I do not want to take up the time of the House on this because it has not met with a favourable reception. I think it would be wise if the principle laid down in the amendment were adopted. I feel, however, that it will take a long period of campaigning to change the minds of Deputies. I shall not endeavour to do that on this particular Bill and I withdraw the amendment.
Transport Bill, 1949—Committee (Resumed).
Debate resumed on amendment No. 9.
Amendment No. 9, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 6, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 7.
I move amendment No. 10:—
To delete sub-section (7).
The Minister proposes in sub-section (7) of Section 7 that a member of the board shall, as a condition of his appointment, sell or otherwise dispose of any securities he may hold in any transport undertaking. I am not quite clear why the Minister thinks that provision necessary in relation to this particular board. It is quite true that under the 1944 Act the chairman, the only member of the Córas Iompair Éireann board appointed by the Government, was required to dispose of any Córas Iompair Éireann or other transport stock he might hold and prohibited from acquiring such stock during his term of office. The circumstances which, in my opinion, required the insertion of that provision in that Bill do not operate in relation to this board.
The board of Córas Iompair Éireann, was, as to the great majority of its members, composed of directors elected by the stockholders. Their responsibility was to the stockholders and they were dependent for their reelection upon the manner in which they served the stockholders. The chairman was appointed as a representative of the Government with the direct responsibility of protecting the public interest in the management of the concern against, if necessary, the narrower financial interests of the stockholders' representatives and it was clearly desirable, therefore, that the chairman should not himself have any personal interest in the concern and particularly in the size, if any, of the dividend paid on the common stock.
In this particular case the whole of the board will be appointed by the Government. It does not appear to me to be desirable that the members of the board should have a financial interest in the transport stock issued by the Government to finance the concern. In fact it might even be argued that it would be an advantage if the members of the board had such a financial interest so that they would be the more concerned with the financial results of their operations. However, I put in the amendment merely to give the Minister an opportunity of explaining why he thought the provision necessary, assuming that he has not decided, on noting my amendment, to delete the sub-section.
I may say that I am the more surprised that the Minister thought it necessary to impose this restriction upon the members of the proposed board in view of the fact that he had not proposed to place a similar restriction where it is far more necessary to have it, namely on the members to be appointed to the transport tribunal which a later amendment of the Minister's suggests should be established. I think it is obviously desirable that the members of the transport tribunal should be free of all financial interest in Córas Iompair Éireann, or any other transport concern. Yet, no such restriction is intended to be placed upon the members of the tribunal. If the Minister sees good reason why this provision should be retained in relation to the members of the board, then I suggest to him that he should consider the desirability of having a similar provision in relation to the members of the transport tribunal. In my view—I do not intend to argue it very strongly—it is unnecessary to have a restriction of this kind and it may operate to make it slightly more difficult for the Minister to get on this board people with the requisite experience in the operation of transport concerns.
I think this sub-section should be retained. I have listened to Deputy Lemass explaining why he put a somewhat similar provision into the 1944 Act so far as the chairman was concerned. But the section in the present Bill does not refer only to transport stock. It also refers to securities held in any transport undertaking in the State. If we refer to the general powers of the board we find that under sub-section (3) of Section 12 they are empowered to enter into agreements with persons carrying on business as carriers of passengers or merchandise. As a matter of public policy, I think it would be objectionable that a contract should be made between the new board and a transport undertaking to carry on certain transport operations if a member of that board had any interest in the particular undertaking. This may appear to be far-fetched, but many of these provisos are merely put in for the sake of ensuring public confidence. From that point of view I think it should be retained. Because of the important role this board will play in the industrial and economic life of the country, I think we would almost be justified in calling upon the members of the board to sever any interest they might have in any industrial undertaking. Quite clearly, the operations of the board and its decisions will have either a beneficial or a harmful effect on many industrial undertakings, if such decisions are taken in an arbitrary manner. It seems to me that the section does not rest on the question of the holding of transport stock which was largely, I gathered from Deputy Lemass, the basis on which the limitation was placed on the chairman under the 1944 Act. In this case it refers to both transport stock and interest in a transport undertaking. If there is power given to the board to enter into a contract for the carrying on of transport activities in any other part of the State, it should be clearly laid down that a member of the board would not be entitled to hold any interest in a general manner in these undertakings. From that point of view I think the section should be changed.
I suggest that a middle course be taken. I agree with Deputy Lemass. I can see the difficulty he points out in regard to other undertakings. I would suggest that the Minister might remove from the sub-section any reference to transport stock. That, I think, would meet the case that has been made by Deputy Lemass—a case which I think is very fair. I do not see how there can be any possible objection to a member of the board holding transport stock. Deputy Lemass said that it would even be an advantage that they should, because it would give them a greater interest, if necessary, and it would also make it easier, possibly, for the Minister to find suitable members for the board. There is no point in arguing at great length on a small matter. I would suggest that the Minister remove from the sub-section references to transport stock and leave the prohibition of interest in other transport undertakings.
