Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 21 Feb 1950

Vol. 119 No. 3

Committee on Finance. - Transport Bill, 1949—Committee Stage (Resumed).

Question again proposed: "That Section 26 stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Lemass

I was speaking on the section when the Dáil adjourned last week, with particular reference to the provision in sub-section (2) (b) which limits the amount of new transport stock that may be issued to a total of £7,000,000. So far as this Bill is concerned, the amount of new capital which can be invested in the Córas Iompair Éireann undertaking without amending legislation is limited to £7,000,000. When the Minister was speaking on the Second Reading, he stated that the figure of £7,000,000 was suggested in the Milne Report as the further capital which would be necessary for development purposes. That was not quite correct. Deputies who read the Milne Report will remember that Sir James Milne estimated the capital needs of Córas Iompair Éireann for five years at a figure of £9,750,000, plus a further £700,000 for the completion of schemes already authorised, including £300,000 for the Store Street station.

I am anxious to get from the Minister now some division of the total sum between the various heads of capital expenditure contemplated in view of the rather ambiguous position which has resulted from the decision of the Government not to proceed with the completion of Store Street station but, instead, to acquire the building from Córas Iompair Éireann, involving, presumably, repayment of the amount already expended.

It would seem that Córas Iompair Éireann will have available for capital development under this Bill a larger sum than Sir James Milne estimated as necessary for five years, but, of course, that larger sum is for an indefinite period, unless the Minister contemplates that within or at the end of five years further legislation will be proposed. It is true, of course, that the figure of £7,000,000 was mentioned in the Milne Report because, of the £10,450,000 which was estimated there to be required, some £3,450,000 will become available from the estimated accruals for depreciation, leaving £7,000,000 to be raised in the form of new money. The first and main question which the Dáil has to ask itself is whether the amount is enough.

We have been discussing transport policy on and off for a long time and, while we have had explained to us a plan for the reconstitution of Córas Iompair Éireann, involving mainly a new method of electing directors to the undertaking, and have had various discussions concerning things that happened in the past or are happening now, we have had no serious attempt made to outline to the Dáil a reconstruction plan which would include particulars of the capital expenditure considered necessary and an estimate of the effect of that capital expenditure on the revenue of the undertaking and which would hold out the prospect of revenue equalling operating costs at some stage, thus obviating the need for a subsidy from taxation.

The nearest we have got to a plan is in the Milne Report. Sir James Milne did attempt to estimate capital needs for five years ahead under broad headings, but even there, however, we are left in considerable doubt as to what he thought was desirable. Certainly, he did not attempt to propose any revolutionary changes either in the equipment or in the organisation of the undertaking. To a large extent his recommendations were based upon purely financial considerations. Of the £9,500,000 new investments which he considered necessary in the five years' period, £2,900,000 was earmarked for the permanent way; £3,000,000 for rolling stock; £1,600,000 for road vehicles; £750,000 for plant and machinery and £1,500,000 for the improvement of goods stations.

I think it must be clear that a substantial part of that expenditure, possibly the whole of the outlay on the permanent way and a large part of the outlay on rolling stock, cannot properly be described as capital expenditure at all. No extension of the permanent way is, I take it, in contemplation. Ordinarily the cost of maintaining the permanent way is a charge on revenue and it is merely a financial device to avoid a charge on revenue in the present year, to postpone, it to the future, which is involved in this proposal that a substantial part of the maintenance expenditure for the five years should be charged to capital instead of revenue.

The same is true in respect of the proposed expenditure on rolling stock. It may be true that arrears of permanent way maintenance which arose during the war and arrears of rolling stock maintenance and replacements are so heavy as to necessitate the issue of new capital to finance them. Ordinarily, however, new capital should not be issued for any purpose which does not hold out the prospect of increasing the revenue of the company sufficiently to meet the higher interest charges and provide for the sinking fund associated with the stock issue. We know from what the Minister has told us following his conversation with the old Córas Iompair Éireann Board that it was contemplated in 1948 that a much heavier investment in the Córas Iompair Éireann railway undertaking would be necessary.

Mr. Morrissey

Before 1948?

Mr. Lemass

I do not want to misrepresent the Minister. What I intended to convey was that he learned in 1948 from the former chairman, Mr. Reynolds, and the stockholders' directors associated with him, that they contemplated a very much larger investment in the railway undertaking, that they had prepared plans involving such larger investment, plans of which the Minister disapproved and which he ultimately rejected. If there is to be a programme of capital expenditure it must have some purpose behind it. If the sole purpose of this contemplated expenditure is to make good arrears of maintenance which arose during the war, well and good; but it would be misleading to present it to the Dáil as a plan of transport development or even as a plan of railway survival. The Dáil is now facing up to the situation that Córas Iompair Éireann, for whatever causes, has lost money and is continuing to lose money and we have to devise some method of putting it into a position which will eliminate the possibility of loss in the future.

Córas Iompair Éireann lost money in 1947. We can, perhaps, ignore that year because of the abnormal circumstances which then prevailed. It lost money in 1948 and I understand that it lost money in 1949. I have heard a figure for losses exceeding £1,250,000. If we are to contemplate the possibility of the taxpayer being called upon to make good sums in excess of £1,000,000 per year in order to subsidise Córas Iompair Éireann losses, then we are obviously dealing with something of vital importance here and we should not pass from this until such time as we are satisfied that there is somewhere in the Department of Industry and Commerce or in the Córas Iompair Éireann organisation itself a plan and a method for escaping from that situation by putting the undertaking at some stage, be it five or ten years hence, into a position where losses shall cease, apart altogether from the prospect of the subsidies advanced by the Exchequer being repaid.

Now if we are to attempt to devise such a plan here, or to urge upon the Minister for Industry and Commerce or the new board of Córas Iompair Éireann the urgency of such a plan, we have first of all to note that Córas Iompair Éireann losses are occurring entirely on the railways. The omnibus undertaking, the road freight undertaking and the hotel services either made profits or broke level, so far as I know, in each of the years of the undertakings' existence.

Mr. Morrissey

Not the road freight.

Mr. Lemass

The last published figures relate to the year 1948 and in that year they showed a small profit on their accounts.

Mr. Morrissey

Yes, but the Deputy was referring to a number of years. They did make a small profit in the year to which the Deputy has now referred.

Mr. Lemass

And I think also in the previous year.

Mr. Morrissey

It was not very much, one way or the other.

Mr. Lemass

Quite. So far as their omnibus service, road freight service and hotel service are concerned, there is no particular cause for concern. We have to notice, therefore, that it is the railway undertaking that is losing money. In the year ending 31st December, 1948, railway operating showed a balance on the wrong side of £1,275,000. In view of the aggregate losses in excess of £1,250,000 reported in 1949, it is reasonable to assume that the loss on railway operating in that year was even higher.

Mr. Morrissey

The Deputy has repeated more than once a figure of £1,250,000. Perhaps the Deputy would tell me where he got that figure.

Mr. Lemass

I got it from a director of the company. It is an estimate of the probable losses in 1949. The figure was not given to me in confidence. I do not want anybody to think I have broken any confidence. I take it the figures will be published in a couple of weeks. I will give the Minister the director's name if he wishes to have it.

Mr. Morrissey

No.

Mr. Lemass

It is clear, therefore, that if Córas Iompair Éireann is ever to pay its way, if it is ever to earn revenue which will balance its operating costs and thereby escape the necessity, of appealing annually for a subsidy, it will be in consequence of a reorganisation of its railway undertaking. I remember in the past, when arguments were adduced as to the desirability of buying out the private interests in Córas Iompair Éireann, such as this Bill proposes, it was said to me then by a director of the company that if they were genuinely a privately owned concern and not operating subject to considerations of public policy, they would give away the railway; if they gave away the railway, they would earn a substantial revenue every year and be able to pay, not merely their debenture interest, but a reasonable dividend on the common stock. It was the very existence of the railway and the obligation resting upon them under statute to continue working the railway which turned them from a profitable enterprise into one seeking the support of Government subsidy.

The whole purpose, therefore, of any plan made to deal with the transport problem in the area served by Córas Iompair Éireann must be to effect a reorganisation of the railway undertaking, such a reorganisation as will, through increasing efficiency and lower costs, attract additional traffic to the railway part of the concern or reduce the costs to such an extent as to bring them within the limits of the revenue that the railway is capable of earning. If we consider, then, this problem of a plan for transport reorganisation, and particularly consider it in relation to the specific matter arising on this section, namely, the extent of the capital investment necessary for transport reorganisation, we must note that the problem turns very largely upon the improvement of operating efficiency and the reduction of operating costs.

Once, however, we come to consider the question of operating costs, we come up against the fact that the cost that really matters in railway operation is the cost of wages. Wages in the year 1947 equalled 62 per cent. of the company's total operating revenue and accounted for 59 per cent. of the company's expenditure. None of us wish to contemplate the prospect of any substantial disemployment of railway workers. It is that disinclination to pursue a reorganisation plan that might involve the substantial disemployment of railway workers which has, in the past, encouraged the executives of the railway company to concentrate their attention upon the patching up of the existing system of operation rather than its reorganisation.

