnish a statement to the House of the qualifications of a member on appointment to the House. There are quite a number of very good arguments, as Deputy Collins has pointed out, why the Minister should be allowed a certain freedom of choice in this matter. It is quite within the bounds of imagination that certain individuals whom this House would unanimously choose as suitable members of the board, would not subject themselves to that public discussion of their personal standing, their personal history or merits that this amendment would render necessary for such appointment. That is one factor and I think it is an overriding one. There is the other side, that we have been most insistent on in this matter of transport as a whole, that the Minister, as Minister, shall retain very wide controlling powers over the operations of the board. Many Deputies felt that it should be subject to the Dáil. If Deputy Cowan wishes to have his amendment accepted he should say that the Dáil should make the appointment and take the responsibility off the Minister altogether. I do not think, however, that he wants that. I think he realises that it would be impossible. Equally, I think it is impossible to ask any body of men to set down in definite and precise language the reasons why they may pick out a particular individual for appointment to a board of this character. There are so many undefinable things that go to make it up that it would be impossible to do it in such a way. It is the responsibility of the Minister and his advisers to make the appointment and that responsibility should be left upon him.

It is an entirely different matter when a member is removed from a board, because then something definite has to be stated as to why the removal took place. That is something which can be placed before the Dáil and which Deputies can discuss if they wish. They would be discussing the reasons why the member was removed, not what goes to make up his personality, his history, his background and his experience, which form the basis on which his appointment would be made. While I appreciate Deputy Cowan's approach to the matter, I do not think he has any real hope that the amendment will be accepted by the Minister. I think he has even less hope that many Deputies will support it.

I move to report progress.

Progress reported; Committee to sit again later.