I think Deputy Larkin has touched on the vital part of this section, namely, that a member of the board ought not to have any interest in any other transport concern. I think there have been some complaints in regard to that type of matter already. If a member of the board has transport stock, in the ordinary way it would appear to be an advantage because it would show that he had some confidence himself in the undertaking and, because he had that confidence in it, he could be depended upon to do his work properly. But there is a further consideration. If a person has stock of that type in a concern, his viewpoint may be that the concern of the stockholder is paramount and, although the Bill provides for a Government guarantee, I visualise the board that will be established as endeavouring, in as far as they can, to avoid calling on the Government for that guarantee. Consequently, if members of the board are to have any substantial holding of stock, they may endeavour to maintain the dividends by means of depriving the workers engaged in the industry of rights or wages to which they may be entitled. I think the Minister is wise in putting the section there so that there can be no possible charge on any of the grounds mentioned against any member of the board.
At first sight, when I looked at the section, I said to myself that anyone who holds transport stock in Córas Iompair Éireann should never be appointed a member of the board. That view resulted from what I might call a completely different approach. From my own personal knowledge of the operation of concerns such as this I think that it is wise to have this prohibition and I think the section should remain in the Bill.
I think myself that it is not merely desirable but that it is almost essential that these safeguards or restrictions contained in the section should be there. Deputy Lemass knows himself that there is a somewhat similar restriction in the Electricity Supply Board Act in respect of that. Personally, I do not think that everybody will agree that, in respect of persons who will be appointed to the membership of this board, there is any great hardship in requiring them to do what the section requires. I should say that I think the Deputy will find, in relation to the proposed transport tribunal, that the same point is covered in amendment No. 101 which refers back. In that way we are imposing similar restrictions in relation to the proposed transport tribunal. I do not think the Deputy proposes to press this amendment or feels very strongly about it. I think he will agree—now that he has heard the arguments—that it is not merely desirable but essential, particularly from the point of view, as Deputy Larkin said, of obtaining public confidence in a board such as this.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 11:—
In sub-section (7), page 8, to delete lines 22 and 23 and substitute "he shall be disqualified from holding, and shall cease to hold, office as a member of the board".
This is just a drafting amendment.
Amendment put and agreed to.
Question proposed: "That Section 7, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
I have a few observations to make on the section. This is a section which deals with the remuneration, with the conditions of appointment and with other matters affecting members of the board. In view of what the Minister said earlier to the effect that he has not yet made up his mind whether the members of the board are to be whole-time or part-time it would not be reasonable to ask him to inform the House as to the remuneration he has in mind for members of the board and I do not propose to do it at this stage.
Sub-section (3) of this section, however, refers to the Second Schedule. Deputies who turn to the Second Schedule will see that it provides for the payment of pensions to members of the board after ten years' service. I should like the Minister to know now that in our view it is desirable only to provide for pensions for members who are appointed to the board in a whole-time capacity and that if it is contemplated that part-time directors, remunerated on a fee basis like directors of commercial concerns, are also qualified for pensions under the provisions of that Schedule, we would be completely opposed to it. If the Minister can inform the Dáil before the Report Stage as to the probable Government decision on the nature and composition of the board——
The pensions would apply only to whole-time directors.
We can consider the Schedule in that regard when we come to it. There are one or two other points which are really more drafting points than anything else. Sub-section (4), paragraph (a), says that the Government may at any time remove from office any member of the board who has become incapable through ill-health of performing efficiently his duties as such member. I should imagine that the question whether a member is incapable of performing his duties through ill-health is one upon which a conflict of medical opinion could arise. It seems to me desirable that there should be inserted there words similar to those which are contained in the next paragraph which would make it clear that the opinion of the Government upon the capability of the member to perform his duties, if liable to ill-health, is all that matters. Without some such safeguarding phrase, the removal of a member on the grounds that he is incapable through ill-health of performing his duties may be a cause of contention and perhaps of legal action.
The other point to which I want to refer relates to sub-section (8). Sub-section (8) says that a member of the board shall while holding office as such member be disqualified from being nominated or elected and from sitting as a member of Dáil Éireann or Seanad Éireann. That section is, I know, similar in form to sections in other Acts but I have often wondered whether it would prove effective if it were ever tested. It will be recollected that on occasions in the past returning officers have held that it is not their duty to inquire whether a person nominated for election is eligible to be nominated or not. I know there is no effective machinery by which the eligibility of a person for nomination for election can be tested before the election.
I think that the time has come when we might consider changing the form of these sections for the purposes of this Bill and future legislation of this kind, by reversing them and by saying that if a person is nominated or elected, he ceases to be eligible to act on the board. There could be no question about the ability to give effect to such a sub-section, whereas as it stands it is of somewhat doubtful value. We could conceivably have, what is I think admitted to be an undesirable situation, namely, a member of the board being nominated for election and pursuing an election campaign in a partisan manner—a thing which is not desired. I admit that if he were elected to the Dáil he could be removed from the board under another sub-section but the intention of having the provisions in the Bill is to make it clear that members of these statutory boards are to keep out of partisan political discussions. That end can be more effectively secured by reversing these sections. It is not a matter that I intend to press now, but it would be desirable to establish a new precedent in this matter, and to put these sections in the form I have suggested, namely, to declare that any person that is nominated for election shall be ineligible to remain as a member of the board.