It is clear, however, that if railways are to be reorganised, and reorganised in a manner which will ultimately have the effect of bringing their costs into line with their revenue, there must be some consequence on employment. That is the consequence which all sections of the Dáil will be anxious to avoid, but it is necessary for us to recognise that either we face that consequence or else contemplate continuing subsidies on recurring losses for a long period to come. I was against the idea of subsidising transport and I am still against it.

When the 1944 Transport Act was passed it was hoped that as a result of the amalgamation with the railway undertaking of the Dublin United Transport Company's undertaking— and the efforts which were made in that Act to consolidate the position of Córas Iompair Éireann in relation to road transport—that we were putting it into a position in which it would have a revenue from omnibus operation and road freight services which would cover possible losses on railway working, making the whole concern capable of paying its way even though the particular branch of it, the railways, was losing money. That has not worked out. The profit from omnibus working, although considerable, has been far short of the losses on railway operation. The road freight services at best broke level and the hotels' profit was quite small. If there is a case for subsidy, a case for asking the taxpayers of the country—the ordinary agricultural labourer and shopkeeper throughout the country—to pay in higher taxation an amount of money to subsidise railway operation, it can only be on the basis of the desirability of maintaining the stability of railway employment until the reorganisation of the transport system of the country has been completed—either an expansion of staff, because of increased traffic resulting from more efficient operation, or as the staff falls off to the required level in due course from natural causes. In other words, I think that if there is a case for subsidy, at all, it should be directed to the purpose of maintaining in employment whatever staffs are additional to the minimum needs of a completely reorganised system.

We recognise that the reorganisation of the railway system here may take many years to complete. We recognise that the modernisation and standardisation of its equipment—the mechanisation of its methods of handling freight, the recasting of its working methods in line with the methods in operation in other countries where the wages costs of railway operation are very much lower—will take time and that if the sole consideration that was to apply was that of efficient railway operation, the process of staff reduction which would be involved in that standardisation, modernisation and mechanisation of the system would be gradual. I do not think we want it at all. I think that opposition to the reorganisation and re-equipment of our railway system, because of its possible effect upon employment, can be eliminated by an undertaking given by the State that there will be no unemployment—that, when the company has prepared its plan and has estimated the minimum staff required to operate the recast system, the State will undertake by subsidy to make good the difference between the wages cost upon the basis of the new plan and the existing wages cost and to maintain it until either, as I have already said, expansion of traffic eliminates the problem of surplus staff altogether or, in the course of time, staff has fallen to the level necessary.

If we do that, we at least give the railway executive every incentive to prepare a completely modern and efficient transport system for this country. We hold out the prospect to the taxpayer that the need for subsidy will, at some stage, disappear and we remove the inducements to inefficiency and to waste which a mere blanket subsidy, such as I understood the Minister to propose, involves. I am not now attempting to enunciate a plan for transport reorganisation. That would probably be out of order on this particular section and it would be a task which would be beyond my powers but I feel that when we are coming here to consider the amount of capital we are going to invest in this undertaking for the years ahead we should know why we are doing it. None of us will object to the provision of new capital for the railway undertaking provided it is invested for the purpose of building up an efficient system which can at some time work without subsidy— at some time earn enough revenue to cover all operating expenses. I think that we should instruct the board to prepare a plan upon that basis.

I said that the board are handicapped in their operations by the circumstances under which the present railway system was got together. The Córas Iompair Éireann system represents what is left of some 24 separate railway undertakings all of which were established at different times and none of which had standardised equipment. All its rolling stock—engines, carriages and wagons—was bought over from these former independent railway concerns, now amalgamated into one. There is no standardisation and a lot of that equipment is, in fact, obsolete. If we ask them to prepare a plan for equipping the railway undertaking with first-class and efficient locomotives, carriages and wagons, suitable to the needs of this country—and undertake to provide them with the capital necessary to construct that equipment—if we ask them to prepare a plan for the permanent way, which will permit of modern equipment worked at high speeds over it, which the present permanent way does not permit, and to consider their whole system of working both in relation to the handling of passengers as well as the handling of traffic so as to get costs down to a minimum, then, if we get such a plan brought forward, it is an easy matter to ask them to base their fares and charges upon the assumption that the plan is, in fact, in operation and to undertake to make good by way of subsidy the difference between the costs which arise under that plan and the actual costs they would now have to meet until the plan is completed.

In that way we get an urge towards efficiency; we get the benefit of lower transport charges and we eliminate the risks which are in the minds of many Deputies, the risks of unemployment or the worsening of conditions of employment on the railway. I am sure, however, that those who are specially concerned with the interests of railway workers will understand as well as I do, that any system of operation, such as we now have, which will necessitate this year, next year or the year after, a subsidy of £1,000,000 or more from the Exchequer, is already doomed. Political or other considerations will induce Governments to allow it to go on for a time but, sooner or later, a time will arise when the representatives of the taxpayers, who have to provide the money, will insist on changes which will reduce the cost to the country and reduce the subsidy. I do not think it is good enough to ask the taxpayers to provide a subsidy merely to keep a system in existence that we know is inefficient, that we know is incapable of ever paying its way from day to day——

Mr. Morrissey

Who is asking them to do that?

Mr. Lemass

That is what is implied in this Bill.

Mr. Morrissey

Nonsense.

Mr. Lemass

The Minister will explain why it is nonsense. The point I want to make, however, is that any reorganisation of the railway system, the elimination of these operating difficulties that exist now, its re-equipment with modern, up-to-date, standardised rolling stock, is going to involve a very much larger capital investment than £7,000,000. The size of the capital investment does not matter. I am quite certain, if other costs could be brought into relation to revenue, that the modernisation of the undertaking and its re-equipment with new rolling stock, would improve the revenue position by a far greater amount than the interest charge on the additional capital. I think, however, that this £7,000,000, of which, perhaps, half represents no more than the making good of the arrears of maintenance on permanent way and rolling stock which occurred during the war years, will solve nothing.

I know there are Deputies in this House who advocated the electrification of our railways. I am sure that if they made any inquiries at all as to what is involved in the electrification of the railways, they will understand that £7,000,000 is a mere bagatelle in relation to the capital necessary for that purpose. I do not believe in the electrification of our railways. I think that the cost of electrifying our railways, by means of a third rail or by overhead wires, would be out of all proportion to any revenue the undertaking could ever earn under any circumstances we can conceive. We have not now, and we never shall have in this country, the density of traffic and the frequency of services which would justify electrification. If we are going to electrify our main lines and utilise electric power for traction, it will only be through Diesel electric equipment.

Mr. C. Lehane

Is the Deputy relating that proposition to the present charge for current?

Mr. Lemass

Let us assume that we can get electric current for nothing. I am talking of the capital cost of laying down a third rail and of constructing electric locomotives. The capital cost would be out of all proportion to what the undertaking could earn. Railway electrification is economic only where there is a very great density of traffic. The suburban lines in London and in certain densely populated and highly industrialised districts in continental countries, have been able to operate electrified systems but in many of these cases they are not always profitable. Here obviously we must get a system of traction which will cost money only when it is used. A system which costs money whether it is used or not or when it is infrequently used, is obviously unsuitable for our needs. If it is possible to devise some type of steam locomotive which will serve our purpose well and good. The advice I got from those competent to instruct me in the matter, was that the most economic system was the Diesel electric system, and that that was likely to be the most important development in railway traffic for many years to come. However, I do not claim to be an expert on that matter and I express no dogmatic opinion about it.

Mr. C. Lehane

That would leave us dependent on outside fuel supplies.

Mr. Lemass

I was not at all satisfied that it would not be possible to devise some type of locomotive capable of meeting our needs which could be fuelled by turf, but I was up against this fact that the quantity of turf necessary to fuel steam locomotives was far and above what we were producing or could produce in any reasonable time. It may be that there are developments in that regard which hold out hope for the future, but they are still very largely in the experimental stage. One way or the other, whatever power is used, it seems to me that we must take full account of the fact that over a large part of our railway system there is not now, and never will be, a considerable density of traffic and that a comparatively infrequent service of trains as compared with other countries will meet our full needs. We have got to devise means which will enable these services to be run as cheaply as possible, with the minimum of maintenance and the minimum of operating costs. That is going to involve a great deal of expenditure. It is going to involve to a very large extent the complete replacement of much of the rolling stock, both engines and wagons.

It is true to say that an extraordinarily high percentage of our wagons do not run on ball bearings. Some of them are 60 or 70 years old and the cost of operating them is very much higher than the cost of operating modern wagons specifically designed for the task for which they are reqiured. I remember at one stage, during the foot and mouth epidemic, hearing described the sight of a railway worker scraping between the boards in a railway wagon in the disinfecting process. I felt that with the development of plastics, it should be possible to devise a type of flooring for wagons which would eliminate cracks and corners and enable one man with a hose to clean out the wagons rather than to resort to the slow and laborious method by which the work has to be done now. No doubt ideas of that kind will develop in the railway service but I lay down the essence of our problem to be the replacement of out-of-date and worn-out equipment, the standardisation of equipment, the mechanisation of methods of handling freight traffic, and the recasting of the passenger traffic system so as to reduce costs. The recasting of that means, or would mean under a different type of economy a reduction in the number of men required to work the railways.

We would say to the railway company that, while our process of reorganisation is proceeding and in order to avoid the unemployment that might otherwise be caused, we would give the subsidy. We would say: "You maintain the employment, but at the same time work towards this plan, so that the need for subsidy will, at some stage, be eliminated." Whether it is five, ten or 15 years I do not care. I am quite prepared to go to the taxpayer and justify a subsidy, provided there is a reasonable prospect that it will end and that transport services will be put on a paying basis. I think it unjustifiable to go to them for a subsidy to carry on a system which can never be economic and which it is not proposed to endeavour to make economic by reason of the limitation of the capital investment proposed by this section.

It may be said that all this could have been done before and that before the war the problem of the railways was the same, substantially, as it is now, that the necessity for railway reorganisation and re-equipment was as keen then as it is now. It will be remembered that the old Great Southern Railways Company—which was not a State concern or a semi-State concern like Córas Iompair Éireann, but was dependent on open recourse to the public for capital—could not raise capital. When the railway problem again became acute in 1938 or 1939, the Transport Tribunal of that year reported that the Great Southern Railways could not raise any money because there were no terms upon which any member of the public would lend money to it.

Mr. Morrissey

Neither could Córas Iompair Éireann.

Mr. Lemass

Córas Iompair Éireann could not have done it? Do not tell me that. Córas Iompair Éireann borrowings from the public were guaranteed by the State.

Mr. Morrissey

No one would give it any money. They could not get any.

Mr. Lemass

When they required money as capital, they raised it.

Mr. Morrissey

No.

Mr. Lemass

In my time, they raised it at 2½ per cent. They will not raise it at 2½ per cent. now. The idea of the 1944 Act was to put the credit of the State behind the undertaking; recognising the need for large capital investment there, to facilitate it by means of guaranteed borrowings; to ensure that, not merely would they get it but—as we saw it—also to enable them to secure the money at a much lower rate of interest than they might otherwise have to pay. It was that inability to raise capital, and the disinclination to adopt the courses open to them that might have adverse effects on employment at that time, which has deterred this reorganisation from proceeding before this. Of course, it could not have been effected during the war, anyhow.

Facing the situation as it exists now, and looking ahead to the future, we could, by reason of the State guarantee which this Bill provides, as did the 1944 Act, ensure that the capital will be raised to a reasonable amount every year; and we can also ensure that the adverse effects on employment will not develop, by reason of the subsidy arrangement. I think it is undesirable to ask the taxpayer to provide a subsidy for transport except as part of a reconstruction plan; and if there is going to be a reconstruction plan, we have to contemplate a far heavier investment in transport than £7,000,000. That is the point I want to raise on this section, because in this section it is proposed to limit the new capital that can be invested in the undertaking to £7,000,000. It is less, even, as I understand it, than Sir James Milne thought would be needed in five years. It is substantially less than the former chairman of Córas Iompair Éireann thought would be necessary. It is very much less than I thought necessary. It is my opinion that the Minister will have difficulty in getting people to come on to his board and work effectively on the board unless they can be given some objective to work towards, some possibility of retrieving, not merely the fortunes of the undertaking, but their own personal reputations, which may be damaged by association with a subsidised undertaking. If you can hold out the prospect of development, in which you can say that the adequate capital necessary for reorganisation is available and that for whatever additional capital is necessary the State will back it to the limit, so that they can work towards a position when it will eventually pay it way, you will get men on the board prepared to work hard and work with that clear objective in front of them.

As we stand at present, we do not know where we are. All we do know is that the company is losing money; that we voted it a substantial amount of subsidy in this year to meet losses incurred this year or anticipated next year; and we know that, if it has losses after that, we will have to vote them still more. That is not a good prospect. If there is any alternative to that prospect, it must be because of some plan of capital development. What is that plan? Is it limited to this £7,000,000? On what is that £7,000,000 going to be spent and how will the spending of it improve the revenue position of the company? These are questions which I think the Minister should answer.

Mr. Morrissey

First, may I compliment the Deputy on being able to take full advantage of this section to make another Second Reading speech and to survey so well the whole transport situation in the country? There was one thing running through my mind listening to the Deputy's exposition, his obvious—at least superficial—knowledge of transport, the plans which he outlined, the methods which he told us should be adopted and, in general, giving us and giving the House the impression that he knew exactly what was wrong with the transport situation in this country, that he knows exactly and knew exactly what was wrong in particular with the railway side of it. One coming into this House to-day for the first time and listening to Deputy Lemass would come to the conclusion that Deputy Lemass had always been on that side of the House; they would never think for a moment that he had sat on this side of the House, as the Minister responsible for transport, for 16 years. Surely I am entitled to ask the Deputy why, during those 16 years, if he was possessed then of all the knowledge which he now gives us the benefit of, he did not see that it was implemented or that some use was made of it. May I ask if the Deputy, when he was on this side of the House, gave the benefit of his advice to those who were then responsible and who are still responsible for Córas Iompair Éireann? If the Deputy made those suggestions to them, did they act on them, did they attempt to act on them and, if they did not attempt to act on them, why not?

Deputy Lemass talks here as if he were not the person who is responsible, to a greater extent than any other person in this country, for the chaotic state of our transport to-day. Córas Iompair Éireann did not arrive at its present position last year or the year before or in the last five years. Its present position and condition did not arise during the war and is not to any great extent due to the war. To some extent, it is. The Deputy talked about the railway wagons 60 and 70 years old. He might also talk about railway carriages that are almost as ancient. What steps, if any, did the Deputy suggest should be taken to give us new wagons or new carriages? The Deputy said the old company could not raise money. Is it not well known—certainly it is known to Deputy Lemass—that the old company on many occasions paid out in dividends the money that should have been spent on renewing, replacing and maintaining? Is not that true? Would I be challenged by the Deputy? Of course it is true.

The Deputy now pretends to be concerned to the heart at the idea of the unfortunate agricultural labourer, in his capacity as a taxpayer, having to pay his part of whatever subsidy will be required to keep this system going. He denounces the subsidy. It is abhorrent to him. The Deputy did not tell us where else the money was to be got, from whom it was to be got, or how it was to be got. I listened very carefully during the three-quarter hour that the Deputy was on his feet. He denounced the subsidy but he did not suggest, or attempt to suggest, at any time, where the money can be got.

The difference, may I say, between the present approach and the Deputy's approach to this matter is that we are facing up to the situation in a realistic way. We are facing the facts and putting the facts before the House and the country. We have not said, and we are not saying, now or at any time, that no attempt will be made to put this concern on a paying basis. Nobody has said that. There is nothing in this Bill to say it. Deputy Lemass concludes that, because I am not looking for £17,000,000, £27,000,000 or £37,000,000 in this section, but for only £7,000,000, therefore, I am not going to make, or the company is not going to make, any real effort to reorganise the transport system, particularly the railway section of it.

The present company, particularly since Córas Iompair Éireann (1945) was set up, thought in millions and half-millions. They were apparently unable to think in smaller sums and they set about in the three years to spend millions but none of the millions was spent on what would earn money for the company.

Mr. Lemass

How many were spent?

Mr. Morrissey

None of the millions was spent on replacements, either of wagons or carriages. In so far as there is any evidence at all before us with regard to the attitude of Córas Iompair Éireann (1945) towards the railway system of this country, it was an attitude anti-railway and pro-road. Practically all the schemes which were given priority were schemes in connection with the development of road traffic as against rail traffic. There is no question whatever about that.

When I am lectured here about what was done, what was proposed to be done, and the advice which was given to the Deputy when he was on this side of the House on the reorganisation of the railway system, I think I am entitled to query that in view of the fact which I have mentioned here before the key-man, the keystone to the whole railway system, was missing during the whole of the lifetime of Córas Iompair Éireann. It is a notorious fact that during the whole of its existence, Córas Iompair Éireann never had a chief mechanical engineer. I would venture to say, without presuming or pretending to have one-tenth of the knowledge which Deputy Lemass has, or presumes to have, that if a railway company, whether it is Córas Iompair Éireann or a private company or a national company, were seriously attempting to maintain, much less reorganise, rebuild or reconstruct, a railway system, the first officer whose services should be available would be a chief mechanical engineer.

Deputy Lemass talks about reorganisation, modernisation, mechanisation and a real attempt to put at the disposal of our people an efficient and economical transport service. The first step we must take in that connection if we are to do that or even attempt to do it, is to pass this Bill. Córas Iompair Éireann does not belong to us. It belongs to the shareholders up to the moment. The Deputy need not have any qualms about my difficulty in forming a board. That will not be the difficulty I will have. I am advised that the £7,000,000 which is in this section for capital purposes is regarded as adequate. If it is subsequently found to be inadequate for reorganisation or reconstruction of the system, whichever the new national board will consider necessary to make this efficient and economical, then I presume the Minister for Industry and Commerce, whoever he may be, can come to this House for additional capital and I dare say he will have little difficulty in getting it if it is thought by the Dáil that the money is being expended in a useful way.