Deputy Lemass has anticipated the only point which I wished to make in connection with sub-section (8). I had a note on that very question when the Bill was going through Second Reading as the wording intrigued me to some extent. The wording is that a member of the board shall, while holding office as such member, be disqualified from being nominated or elected and from sitting as a member of Dáil Éireann or Seanad Éireann. I could understand a prohibition being placed on a member of this House in so far as the board is concerned, but I think it must be ultra vires the Constitution to attempt to place the embargo at the other end. If a man ceases to be a member of the board, and he wishes to go forward for Parliament I think we are going a little bit too far by this section. I could understand as Deputy Lemass has indicated that a person who was nominated for election to the Dáil should be ineligible for appointment to the board, but a time might come when a member of the board might wish to go forward as a parliamentary candidate.
If he wants to go up for election he can resign from the board.
I am glad this point has cropped up because my attention was drawn to it some years ago. I feel that the prohibitions with regard to nomination for election to this House should be contained clearly in an Electoral Act and that they should not be spread around amongst Acts of this kind. I remember coming across a provision similar to this in the old Defence Forces (Temporary Provisions) Act and it was one of those which used to worry me personally, being a member of the Reserve. I had to consider whether I was validly nominated at all. However, I used to take a chance. Certain members of the House did take a chance and, immediately they were elected, resigned from the Defence Forces. That point always worried me and I am delighted that Deputy O'Sullivan and Deputy Lemass have drawn attention to it. I think that what the Minister should do is to prohibit any person from being a member of the board who permits himself to be nominated for election to the Dáil or Seanad. That should automatically end his membership of the board.
In regard to the other matter mentioned by Deputy Lemass it is provided that each member of the board appointed by the Government shall hold office on such terms and conditions as shall be fixed by the Government at the time of his appointment. I think it just as well to reiterate that it is my view that membership of the board should be whole-time and that consequently payments to members of the board should be substantial payments because, as has been said here, this is probably one of the biggest undertakings in the State. These six members appointed by the Government will have a tremendous responsibility and we must attract to the board the very best brains in the country. The fixing of niggardly salaries will not induce the very best and most efficient persons to accept appointment to the board. I should like when the Government is considering this matter that they should feel that they have behind them the general support of the Dáil in making the conditions of service and the pay so attractive that the most efficient, the most competent and ablest people in the country will be anxious to accept appointment as members of the board.
There is one small point which I should like the Minister to consider and that is in paragraph 2 of sub-section (4) which refers to the absence of a member of the board and says that the Government may remove him when he is absent for a period of six months unless his explanation is considered satisfactory. I would be intrigued to learn why the period should be six months. I am not suggesting that the Minister or the Government would be satisfied to allow a member to absent himself for six months, but this gives the impression at least that the Government will not be perturbed if a member of this very important board absents himself for six months. It does not say a certain number of meetings, but a period of six months. This board may conceivably meet once a week and such a member may be absent from 26 meetings. There may, indeed, be additional meetings held. Normally, if a person is absent from three or five meetings of a board he is generally regarded as disqualified. Why a man should be entitled to sit on a board who absents himself possibly from 26 meetings is something that I should like to know. It is an unusual period to stand over in public. I think that we should either reduce the period or make reference to the actual number of meetings.
On the point made by Deputy Lemass on sub-section (8), I should like to ask the Minister whether or not he will accept the suggestion made by Deputy Lemass. My attention was drawn to that matter also. I did not advert to it myself when reading the Bill. Whether it was an extraordinary coincidence that a number of different people spotted this at the same time or that Deputy Lemass spotted it and mentioned it to somebody else who passed on the word, I do not know. However, when my attention was drawn to it, it struck me that it was a rather odd way of putting the position. Obviously, the suggestion made by Deputy Lemass is quite a sensible one and one which I think should be met by the Minister.
Perhaps I might clear up that point in case other Deputies may think that this is the first time that words like these appeared in a Bill or an Act. It is not. Section 5 of the Tourist Traffic Act, 1939, provides:
"Every member of the board shall, while holding office as such member, be disqualified from being nominated or elected to and from sitting or receiving payment as a member of Dáil Éireann or of Seanad Éireann."
As to the smaller point raised by Deputy Lemass on sub-section (8), I am prepared to have that looked into to see if we could get words to tighten it up and tidy it up.
One Senator was disqualified because he was a member of the Tourist Board.
A particular Deputy was elected also and sat in this House who was, under a similar provision, ineligible for election. He was an employee of the Electricity Supply Board, but nothing could be done. He took his seat and sat here for the whole time.