The Deputy made the point that rebuilding of the permanent way, if and where it is required, the building of new carriages, the building of new wagons, is not, strictly speaking, a capital charge, that it should be met out of revenue. That may be so, but there is no revenue there to meet it. The Deputy knows that there are very heavy arrears, running back not merely to the beginning of the war, but for many years before that, and he also knows that the present company, or the company that was there prior to Córas Iompair Éireann, never made any provision for replacements, never had any reserve for replacements. I should like the Deputy to tell me where we are going to get the money.

It is all right to get up here and talk in the general way in which the Deputy has talked, but let me say to him that it is not terribly helpful. I think that if the Deputy set his mind seriously to it, he could be much more helpful on this Bill. From the very moment I brought in the Bill, I tried to have it discussed and considered so far as possible on a non-Party basis. I said I was prepared to accept, and would be glad to get, advice and assistance on it from every part of the House. I think I can say that I have tried to meet the points put up by Deputies in a reasonable way. I have not, any more than anybody who would be in my position, been able to accept every suggestion made or every amendment put forward, but I would appeal to Deputies to try to be a little bit more helpful.

Deputy Lemass made many statements which he did not believe in himself and which he knows were not very sound. This is a very simple, straightforward section. It is, I grant you, sufficiently wide to enable a Deputy to make another Second Reading speech, but I want to make it clear that I am advised and satisfied that £7,000,000 is adequate and I am not looking for reasons or excuses to increase that sum. If I were advised that £5,000,000 or £6,000,000 would be adequate, either £5,000,000 or £6,000,000 would be there, instead of £7,000,000. My advisers may be wrong also. If the amount is found to be inadequate, as I say, that can be cured. It is something which can be met and it might be all to the good that, if the board of a new national undertaking want additional capital, they should have to come back to the Dáil and justify their requiring additional capital.

Mr. Lemass

The Minister has obviously missed the point. He said he is advised that £7,000,000 is adequate. Adequate for what? Is there a project, a plan, a set of proposals for the expenditure of £7,000,000 upon the re-equipment of the railway?

Mr. Morrissey

What else do you think we want it for?

Mr. Lemass

The Minister puts his case in a very confusing way. He says now, if I understood correctly his interjection, that there is a project for railway reorganisation which will cost £7,000,000, but he said: "If we find that £7,000,000 is not enough, we will come back and ask for more." That way of presenting the case for the Bill implies that he is merely groping in the dark, that he is putting a figure of £7,000,000 in because it happened to appear in the Milne Report, even though the figure in the Bill has no real relationship with the figure in the Milne Report, and does not know whether it will be enough or more than enough or half enough. That is precisely the point I am making, that there is not a project for the reorganisation of the transport system so as to get it eventually on to a paying basis.

It seems to me that if we could be given a project of that kind, if we could be told what it is intended to do and how, if it is done, it will affect the company's revenue, we could agree here to the State guaranteeing the capital required and, if necessary, to the provision of a subsidy to meet any temporary difficulties, particularly employment difficulties, which might arise in the meantime. I submit, however, that we have no set of proposals before us for the expenditure of new capital on the undertaking so as to make it more efficient and more economical than it now is, that the information given in the Milne Report is inadequate and, in any event, is now out of date in view of the Minister's remarks, and that it is unfair to ask us to approve of this capital expenditure or sanction the granting of a subsidy, unless we know exactly where we are going. That is all I am asking— where are we going? Are we just carrying on from day to day, hoping that some difficulties will not become too acute and believing that, if they do, we can always meet them by pouring in more subsidy, or are we working with some definite objective in view and in the hope that, when we get there, we will have an economic and efficient transport system?

The Minister can, of course, score points over me because of the fact that this transport problem exists now, although I was Minister for a long number of years. It might, perhaps, be helpful to the Minister in considering this problem to review briefly the history of the transport problem during these years. When I became Minister, I was brought up against the transport problem from the first day, because of a general strike of railway workers, a general strike necessitated by the fact that the Railway Wages Board of that day had reported that the company could not pay the wages and that there had to be an all-round reduction of 10 per cent. in the wages of the workers. In the event, the strike was confined to the Great Northern system, as a result of a device to which I got the Dáil to agree, but the reduction in wages did, in fact, apply when it was over to new entrants to the company's service.

Mr. Morrissey

This is all very interesting, but surely on this sub-sec-tion——

Mr. Lemass

It leads up to the sub-section. At that time, the workers in the railway shops were employed four days a week. I discussed the problem with the directors of the company and they said to me: "It is due entirely to the development of road services. The uncontrolled growth of privately-owned omnibus services and road freight services has taken all our traffic away and we ourselves have no right or power or finances to run competing services." That situation was remedied by the legislation of 1932 and 1933. The companies were fully empowered to operate these services. The privately-owned services were acquired and the right to operate omnibus and road freight services was, in effect, confined to the railway operators. I felt that these undertakings were entitled to get a chance to prove their capacity to make good under the terms of these Acts. By 1938 or 1939, it was obvious that they were not going to succeed and in that year the necessity for new transport legislation was admitted. I so reported to the Dáil and got the Dáil to agree to the establishment of a transport tribunal, whose report the Minister would be well advised to read. The war came. During the war we just, so to speak, took over the railways and ran them as best we could without reference to any consideration except keeping up essential transport to the maximum possible extent, but we legislated for the establishment of Córas Iompair Éireann in 1944 and the war was still on in 1944. It is not fair for the Minister to taunt me or the Córas Iompair Éireann Board with the fact that the company did nothing to effect a reorganisation of its system or to replace outworn rolling stock or equipment during that period when it could not be done. The Minister knows quite well that it could not have been done. There was no possibility of buying material to build engines or rolling stock in these years. That situation had not even begun to ease when the Minister himself came into office. It did ease in 1948 and disappeared in 1949, but certainly the opportunities open to Córas Iompair Éireann for investment of new capital in rolling stock or operating equipment prior to 1948 were nil. The Minister said that they spent millions of pounds. They did not.

Mr. Morrissey

It was not their fault.

Mr. Lemass

It was not their fault, that is true. They just could not spend them. They certainly had their plans for the reorganisation of their system and I certainly gave them the advice I gave the Minister to-day. I urged them to proceed along the lines I outlined here and assured them of the backing of the Government then in office financial and otherwise. The fact is that they did not do it as the opportunity of doing it was not there. It could not have been done until the supply situation had improved and by that time not merely were the company without the finances to undertake any development plan but they were in fact under orders from the Minister not to undertake that development until the Milne Report was submitted. There is the Milne Report. From time to time during the course of this debate I have been satisfied that the Minister never read the Milne Report or read it so casually that he has forgotten its details. The need for the re-equipment of the system and the replacement of obsolete and outworn rolling stock is admitted. The difficulty of doing it is also admitted. Clearly, if we are going to effect that reorganisation through the workshops of Córas Iompair Éireann it is going to be a matter of five, six or ten years before it can be completed, working the shops to their maximum capacity.

The company has never been held up by lack of staff. There was a problem about getting a chief mechanical engineer.

Mr. Morrissey

Did they ever try?

Mr. Lemass

I will read what Sir James Milne says. Will the Minister accept his word? I quote paragraph 371:—

"The former chief mechanical engineer was responsible for the construction and maintenance of all railway rolling stock and locomotive operation and, on his retirement, owing to the difficulty of finding a suitable successor, the works manager took charge of the department until May, 1945, when he, unfortunately, died. It then became imperative to appoint a mechanical engineer and, as a temporary arrangement, the locomotive running superintendent was appointed to the dual post of mechanical engineer and running superintendent. Shortly afterwards, responsibility for the construction and maintenance of all carriage and wagon bodies was transferred to the works manager of the road vehicle body shop, leaving the carriage lifting shop at Inchicore Works in the charge of the mechanical engineer and running superintendent."

The Minister has tried to suggest that there was some plot to hold up railway development by refusing to appoint a mechanical engineer. That is his line to-day. When he was introducing the Bill, however, his criticism of the board was that they were going to spend too much on railway development. He read out a list of capital projects that they had contemplated and described them as "fantastic", projects for capital expenditure on rail and not projects of capital expenditure on the road transport services of the undertaking or on any other branch but on the railway itself. I know from my contacts with the late chairman and the members of the board that they recognised the essentiality of the railways but recognised also that if they were not to be a stone around the neck of the transport system of the country substantial capital investment in re-equipment and reorganisation was essential. They were planning capital development but their plans were brought to an abrupt stop when they were told to cease their activities even on the projects which had already been approved by them and deemed practical.

Mr. Morrissey

Railway projects?

Mr. Lemass

Various railway projects.

Mr. Morrissey

No.

Mr. Lemass

The Minister stopped them from buying Diesel electric locomotives.

Mr. Morrissey

Faith, I did, but I was not able to stop them in time.

Mr. Lemass

The Minister may be an expert on Diesel electric locomotives. I am not, but those responsible for the running of the railways considered it desirable to invest in them.

Mr. Morrissey

Who ga you that advice?

Mr. Lemass

Who gave you the advice they were bad?

Mr. Morrissey

Experts.

Mr. Lemass

What experts?

Mr. Morrissey

Sir James Milne.

Mr. Lemass

Sir James Milne had not come into the country when you gave that order.