We can have that looked into. With regard to the point made by Deputy Larkin, there is nothing special in this period. It is the period usually specified in various Acts dealing with various boards. I have no particular liking for six months, or four months or three months. This was put in simply because it is the period usually put into similar Acts for a similar purpose.
Question put and agreed to.
Sections 8, 9, 10 and 11 put and agreed to.
SECTION 12.
I move amendment No. 12:—
In sub-section (1) to delete paragraph (b).
I tabled this amendment because I was intrigued by the extraordinary construction of the section. If I may summarise it, I think I will make my point clear. Sub-section (1) says that the board shall have power to operate transport services, to consign merchandise, to enter into agreements for the carriage of passengers and merchandise at through rates, to store merchandise, to carry on any hotel or place of refreshment and to provide amenities and facilities for passengers. Then note this: "to exercise such other powers as are vested in, or conferred on, the board by this Act". Immediately under that is this: "The powers conferred by paragraph (a) of this sub-section",—that is all the powers which I have enumerated—"may be exercised within or without the State", including, as I make it, those enumerated in sub-paragraph (vii), "such other powers as are vested in, or conferred on, the board by this Act". If we turn to sub-section (2), we find that there are other powers conferred on the board, and I assume the effect of paragraph (b) is to provide that the powers enumerated in sub-section (2) may not be carried on outside the State, despite the provision of sub-paragraph (vii) of sub-section (1).
I cannot quite see why paragraph (b) is there at all. Anyone who reads the powers set out in sub-section (2) will realise that some of these must be carried on outside the State; for example, the purchase of equipment which is enumerated in sub-paragraph (b) of sub-section (2). Many of the other things which are indicated there appear to me to be functions which must be carried on outside the State. I was proposing to delete the words "or without" because it seems to me that they serve no purpose except to confuse the meaning of the section for anybody who reads it.
Perhaps I had better repeat that as the Minister was otherwise engaged. Certain powers are set out in sub-section (1), paragraph (a). Paragraph (b) says that these powers may be exercised within or without the State. Other powers are enumerated in sub-section (2). The implication of paragraph (b) of sub-section (1) appears to mean that the powers under sub-section (1) may not be carried on without the State. There must be some reason why it is necessary to provide that the powers set out in sub-section (1) may be carried on outside the State. I am anxious to get the position clarified. It seems to me that the paragraph might be read to mean that only the powers in sub-section (1) could be carried on outside the State and that the powers of sub-section (2) may not be carried out. If it is intended that these powers should be exercised by the board in the way in which it is necessary to exercise them, it appears to me that paragraph (b) is unnecessary.
It may have that appearance, but I am quite satisfied that that is not so, that it is necessary to have paragraph (b) with the others. There may be a set of circumstances in the future which we are trying to provide for here.
If the Minister has in mind that in future the board shall operate transport services outside the State, then it seems to me that that would be secured even if the section was drafted without paragraph (b). If it does have to carry on transport services outside the State, then it will always have to exercise a lot of the activities enumerated in sub-section (2). It does not seem to me that the inclusion of paragraph (b) serves any purpose. If that is so, it is clearly desirable to delete it because at some stage there may be five or six lawyers drawing fat briefs arguing what exactly the appearance of that paragraph in the sub-section means.
I can see what the Minister and the drafters of this measure visualised in putting in the sub-section, but it seems to be isolated in the place where it is. It is like a lone orphan thrown in there. I would much prefer to see a deliberate section put into the Bill giving whatever authority the Minister considers may be necessary if certain things happen with regard to across the Border, or beyond the Border, operation of transport. I think Deputy Lemass is right in drawing attention to the very peculiar place in which this sub-section is put in. I would be satisfied if the Minister would undertake to examine the matter and see whether a specific section cannot be put in somewhere in the Bill. In its present place it suggests that the powers in sub-section (1), paragraph (a) may be operated within the State. Clearly, there is no necessity to say that, because when this Bill becomes an Act it will be operated within the State. Therefore, these words would seem to be unnecessary. If we clear off that dead timber, we are left with this "that the powers conferred in this sub-section may be exercised without the State." Now the word "without" is a very uncouth one.
I wish the Bill could be operated without the State.
I do not know what the words "that the powers may be exercised without the State" mean. Therefore, I think the Minister ought to reconsider this matter and see that a clear and specific section, giving all the powers that he thinks ought to be given, is inserted. I have some difficulty in understanding why this extra power should be limited to sub-section (1) paragraph (a), and should not apply to sub-section (2), although it might be argued that it does apply to sub-section (2).
I should like to know why there is a division between sub-section (1) and sub-section (2). I cannot see why there should be the two sub-sections because, as Deputy Lemass has pointed out, paragraph 7 of sub-section (1), paragraph (a) includes all the activities and all the powers vested in or conferred on the board by this Act. That, surely, covers all the activities in sub-section (2). Why then put the same activities in sub-section (1)?