Mr. Morrissey

Oh.

Mr. Lemass

That is a fact. His advice was based on statistical material in the mechanical engineer's office of Córas Iompair Éireann, which was ultimately found to be inaccurate.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy might get back to the Bill.

Mr. Lemass

My point about the borrowings of the board is that whatever idea we have about the future of transport in this country, if it includes the maintenance of the railways, it must also contemplate a substantial capital investment on the improvement of railway efficiency. With the whole undertaking losing over a million pounds a year, losing all that money and more—because it is going to absorb as well profits earned on other branches of its service, in the railways—it is useless for us to vote money here for the capital purposes of the company or to provide subsidies to the company because there is no solution of the problem along these lines. I did not denounce a subsidy but I did denounce this idea of saying to the company "whatever you lose we will ask the taxpayers to pay it". That encourages inefficiency. It removes at once any desire there may be in the board's organisation to re-examine their methods of operation with a view to wiping out unnecessary costs or improving efficiency. Why should any concern be concerned to limit its costs or improve its methods of working when it knows that there is a milch cow there which will give anything necessary to sustain it, no matter what it loses?

I said that I would be prepared to contemplate a subsidy provided it was necessary to cover a transition period between the present methods of operation and new methods of operation, given solely for the purpose of preventing any dislocation of employment during that period of transition. I would go to the board and say "prepare a plan upon the assumption that your job is not merely to get the best equipment but to work it at the least cost and having got a plan on that basis you will get capital for the reorganisation on the one hand and also a subsidy to cover the difference between the costs as they should be and the costs as they are while that reorganisation is in progress." I have said before that you would have the dual advantage of giving them every inducement to improve the undertaking by setting before them a clear objective to be realised and also of giving the taxpayer the hope that at some stage the obligation to pay a subsidy would disappear. The £7,000,000 voted here is wasted money if it is merely to be used in accordance with the vague directions given in his report by Sir James Milne. If there is any real plan for the reorganisation and re-equipment of the railways much more than £7,000,000 will be required but before we can be asked to approve of that £7,000,000 or a larger sum I believe it is necessary that we should have an idea of the plan. If the plan is an intelligent and coherent plan there should be no difficulty in getting a vote here.

Section put and agreed to.

SECTION 27.

Mr. Lemass

I move amendment No. 47:—

In sub-section (5), line 17, to delete all words after "as" and substitute the words "may be agreed between the Minister for Finance and the board".

This section deals with the issue of transport stock. Sub-section (5) prescribes that stock shall be created and issued subject to such terms and conditions, as regards the rate and payment of interest thereon and the redemption thereof, as the Minister for Finance may approve. I think it is undesirable, from the point of view of the board, to put the Minister for Finance in that position. After all, as the Minister for Industry and Commerce has frequently told us, this is a different board from the old Córas Iompair Éireann board. The old board was composed of directors, other than the chairman, elected by the stockholders. This board is appointed by the Minister and the members of it can be removed by him if they are not acting in accordance with his policy. In the circumstances, I think they should have as much say in the determination of the terms and conditions under which transport stock is created and the rate of interest payable thereon as the Minister for Finance. Therefore, I am suggesting that the words "as the Minister for Finance may approve" shall be deleted, and that there shall be substituted therefor the words "as may be agreed between the Minister for Finance and the board".

I can see, and I am sure other members of the House can see, circumstances in which the board may determine upon some development project involving capital expenditure on the assumption that they will be able to get money at a particular rate of interest or upon certain repayment terms. If they were to find that they could not get the money at that rate, or only on repayment terms which were much more onerous, as occurred in the case of the recent corporation loan, they might decide not to go on with the project at all. A development project which may look promising on one assumption may look unsuitable on another.

As the section stands, it seems to me that the board could find themselves in the position in which the Minister for Finance, for some reasons of finance policy, might decide on his own that it should issue stock upon terms and subject to a rate of interest of which the board would not approve. Nevertheless, the board might find themselves stuck with it. There is a case, I agree, for bringing the Minister for Finance into consultation because he has to have regard to all capital issues of this kind in determining his own policy. There is at least as much case for bringing the board into it and of giving it the right to say "no" as well as the right to say "yes" when it comes to determining what the rate of interest should be, as well as the other conditions under which the stock would be issued.

Mr. Morrissey

I am afraid I could not accept this amendment. The Deputy is aware that the sub-section as it stands is exactly the same as the provision which is in the 1944 Act in regard to the issue of debenture stock.

Mr. Lemass

But this is a different type of board.

Mr. Morrissey

I do not think there is very much in that point. The effect of this amendment would be to put the board in the position of either determining the rate themselves or of not proceeding with the project at all. It would not be a question even of the Minister for Finance "after consultation with the board" but, as the amendment says "in agreement with the board."

Mr. Larkin

Is the position to be that the board could be compelled to go ahead with a project on terms and conditions set forth by the Minister for Finance?

Mr. Morrissey

The Deputy, I am sure, will agree that the board will have some voice in the matter.

Mr. Lemass

Let me put a purely theoretical case to the Minister. Last year the Minister for Finance decided to raise £12,000,000 on 3 per cent. bonds. He succeeded in getting only £7,500,000.

Mr. Morrissey

He could have got it all if he had not excluded the banks.

Mr. Lemass

I have no information on the matter except what is contained in the Report of the Central Bank. Let us assume that he goes for another £12,000,000 and gets only £7,500,000.

Mr. Morrissey

That would not give you any pleasure, I hope.

Mr. Lemass

No. The Minister for Finance, if he has to float a further loan this year, has to consider the terms he will offer in order to get it fully subscribed. If Córas Iompair Éireann want £1,000,000, the Minister for Finance can easily fix the terms and conditions for Córas Iompair Éireann stock which will make his own loan a far more attractive proposition. While Córas Iompair Éireann might be able to negotiate, through its bankers or some finance house, a loan of £1,000,000 at 3¼ per cent., the Minister for Finance for his £12,000,000 loan may be forced to give 3½ per cent. He may feel that, if Córas Iompair Éireann can raise a loan of £1,000,000 at 3¼ per cent., it will prejudice his chance of getting £12,000,000 at 3½ per cent. I am not saying that the Minister for Finance will do these things, but I think the board should have the right to express an opinion upon the terms and conditions on which the stock is issued in the name of the board. It should have the right to say to the Minister for Finance: "If that is the best you are able to do we do not want it at all."

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question proposed: "That Section 27 stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Lemass

On the section, I am anxious that the Minister should tell us at what rate per cent. he thinks it will be possible for the board to borrow money. We are here proposing to guarantee transport stock as to principal and interest. Under the 1944 Act, we guaranteed the interest only up to 3 per cent. That limitation is being removed. It is clear that it has to be removed because it is unlikely that, at present, any substantial sum of money could be raised at 3 per cent. The Dáil, I think, should have some idea of what the Government have in mind in this regard. Under the 1944 Act we recognised that the board of Córas Iompair Éireann might have to pay more than 3 per cent., but, nevertheless, the provisions of that Act were framed as they were because it was intended that, if Córas Iompair Éireann had to pay more than 3 per cent. in order to get money, the State guarantee would apply only up to 3 per cent.

This section is of particular interest to me because I have a recollection— there may be some other Deputies who share it—of the debate upon the corresponding section in the 1944 Act. I will be pardoned if I take five minutes of the time of the Dáil in reminding it of that debate—because it lasted a couple of days. It was a long debate, because the present Minister for Finance, Deputy McGilligan, had a plan which he expounded to the Dáil, a plan for raising money at 1 per cent., to finance Córas Iompair Éireann. Perhaps in 1944 Deputy McGilligan did not visualise himself in the position of being a Minister for Finance in a Government producing a Transport Bill. If he had, he might have been less definite in support of that plan which he expounded then. It was an attractive plan from the point of view of Córas Iompair Éireann; at any rate, attractive in the sense that is seemed to offer then a prospect of borrowing money for capital investment at 1 per cent. The Bill before the Dáil at the time visualised the possibility of the company paying 3 per cent. on its stock and, in fact, during my time, they had to pay 2½ per cent.

Deputy McGilligan's plan in 1944 was to put Córas Iompair Éireann into the banking business. He noted the fact that the ordinary commercial banks gave 1 per cent. upon money deposited with them and, of course, there seemed no obvious reason why Córas Iompair Éireann should not get money in the same easy way—just announce their willingness to accept money on deposit and pay 1 per cent. There were obvious difficulties which Deputy McGilligan did not see and, when they were pointed out to him, he scoffed at them and said he had a way to get out of them. I pointed out that a person put money on deposit in the bank with the hope and expectation that he would be able to get the money back when he needed it. His lodging of the money in the bank was an expression of confidence in the ability of the bank to repay, his belief that the bank had in their strong room either the cash which he had lodged or easily realisable securities which were as good as cash, whereas Córas Iompair Éireann, accepting the deposits and investing them in railway engines and carriages, would only be able to offer the depositor back a bit of a carriage or of an engine when he demanded the payment of his money.