I am advised that this is required as it is set out in the section. At first glance it may seem to be unnecessary. There are certain reasons for it which I do not wish to go into at the moment. I will look into the matter again, and if it is considered unnecessary to have it there we can take it out. I am advised that it is necessary to have it in the form and in the way and in the place where it is. If that transpires not to be so, we can leave it out.
I would also like if the Minister would look into the question as to what is the exact difference between the powers defined in sub-section (1) and the powers defined in sub-section (2) that requires them to be segregated in that way.
There is a certain reason for which it is thought that is necessary.
That is all very mysterious. I cannot guess what it is.
I do not want to make it mysterious.
Will the Minister say what is the significance of paragraph 7 of sub-section (1)?
The draftsman does not look at this in the same way as the Deputy and myself.
The draftsman is not passing the Bill. The members of the House should have their minds satisfied before they do so.
I can assure the Deputy that I will do everything possible to satisfy his mind.
Would the Minister consider altering paragraph (b) of the sub-section?
The Deputy must not have been listening to me.
I think that those who have read this section carefully will agree that there should be no change, and that the less discussion we have the better.
I cannot make head or tail of it. So far as it relates to transport services, the consignment of merchandise, the storage of merchandise and the other things set out, the Bill clearly states that these things can be done outside the State. If there is any reason for the division the suggestion is that the other things cannot be done except inside. The board could not operate transport services, consign merchandise, store goods or do anything in sub-section (1) without doing the things specified in sub-section (2) outside the State.
I take it that the amendment is withdrawn.
Let the draftsman have another look at it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 13:—
In sub-section (2), paragraph (e), after the word "tenancy" in line 25 to add the following:—"and to purchase houses for its employees and/or to make loans for the purchase of houses by its employees."
The Minister will be aware that for a considerable time there has been an intensified drive in the matter of house building. It is interesting to know that a number of our larger industrial firms have evinced a keen interest in this problem and have entered into negotiations for the purchase of sites for houses, as well as making available to their staffs certain facilities for the purchase of these houses.
With that in mind, we felt that it would be a calamity if Córas Iompair Éireann, the largest employers in the country, were not in line with that very commendable enterprise. For years past it was an old custom with the railway companies to provide, particularly at their larger depôts, houses for their employees. The idea was that there would be accommodation available for types of employees who needed it by reason of the fact that they had to take duty on early morning trains or arrived home late at night.
Members of the House may be aware of certain colonies of houses dotted around various towns where there are large railway depôts. Recently, I understand, it was the policy of the company to dispose of that property. I am not going to question the wisdom or otherwise of that course except to say that the tenants of the houses were considered in so far as they might purchase these houses. Having regard to the general housing question and the interest that has been aroused in it, it would be desirable if Córas Iompair Éireann reverted to the old practice of making a contribution for housing in respect of their employees at the larger depôts.
I will express a preference for that portion of the amendment which states that it might be possible for the new concern to make arrangements whereby staffs would be enabled to purchase their houses. The Minister may say that that would be a colossal and almost impossible task for the company to undertake because of its heavy financial commitments and seeing there are 21,000 employees involved. If he puts that point of view, I am prepared to agree that it is not a suitable time to suggest that the company should set out to provide 21,000 houses. I may say that already there are facilities, through local authorities, as distinct from the company, by means of the Small Dwellings (Acquisition) Act, to provide houses that may be required. The Minister was a member of a local authority and he knows that that very excellent Act, which is doing such fine work, is not compulsory in its application and there are instances throughout the country where local authorities declined to operate the beneficial clauses of that Act.
I am trying to anticipate what the Minister might say in connection with these facilities—that it may happen in certain districts that transport men would not have the facilities which we are now seeking. I ask the Minister to line up with other large employers in the country and make some gesture under this heading. I recognise that there will be financial limitations for a considerable period and that it would be impossible to provide for all the applicants, but at least we might have a gesture, a certain amount appropriated to each area such as Cork, Galway, Sligo or Mullingar. A certain amount might be appropriated for a limited number of areas by the company by way of loan under conditions that would make it easy for the staff to carry out the purchase of their houses.
We are asking the Minister in this amendment to make some gesture that will help a limited number of the 21,000 where they may be stymied by insurance companies or where they may find it difficult even with the local authority to get the credit they need. A company like this can do what employers in Dublin are doing—they can make deductions from the pay of their employees. That will be an easy way for the individual to pay back whatever loan he gets. I am trying to get the Minister's sympathy in this matter. Perhaps he will be in a position to say that when the company is in a better position they could do as I suggest. The main point is to give them the power, when a suitable time arrives, to make this gesture towards solving the housing problems that face their employees.
I think the Deputy will agree that, having regard to the financial position of the company and what its financial position is likely to be for some time ahead, any gesture I could make would be a very empty gesture. I think it would be entirely unreal, and a complete ignoring of the facts of the present situation and the situation for a considerable time to come, if we were to put any obligation on the company to lend money or to purchase houses for their employees. They have certain powers in that connection. As the Deputy told us, they have provided houses in the past. There is nothing in this Bill to prevent them continuing that, if and when they are in a position to do it. But to make a gesture such as the Deputy has suggested would be entirely unreal and would be holding out to the employees hopes which we have no right to hold out.
So far as I am concerned I could not agree to put something into this Bill which might be regarded almost as an obligation on the board to provide very substantial sums when, in fact, they have not got the money. There is no use in saying that they would be expected to provide money for only a small number of their 21,000 employees. Every one of the 21,000 would have an equal right and claim on the company. I could not accept the amendment. I do not think it would do any good. It would be entirely unreal and we would be ignoring the facts of the situation.
Accepting all the Minister says, I suggest the amendment is merely permissive. If the amendment is not accepted the company may be precluded from adopting this course, whenever it is in a financial position so to provide for its employees.
The company has full power to build houses now. The only thing it lacks is money.
It has power under a previous Act.
The railway company has built houses before.
Unless the amendment is accepted the proposed new company will not have that power.
They have the power. Every power which the company has to-day they will have when this Bill becomes law.
Except to the extent of the repeals.
I am speaking in relation to the building of houses.
Is the Minister's objection to the amendment the psychological effect that its acceptance would involve on the workers?
Oh, no.
Inasmuch as the amendment is purely permissive, I cannot see the force of the Minister's objection.
The Minister has before the Dáil a Bill which empowers Bord na Móna to build houses for its workers and makes financial provision to enable Bord na Móna to do so.
There is no analogy.
I admit it is necessary to give Bord na Móna these powers, because its activities will be carried on where there is no housing accommodation and somebody must put it there if the workers are to be attracted. That may arise also over parts of the Córas Iompair Éireann system and I presume that if the extension of the activities of the company or the development of its manufacturing or other work in particular districts requires that housing accommodation should be provided for workers, they can provide it.
I am surprised this question was raised. I had sent to me this morning, free of charge, an excellently produced pamphlet, probably produced by the Labour Party or Clann na Poblachta, or both in combination, which would seem to suggest that there is no housing problem.
It indicates the housing problem is about to be solved.
I would say to the Minister that we are approaching this problem now on the basis of making provision for the future. Undoubtedly, we are inclined to be overshadowed in our discussion by the present position of the company.
I am afraid you are not. I wish you were.
We are creating a new board now and giving that board certain powers. The Minister has made those powers as extensive as possible. Deputy O'Sullivan proposes an additional power. It is not mandatory; it is purely permissive. If in four or five years' time the transport company is in a good sound financial position and may wish to exercise this particular power by making houses available for their employees, I think the Minister would either have to make new powers under Section 13 or come in here for an amendment. We all agree this power cannot be operated for a considerable time. There is no harm in putting it in the Bill. I think it is a very desirable power.
I would like to know, further to the inquiry made by Deputy Lemass, if under the present constitution of Córas Iompair Éireann, the power exists to build houses?
It does.
Is there anything in this Act that takes away that power?
No.
In that case I think the amendment is redundant. If the board will be of the ability and vision we hope, surely the housing of its workers would be one of the first things in which it would be interested in investing its capital.
If the Minister would like to engage in a little wild optimism, he could agree to Deputy O'Sullivan's amendment and add to it another sub-section saying that that particular provision will only come into operation by Order from the Minister, and he gets round all the difficulties.
Does he?
The Minister's principal objection to the amendment is that it would be something unreal. Surely it would be no more unreal than the provisions of paragraph (j) of this sub-section which gives as one of the powers "to subscribe or guarantee money for charitable or benevolent objects or for any institution, or any public, general or useful object." Under that omnibus provision possibly the houses could be provided, but I think the specific purpose should be mentioned. Seeing that it would be permissive, no harm would be done. I believe this amendment would have a good effect psychologically and I think the Minister should accept it.
The Minister's main objection to accepting the amendment is that it is unreal. I suggest to the Minister that he might make a gesture. I have on my left here, Alderman Byrne, and on my right a number of members of the local authority here who are interested in the housing of newly-weds, particularly in the City of Dublin. Without any advertisement we had a position recently where 2,000 people applied for such proposed houses. No member of the Dublin Corporation would regard this as an unreal gesture. I am aware that powers already exist for the building of houses. I am not at all interested in the question of the company building houses for its employees as such. I have known railway men who, on retirement from the company's service, had to give up occupation of their houses. Some of them had lived in them for 20 or 25 years. Everyone knows how difficult it is to find alternative accommodation. I think this power should be given to the new company. It would be welcomed by the staff. I can see nothing objectionable in it.
This amendment does not appeal to me at all. We are not facing the actual position of the national transport undertaking when we talk about an amendment like this. This amendment could only be operated effectively by the employment of very large sums of money. Putting such an amendment into this Bill will only raise false hopes. I am sorry to say that it is my belief that the company will not be in a position for a long time to implement such an amendment as this, to engage in the purchase of houses for resale to their employees, for letting to their employees or for the advancing of loans. I said earlier that I hoped we could discuss this whole question frankly.