That objection was, of course, scoffed at by Deputy McGilligan. He urged strongly here, in repeated speeches over a couple of days on the corresponding section of the 1944 Act, that this was the answer to the Córas Iompair Éireann difficulty, that this problem of raising money for railway development did not really exist at all and, provided his idea was accepted and a section was put in the Bill authorising Córas Iompair Éireann to go into the banking business and to accept money on deposit and pay 1 per cent. on it——

Mr. McQuillan

Had he not the right to say that he had more confidence in Córas Iompair Éireann than Deputy Lemass?

Mr. Lemass

The point of inquiry I am raising is the confidence he had in his own plan. After all, here is the Bill and there is no sign of the plan in it. Even the 3 per cent. limitation that we put into the 1944 Act upon the interest rate to be payable on transport stock has disappeared. May I ask the Minister does the Government expect the Córas Iompair Éireann Board will be able to raise money at 3 per cent.? Will he even whisper across the House did they consider Deputy McGilligan's plan? When the Minister went to the Government with his draft Bill, did Deputy McGilligan say: "Stop everything. I have a plan which I expounded in the Dáil in 1944 for raising money for Córas Iompair Éireann development at 1 per cent. I will not agree to the Bill unless the plan is incorporated in it," or did he see the snag in the plan in the meantime?

Mr. Morrissey

I can tell you that the present company could not get it at 3 per cent.

Mr. Lemass

Of course they could not. In my time they could get it at 2½ per cent. They could not get it now, even with a Government guarantee, because the credit of the Government has deteriorated.

Mr. Morrissey

There would not be any other reason which would occur to the Deputy?

Mr. Lemass

There are several others that occur to me, but that is the one I like. Dropping Deputy McGilligan's plan as not being very important and recording our satisfaction that he either saw the snag in it or was unable to convince his Cabinet colleagues of its merits, let us seriously ask what is intended in this regard. The board may not be able to get money at 3 per cent. now—we recognise that. The current stock market quotations would suggest that gilt edge funds are rated at about 3¼ to 3½ per cent. and it is at that price that any borrowing by the company will have to be effected even if backed by a Government guarantee.

We contemplated limiting the taxpayer's liability under the guarantee. The provision in the 1944 Act limited the State guarantee to 3 per cent., so that if the company had to pay 4 per cent. for money and defaulted, then the taxpayer was only responsible for making good to the extent of 3 per cent. It may not have been a good idea, but there was a precedent for it in the Trade Loans Guarantee Act. Loans under that Act are also guaranteed by the Exchequer, and loans are negotiated at 4½ or 5 per cent., but the guarantee applies only to 2½ per cent.

There is at least a case to be made for limiting the taxpayer's liability, because he will not be further consulted after the Bill is passed. We, as representatives of the taxpayer, can agree to guarantee capital for Córas Iompair Éireann purposes at 3 per cent. But, after the Bill is passed, if there is no such limitation in it, then the Minister for Finance may in exceptional circumstances approve of the issue of stock at much higher rates and the taxpayer's guarantee continues nevertheless. I presume the point must have been considered, because the section is word for word the same as the corresponding section in the 1944 Act except for the deletion of the over-riding limit of the guarantee.

Question put and agreed to.

Section 28 agreed to.

SECTION 29.

Mr. Morrissey

I move amendment No. 48:—

To delete sub-section (1).

That is a question of a change of date.

Amendment agreed to.

Section 29, as amended, agreed to.

Sections 30 and 31 agreed to.

SECTION 32.

Mr. Lemass

I move amendment No. 49:—

Before sub-section (5) to insert a new sub-section as follows:—

(5) Within 21 days after a copy of the accounts and any report furnished to the Minister have been laid before each House of the Oireachtas, the Minister shall move in the Dáil for the establishment of a select committee of the House to examine the accounts and report (if any) and to report thereon to the Dáil.

This raises a matter of fairly general policy in which I know some Deputies are interested. During the course of time the number of State companies and State-sponsored boards has increased considerably. The legislation which set up these companies or boards uniformly provided for the tabling of accounts and annual reports and, in theory, it is open to the Dáil through any individual member, to have a debate upon the accounts or to query anything contained in the reports. In practice, of course, that is not so. It was all right when the first board, the Electricity Supply Board, was the sole organisation of its kind but, as the years passed and other organisations were added to it, it became obviously impossible for the Dáil to take cognisance of the trend of policy and administration revealed in these reports or even to debate adequately the financial results of the operations of these undertakings. That position was recognised by the previous Government and we had been giving consideration to the methods by which the Dáil might have these accounts and reports brought especially to its notice with a view to their detailed examination. It was not that the previous Government were dissatisfied with the way the various Acts worked out, but we felt that the efficiency of these undertakings was impaired to some extent by the absence of any such detailed examination of their accounts and reports in a manner which would ensure that they would realise that periodically they would be obliged to give to a critical audience an account of their administration.

Let it be clear that there was no desire, and there is no desire, to impose upon any of these undertakings the obligation to keep the detailed records which are necessary in a Government Department. In a Government Department any Deputy has the right to ask about the treatment of any individual citizen, even in a matter of very minor importance. There must be records so detailed that the information required to answer a question can be turned up at a day's or two days' notice, giving to the Minister the material necessary for his reply. It would clearly be a considerable handicap to the efficiency of these semi-State and State organisations if they had to keep records as elaborate as that, but it is desirable, nevertheless, that they should be subject to some periodical review here.

We had contemplated the establishment of a committee akin to the Committee of Public Accounts to which these company accounts and reports would be submitted. There is an obvious practical difficulty in that the reports appear at different times of the year and, if the committee was to function only when a volume of work had been accumulated for it, it would, in relation to some of the organisations, be dealing with material already fairly old. Nevertheless, it seems to me that if the work is to be done in a way which appears to be in line with the views of most Deputies here, it has got to be through the device of establishing something akin to the Committee of Public Accounts, to which these accounts will go with or without the prior comments of an officer like the Comptroller and Auditor-General, and where they can be examined and where the officers of the company can be brought to give any further detailed information desirable.

There are objections and difficulties, but I think most Deputies will recognise that, with the pressure of legislation and other business in the Dáil, if work of that kind has to be done it will have to be done by a Committee of the House meeting simultaneously with the House, just as the Committee of Public Accounts does.

Here we are setting up another undertaking. This time it is a board to manage our transport system. We have in the Bill the usual provisions requiring the board to keep all the proper and usual accounts, to send copies of the accounts as passed by its auditors to the Minister, and placing on him the obligation to furnish copies of the accounts to each House of the Oireachtas. It seems to me if we are ever to make progress in this matter we may as well start now and establish what I hope will become a precedent for all these State companies.

We are aware that the Taoiseach informed us last year that this matter was under consideration by the Government. I took the precaution, before this amendment came up for debate, to inquire what progress had been made. I was informed in reply to a Parliamentary Question last week that the matter was still under consideration and that no progress had been made. I do not think progress will be made if the Dáil neglects the opportunity of insisting on some arrangement which will ensure that the accounts of the board and any report furnished by the board to the Minister will be submitted to a committee for examination. If they are tabled, then any Deputy can put down a motion in relation to them or get from them information which he can use during the debate on the Minister's Estimate. Experience has shown that that power is completely insufficient and that the work of the Dáil is in a sense being neglected, because of the pressure of other business, in relation to this matter. I therefore move the amendment which provides that in relation to this board, and without raising any question of the suitability of this device to other boards, we should insist on a select committee examining its accounts and reports and giving a general report on both in a formal manner when it has done so.

Mr. Morrissey

I am in full agreement with the idea behind this amendment and I have full sympathy with the point of view that the activities, finances, and expenditure of various State companies should be brought under effective review by the Dáil. That is the view of the Government. I can say that the examination to which the Taoiseach referred has been going on as rapidly as, having regard to other work, it could be pushed. The desire of the Government in relation to these State-sponsored companies is to get the most effective machinery which will enable the Dáil systematically to consider their activities and I as a member of the Government can give an assurance to the House that it is the intention and the desire of the Government to bring in proposals which will enable the Dáil to have a systematic consideration of the activities of these various boards at the earliest possible date.

I would not be prepared to accept the amendment in the light of that knowledge, because I think there ought to be a uniform method or, if we are going to have a committee, we ought to have the same type of examination in relation to all State sponsored companies. While I am in full and complete sympathy with the idea behind this amendment, I would have to resist it going into this Bill. I am doing that in the full knowledge that the Government will have proposals to put before the Dáil in connection with what the Dáil has so frequently asked for over a number of years.

Mr. M. O'Sullivan

This particular one will be included in that machinery?

Mr. Morrissey

Whatever machinery will be brought in to apply to State sponsored companies, the same machinery will apply to the new national transport organisation.

Mr. Childers

I am glad to hear that the Minister is considering appointing such committees in connection with State boards.

Mr. Morrissey

I did not exactly say a committee. I said whatever is the most effective type of machinery. It may be a committee.