I venture to suggest that if that were in the Bill pressure would be brought to bear on the board to implement that and to give effect to it before they would be in a position to provide the money or that the money would have to be diverted from some other purpose to give effect to this section. Is it not quite true to say, quite frankly, that regard is not always had to the financial position of this undertaking when demands are being made on it? Frankly I would see no objection whatever to the suggestion and, as a matter of fact, I would welcome it. I should like to see it as one of the features of the board's operations that it would, to the fullest extent to which its financial position would allow, play its full part in housing its own employees, and I should like to see every other firm in the country doing the same thing. However——
If the Minister has any doubt he could make an Order under Section 13.
I have no doubt whatever that if the time arrives when the board could advance money by way of loan to its employees for that purpose there would be no difficulty in getting the necessary powers. I appeal to Deputies not to insist on inserting this amendment in the Bill now. I appeal to them not to put on the board what would appear to them to be an obligation. I do not think that it would do any good and I am afraid that it might do harm.
Surely under sub-section (2) of the section to which this amendment refers, sub-paragraph (h) would cover the matter? Surely under that, if the board wished to build houses, they could do so?
I have not been in the House for the entire discussion but it seemed to me, from the remarks passed by Deputy O'Sullivan and Deputy Cowan, that they recognised that Córas Iompair Éireann is not at present in a position to do this and that possibly Córas Iompair Éireann will not be in a position to do it for some time, no matter what our hopes in that direction might be. That being so, if there is any doubt—and I agree with Deputy Dockrell that it is covered by sub-paragraph (h) of sub-section (2)——
You are not serious.
Under which thimble is the pea? The Minister says that they should not have the power and now the Deputy says that they have the power.
As I understood the Minister, he said that they have the power but that by putting the amendment in the Bill, it might seem obligatory on the company and that pressure might be brought to bear on the company and force them to do it. What I was going to say is that the Minister met the matter fairly and expressed his own willingness that the company should indulge in this kind of activity when they are in a position to do so. It is quite clear that, under Section 13, any doubts which may exist could be removed by the Minister granting powers when the company is in a position to undertake that work.
Perhaps somebody would tell us what the company cannot do under paragraph (k)?
I am beginning to lose confidence altogether so far as this Bill is concerned. I might practically say that we Deputies are not facing up to our responsibilities at all. I have always had the greatest admiration for the contributions which Deputy O'Sullivan made in this House but I think that this amendment is just asking for too much. Consider the position of this company. It has been bankrupt. It is only able to keep going by the grant of millions of pounds subscribed, in many cases, by the poor men on the bog and on the mountainside. All that is being ignored and the company is to be asked to make grants to enable its employees to buy houses. On the question of treating all citizens equally, by what stretch of imagination can a railway worker call upon this company at the country's expense to buy a house for him, any more than for any other citizen? Can he not avail of the facilities that appertain at the moment? Surely Deputy O'Sullivan is aware that under the Small Dwellings (Acquisition) Acts a tenant of a house may apply to the local authority for a capital sum that will enable him to buy his house from the private landlord.
Is that not so? That we should seek to create false hopes in the minds of the railway workers, considering the present position of the company is, I think, very foolish. What I should like to do is to call the 15,000 or 20,000 employees of Córas Iompair Éireann together—from the general manager down to the humblest worker—and instil into the mind of each one of them an appreciation of the difficult position in which the company finds itself at the moment. I would impress upon them that it would require all the co-operation and the best exertions on the part of each one of them to keep this concern going.
The Deputy is getting away from the amendment.
I am only trying to bring home to the members of this House the position in which the company finds itself at the moment.
A convention of the railway employees is not relevant.
The question of Córas Iompair Éireann advancing loans to its employees to buy houses, under present circumstances, is one that would not commend itself to me.
I am aware, and there are others in this House who are aware, that the Minister for Local Government has sent out circulars over his own name appealing to employers in Dublin and throughout the country to facilitate their employees in the matter of loans for their houses and for the purchase of sites. All I can say, in conclusion, is that railway employees and transport employees in general are no different in their set-up from any other type of worker in this country.
If I cannot succeed in convincing the Minister to accept this amendment, and apparently I have not so succeeded, all that I can say is that when times are prosperous and things are going delightfully with Córas Iompair Éireann we shall return to the problem under Section 13.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendments Nos. 14 and 15 are allied.
To a certain extent that is so.
To a large extent.
I move amendment No. 14:—
In sub-section (2), paragraph (i), line 44, to insert after the word "insurance" the words "or otherwise."
I am not familiar with the rules of legal interpretation. I do not know to what extent the definition of the powers of the board in the extended form in which they appear in this section has a limiting effect upon it. Deputies who will have compared this Bill with the 1944 Transport Act will have noted that in 1944 we did not think it necessary to set out in paragraphs of this kind the powers of Córas Iompair Éireann. In fact, the 1944 Act said merely that the company shall operate transport services and carry on any ancillary and supplementary business. It seems to me that that is all that is required. Perhaps the Minister would have been wiser to recast the section—(1) the board shall have power to operate transport services and, as in accordance with paragraph (k) of sub-section (2) of the section to do all other things which, in the opinion of the board, are calculated to facilitate the proper carrying on of the business of the board.