Mr. Childers

It seems to me there is a very substantial reason for including this amendment in the Bill, namely, the fact that it is impossible for Deputies to consider, save in a select committee, the whole problem of the method by which Córas Iompair Éireann is attempting to secure for itself an adequate share of traffic both in connection with road freight and in connection with rail services. It is quite obvious that road traffic is growing from year to year. It is quite obvious that the entire examination of the amount of capital which should be spent——

Mr. M. O'Sullivan

May I interrupt the Deputy for one moment? It is the desire of a number of members interested in this Bill, who do not want to miss any of the discussion on the Bill, that we should have a short adjournment for tea. The possibility is that if we do not have an adjournment some of these amendments might be dealt with in the absence of Deputies who are especially interested in them. Perhaps we could have an adjournment for half an hour or so.

Mr. Morrissey

I have no objection to that course. I know there are several Deputies who are very interested in this Bill who would not like to leave the House during the debate. Anxious though I am to get on with the Bill, I think it would be unreasonable to ask these Deputies to sit here continuously until half past ten. So far as I am concerned, and provided that the Chair and the House agree, I have no objection to an adjournment until 6.45 p.m.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I take it that the Minister is moving that we adjourn until 6.45 p.m.

Mr. Morrissey

Yes.

Sitting suspended at 5.55 p.m., and resumed at 6.50 p.m.

Mr. Childers

When the House adjourned, I was dealing with the Minister's statement that the Government intended to provide machinery by some means or other for examining the accounts of public companies. I was pointing out that there is a special case for including this particular amendment in this Bill and for treating it in a rather separate way from the general problem. My reason for saying that is the fact that it is impossible for members of the Dáil, either through hearing the Minister for Industry and Commerce giving a general account of the operations of Córas Iompair Éireann, in the course of the Estimates or from reading such reports as are made available in the ordinary way by that company, to assess the problem facing us, namely, that of ever-increasing road traffic and ever-decreasing rail traffic. That problem has existed for many years; it continued during the course of 1949 and is still continuing during the present year. Deputies have never had an opportunity of discussing in committee with expert officials the problems, for example, of seeing whether the infusion of fresh capital expenditure in rolling stock, improved tracks, etc., has actually had any specific effect on passenger receipts or whether too much capital expenditure is being undertaken in connection with rail services and too little in connection with road services, with the result that the Baby Ford is now beginning to compete seriously with the bus services.

An Ceann Comhairle

I think that would have been more relevant on No. 26.

Mr. Childers

I am trying to stress the importance of a select committee to examine into the problems arising from the operations of Córas Iompair Éireann. If I am going beyond the scope of the debate I shall have to desist from that argument.

An Ceann Comhairle

Perhaps the Deputy would not spend too much time on illustrations. That is the important thing.

Mr. Childers

Dealing more generally with the problems then, I understood from the Minister that one of the jobs the new board would have to perform is the examination of those sections of the Milne Report which relate to the co-ordination of road and rail transport. If the board makes certain proposals to the Government and these proposals are subsequently implemented, the examination of the effect of these proposals plus the effect of any changes taking place consequent on Sir James Milne's report can only be undertaken properly by members of this House in a select committee. It seems to me that the rapid change that is taking place all over the country in regard to transport habits necessitates the Minister taking his courage into his hands and agreeing to Deputy Lemass's amendment irrespective of any other decisions the Government may wish to take on the examination of the accounts of public companies in general.

Mr. C. Lehane

I am always glad to see Deputies, whether on this side of the House or on the opposite side of the House, converted to the correct point of view. I am glad to see this amendment tabled by Deputy Lemass. I think there is enshrined in the amendment if not explicitly, implicitly, acceptance of a very important principle, namely, that this House should have some method of checking or probing the financial operations and working of these publicly subsidised State or semi-State corporations of which we now have a number.

On, I think, three occasions since I came into this House I addressed Parliamentary Questions to the Taoiseach on this very point or, at least, on perhaps a wider basis. If the request implied in my questions had been acceded to there would have been no necessity for Deputy Lemass or anybody else to table this amendment. I would, too, find it much more difficult to resist the Minister's appeal for the rejection of this amendment if there were not present to my mind the experience that we have had in respect of the replies given to those questions to which I refer.

As long ago as, I think, June of last year, I tabled a question to the Taoiseach asking him to indicate the Government's view on this very question, and I was informed that the matter was under active consideration. I must necessarily paraphrase the Taoiseach's reply because I have not at this moment the report available to me, but I was informed that the Government was considering the best method of bringing under review the activities, financial and otherwise, of these State and semi-State bodies.

A question in similar terms was repeated, I think, in December of last year and, again, a third question in that respect was tabled at the opening of the present session. I accept the Minister's assurance that the Government is still considering this matter, but we would want a little more from the Minister than the mere assurance that the matter is being considered. I think this House would require from the Minister a definite statement that, from some given date, proposals would be placed before the House whereby what is sought to be effected by this amendment would be brought about— and not alone in respect of Córas Iompair Éireann but also in respect of other similar bodies.

In so far as the present amendment is concerned, inasmuch as it relates exclusively to Córas Iompair Éireann, I think that an even more coercive case can be made for it than could, perhaps, be made in respect of some of the other State corporations. I say this in no spirit of acrimony but I feel it is hardly good enough at this late stage to come along and tell us that the Government is still considering what is the best method of achieving the purpose which this amendment seeks to achieve in respect not alone of Córas Iompair Éireann but of other similar bodies. This machinery has been promised on three, if not on four occasions because I think that Deputy Flanagan put down a similar question on another occasion. Now we are asked again to accept another promise—another promise of live horse and you will get grass, in this respect.

Another consideration which I would put strongly before the Minister is that the amendment proposes a special method of carrying out this review by the House, that is, the setting up of a select committee. I would urge on the Minister that that might be preferable to holding up the whole business of the Dáil by the Dáil as a whole going into committee as, perhaps, was my own conception when I approached this general question originally. I confess that it would probably be preferable to adopt the machinery outlined in the amendment, namely, the setting up of the select committee, inasmuch as it would save the time of the Dáil. Admittedly, it is open to any Deputy of this House to examine the reports submitted from these various corporations.

Every Deputy in the Dáil knows that, with the best will in the world, that is a job which, in some cases at any rate, many Deputies must skip. That is not due to inertia or laziness on their part. It is due to the fact that the average Deputy has many calls on his time, both inside and outside the House, and work of that nature is work that Deputies are inclined to leave on one side. I must confess that it is work which I personally would find difficult to do properly. I do not think, in so far as the amendment is concerned, that there is anything in it which the Minister would have to strain at in order to accept it. I do not think the amendment goes any great distance in creating a divergence between the point of view expressed by the Minister and the point of view by those sponsoring it. I would not seek to widen its scope as Deputy Childers was inclined to. I take the amendment for what it is worth, on its face value, and I would urge that the Minister should consider accepting it. If he is not prepared to accept it in its present form, I would expect at least that he would give us an assurance now that on the Fourth Stage of the Bill he would bring in an amendment, if not in the same, in somewhat similar terms.

Mr. Larkin

The Minister in the course of the debate has appealed to Deputies on all sides to assist him in making this Bill as good a measure as possible to provide for the needs of public transport. It seems to me futile to make such appeals if, at the same time, the efforts of Deputies on all sides to try and evolve machinary which will be helpful are to be pushed on one side merely because some other general matter has not been considered and a decision reached by the Cabinet. The amendment before us now is not in any way covered by the Minister's reply. It appears to me that what has been in the minds of Deputies Lemass and Childers—and it has been in my mind also—is that members of the House have the privilege of bringing, by way of motion, before the House the accounts of these companies which they desire to discuss. I have made some inquiries and as far as I can find out it has been only on a rare occasion, if indeed there has been any occasion, on which that privilege has been exercised, for the very good reason that ordinary Deputies realise that it is neither practicable nor fair, because one or two of them may have a direct or particular interest in the report or in the accounts of a particular company, to utilise the time of the House, which is already overburdened, for the purpose of having these accounts discussed.

Deputy Dunne and myself have a motion on the Order Paper to discuss the accounts of Bord na Móna for 1948-49. That motion has been on the Order Paper for many months and it will probably be there for many months more but when we do get an opportunity of discussing it, we naturally expect that only those Deputies who are directly concerned in the matter will participate in the discussion. Deputy Lehane said that Deputies must divide their time whether they like it or not. It is from that point of view that I would urge on the Minister to consider the acceptance of the amendment. There is no point in the House spending days in trying to evolve suitable machinery to assist in the solution of the problem of public transport if we are not going to have an opportunity of reviewing the working of that machinery. When I say "the working" of that machinery I am not thinking in the wide terms adumbrated by Deputy Childers. I am thinking only of the actual report laid on the Table of the House which the House is entitled to discuss on the motion of any Deputy. Is it not preferable to have the accounts and the report of the company considered by a small committee of members of the House who are interested in the report and who are prepared to devote time to its consideration? Then if there are any matters to which they think the attention of the House should be drawn, that can be done by a report to the House. Otherwise these matters will be passed over as requiring no special attention.