If I am right, however, in assuming that the rules of interpretation have the effect of limiting the powers of the board when they are set out in this extended paragraph, then we must be concerned with the wording of the paragraph. Paragraph (j) empowers the board to make payments towards insurance for the benefit of all or any of its employees. Córas Iompair Éireann at present makes payments under its welfare scheme for the benefit of its employees but the company are not making payments towards an insurance scheme or otherwise than directly out of revenue for the purpose of providing these benefits. It might be argued subsequently that the insertion of the words "towards insurance" after the word "payments" would have the effect of limiting the power of the board to making payments for the benefit of employees only in the form of contributions to some insurance scheme. I am sure that that is not what is intended. I assume that the existing welfare scheme is not likely to be departed from.
It is covered in clause (h).
I am not clear about that at all. Clause (h) is a similar section to that contained in the 1944 Act which Deputy Davin thought at one time contained some secret scheme of my own to establish company unions but which in fact was intended to enable the company to assist institutions such as the Inchicore Club, which is maintained by the company to provide recreation and restaurant facilities for its employees. It may be that clause (h) also covers the point I have in mind, but I am submitting this amendment in order to ensure that the point will be examined as to whether the effect of the words "towards insurance", will limit the powers of the company in the matter of making payments for these purposes. I think these words would be better out. I think the purpose of the paragraph would be clearer with the words out. If they are not to be taken out, some such words as Deputy O'Sullivan suggests should be inserted or, as I suggest in my amendment, after the words "insurance" the words "or otherwise" should be added so that we shall avoid the danger of a query being raised at some stage as to the powers of the company to continue these payments.
I am advised the amendment is entirely unnecessary and that this matter is already adequately covered. Clause (h) seems to cover everything—"to establish and support or aid in the establishment and support of, associations, clubs, institutions, funds, trusts and conveniences calculated to promote the welfare of its employees or ex-employees and the dependents or relatives of such employees or ex-employees." I think that this clause should be read in conjunc tion with the other clause but if there is any doubt about it we can have it looked into.
I want to draw attention to the company's welfare scheme under which benefits were paid in sickness and in certain other circumstances. There is a welfare scheme but there is no fund; the company pays these benefits as circumstances arise. The contributions towards trusts, institutions or funds do not refer to that scheme at all.
There is this sole argument in favour of the amendments. Paragraph (h) gives authority to establish and support or aid in the establishment and support of these institutions, funds or trusts. Clause (i) deals with the making of payments and it might be contended that the establishment, support or aiding did not include the making of payments.
If Córas Iompair Éireann could do these things without making payments, it would solve some of their problems.
Whereas (i) deals with the making of payments towards insurance, I think that that paragraph would be improved if the two amendments of Deputy O'Sullivan and Deputy Lemass were inserted—to make payments towards insurance or otherwise.
There is a big difference between Deputy Lemass's amendment and Deputy O'Sullivan's, but the point raised in Deputy Lemass's amendment is I think covered.
Might I read this paragraph from the welfare scheme for the regular wages staff of Córas Iompair Éireann:
"This welfare scheme, which is voluntary, non-compulsory and noncontributory provides the following benefits:—
(1) Life assurance,
(2) Sickness benefit,
(3) Early retirement benefit,
(4) Medicine and hospital treatment,
(5) Medicine at reduced rates,
(6) Mortality grant.
It seems that the power of the company to continue to make payments for these purposes under that scheme might be in question if this amendment were not inserted.
I do not think it is, but I shall have the matter looked into.
Amendment No. 14, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 15:—
In sub-section (2), paragraph (i), line 44, after the word "insurance" to insert "or increased pensions".
In regard to amendment No. 15, is the Minister satisfied that there is provision in the Bill to meet the point I have already raised in connection with increased pensions? If he can say there is, there will be no necessity to make the case. Anyway the case briefly is that a number of men have retired within the last five years and, strange though it may seem to the House, having retired on small salaries they have got no increase whatsoever in their pensions to meet the increased cost of living, such as has been given in the case of civil servants and employees of local authorities. I do happen to know that the chairman and board of the company are anxious to meet that position if they are permitted to do so. Naturally those concerned are interested lest this Bill might pass through the House without such a provision, and although the company might be desirous of doing something, eventually they might find that they would not have the power to do so. That is the reason the amendment is put down. There is general acceptance outside the House that something should be done for these people and I think the point at issue is whether the new board would have the power to attend to the matter.
Is Deputy O'Sullivan referring to the wages staff?
I am referring to the whole staff but I speak especially for the clerical grades.
So far as the wages staff is concerned those who have retired five years would come under the means test of the old age pensions code.
I am referring specifically to members of the clerical staff who have retired in the past five years.
Progress reported; Committee to sit again next week.