The alternative to that is to make a farce of this whole proposal to lay the accounts on the Table of the House, to ignore them, pass them over in silence and fail in the very thing which the Minister has appealed to the House to achieve. If Deputies are confined to that procedure then we shall actually have the same experience as we have on the discussion of this Bill, namely, a small number of Deputies who are interested in the Bill remaining here to discuss the matter while others take no interest in it. I can see no conflict between the machinery proposed in the amendment which still will operate only on the motion of the Minister—the select committee will only have such powers as the Minister will set out in his motion —and the procedure which the Minister has in mind. I would not press it to the extent the committee should have any further powers such as sending for officials to answer on certain matters. Let us deal with the report in a practical manner and leave the wider question of how we are going to bring State sponsored and semi-State sponsored companies more amenable to the Dáil, to the decision of the Cabinet at a later stage. There is no conflict between the amendment and what the Minister desires to have done. It is a test of the good intentions of the Minister if, on this simple amendment which is an effort to try and provide a real and practical way of continuing to show an interest in the progress of the machinery we are establishing under the Bill, he is prepared to meet the wishes of the House. If the amendment is not accepted by the Minister now, he should be prepared to give an assurance that he will consider it sympathetically and have the point met on the Report Stage.

Captain Cowan

I wish to join with other Deputies who have asked the Minister to accept this amendment or the principle of it. I have listened to the case the Minister made against it. He says that he is in absolute sympathy with the idea behind it but he thinks it best to leave it to be dealt with when the question of all these State-subsidised companies arises at a later stage. I always think that it is a wise thing, when a job of work is being done, to prepare the road as one goes along. This is the first opportunity that this Dáil has had of dealing with a matter such as this. Deputy Lemass's amendment now before the House gives the Dáil an opportunity of making provision for the examination of the accounts and reports of Córas Iompair Éireann and making a report to the Dáil. That gives to the Dáil considerable control and considerable information in regard to the working and operation of Córas Iompair Éireann. In the normal way, this Bill ought to be law within the next few months. I hope it will.

Mr. Morrissey

I hope so.

Captain Cowan

I think it will, within the next few months.

Mr. Morrissey

The Deputy must intend to talk a lot yet.

Captain Cowan

It will go through in the normal way, but if we have to wait until the Government is in a position to introduce a Bill to deal with these matters in a general way that Bill may not be introduced during the lifetime of this Dáil. The Minister, with the best intentions in the world, may never have the honour or the opportunity of introducing it. The Government that might have the intention to do it might not have the opportunity.

Mr. Morrissey

The Deputy has a much longer lease of life than he thinks he has.

Captain Cowan

No—we never know in these matters. There are things that were proposed 20 years ago which have not come before the House yet. I think the House would be unwise not to take this opportunity of putting this particular matter right. The principle of this amendment appears to do that. I would join with the other Deputies in asking the Minister to say now that he will reconsider this matter between now and the Report Stage and that, even if he is not in a position to accept the amendment as it is worded, he will consider the acceptance of the principle laid down in it. That would be easy for him and, in view of his own statement of his sympathies in regard to it, I would ask him to accept the principle and let it go into the Bill for the reasons already stated.

Mr. Lemass

I can understand that the Minister might have difficulty in accepting this amendment if it involves a procedure for examining the accounts of State companies different from that of which the Government is thinking. In such circumstances, the Minister may not wish to have any such provision as this inserted in the Bill. The House understands that the Government accepts the principle of examination and the Taoiseach told me on Wednesday last that the examination of the matter is proceeding. It is perhaps a fair assumption that, if the examination of the matter is proceeding, action will be taken on it this year or next year.

Mr. Morrissey

This year.

Mr. Lemass

Well, this year. I would withdraw this amendment, with the consent of the House, if the Minister would agree that, in the event of action not being taken this year and some permanent and properly constituted machinery not being set up for the examination of these accounts, he would undertake to move specifically in the Dáil for the appointment of a committee to examine the Córas Iompair Éireann accounts. That would ensure that we would get the examination of the accounts for Córas Iompair Éireann and it avoids committing the Minister to any precedent as to the form the machinery should take if the Government, in fact, is thinking of something different. May I urge on him that there is a special case for Córas Iompair Éireann in so far as substantial subsidies are involved and neither on the Estimates nor on the Finance Bill will the Dáil, in the normal ordinary way, have an opportunity of considering fully the necessity for the full subsidy—which would be, I think, one of the main concerns of Deputies?

If I mistake not, if my recollection is not altogether at fault, after the Electricity Supply Board began to function, there was for a time a practice by which the Minister for Industry and Commerce tabled in the House an innocuous motion, to the effect that the accounts of the Electricity Supply Board be examined or discussed. It was a motion which did not have to be passed, but it formed an opportunity for the House to have a discussion on the Electricity Supply Board accounts. That practice died down, I think, very largely because of the growth of business in the House and pressure on Deputies to get more expeditious work completed.

I think there is a great deal in what Deputy Larkin said, that there is only a limited number of Deputies prepared to study these reports to the extent of speaking on them and that it would be better that they should get together in a committee room than occupy the time of the Dáil here. However, if the Minister is not prepared to accept the amendment, I offer the first of the alternative courses and I make the proposition under which committee machinery would be set up or there would be a promise to set up an ad hoc committee this year. There is the alternative—a poor alternative, in my opinion—of proceeding to introduce a motion like the Electricity Supply Board motion which would ensure definitely that the Córas Iompair Éireann accounts will be dealt with by the Dáil as such and not merely as part and parcel of a variety of matters on a departmental Estimate.

Mr. Morrissey

I want to make it quite clear again that I have no desire in the world to prevent the Dáil having an opportunity effectively to examine the accounts and activities of any State-sponsored company. Therefore, there is no clash between us on the principle involved. My only objection to the amendment is that I do not want here and now to make a precedent for all other State-sponsored companies and I would not be prepared to accept the amendment as it stands. If Deputy Lemass is prepared to withdraw the amendment, as he said, I am prepared to give an undertaking that, if machinery is not provided within the next year by the Government to enable the Dáil to have a systematic consideration of the accounts of Córas Iompair Éireann, then—again using my friend Deputy Cowan's qualification—if I am here, if I am in a position to do it, I will provide an opportunity for the Dáil so to examine the accounts.

Let me say this, just for the record, that it is not quite just the thing to say that there is a special case for the examination of Córas Iompair Éireann because of the subsidy, the implication being that there is no subsidy for any of the other State-sponsored companies. There are very few—I doubt if any—not sponsored in one form or another.

Mr. Lemass

There are some.

Mr. Morrissey

Perhaps the Deputy will tell me which of them is not subsidised in one form or another. I would be glad to know it. The point I want to make, just to have it on the record, is that it should not go out that this is the only State company getting a subsidy or that ever got a subsidy. Unfortunately, that is not true.

There is really no great difference between the points of view on this and if the House is prepared to accept the assurance which I give them I think we can leave it at that.

Mr. Lemass

Very well.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Section 32 agreed to.

SECTION 33

Mr. Morrissey

I move amendment No. 50:—

In sub-section (2), page 27, to delete lines 49 to 51 and substitute "entry to the clerical grades of the service of the board shall be by means of open competitive examination".

I am moving this amendment because I have been advised that, as the section stands, it is considered that it could be interpreted as referring to every position in the clerical grades and would preclude promotions except by examination. I am advised that there is substance in that point and it is merely to clarify it, to meet that point, that I am moving this amendment.

Mr. M. O'Sullivan

It is perfectly true to say that the working of the section as it stood would provide for the alternative that the Minister has indicated. That means that a man moving from one grade to another, under the terms of that section would have to stand competitive examination. An extraordinary commentary on the position is that the wording was wrong in the 1924 Act and in the 1944 Act and all that has been done, in the meantime, I hope, is valid.

Mr. Lemass

It is valid, yes.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. J. Lynch

On behalf of Deputy McGrath and, in my own name, I move amendment No. 51:—

In sub-section (2) to add a new paragraph as follows:—

(f) Shed and shop clerks who have had a minimum of three years' service in that grade shall, on the recommendation of their superior officers, be eligible for promotion to the clerical grades, and the board may provide that such proportion, as may be approved by the Minister, of the vacancies in the clerical grades of its service shall be filled by shed and shop clerks who qualify under this paragraph.

I put down this amendment in order tó redress what I believe is a long standing grievance of men engaged in the grade of shed and shop clerks in Córas Iompair Éireann. I am told that there are approximately 71 of these particular men and that they were recruited into that grade from time to time from various other positions in the service. Some were labourers, some machinists or something like that but they had all been engaged in occupations which could not be described as of a clerical nature. Prior to the enactment of the 1944 Transport Act there was a system in operation whereby shed and shop clerks could get promotion to the clerical grade on the recommendation of their immediate superior officer. Whether there was some method of a limited examination then, or not, I do not know. Under Section 47 of the 1944 Act men engaged in that particular grade, between the ages of 18 and 25, may get promotion by way of limited competition. The amendment in substance seeks reversion to the original position, so that, on the recommendation of their superior officer, all these shed and shop clerks, irrespective of age, solely dependent on qualifications and service could be promoted to the clerical grade.

I have already pointed out there are only 71 of these men at present. Twenty-four were recruited directly into the grade, six were formerly non-clerical time-keepers, 17 were messengers, 17 were labourers and seven were engine cleaners. That indicates to me that the men who were promoted to that grade showed some marked ability which merited promotion. As conditions are at present, and as continued by this Bill, these men of marked ability, once having got into the shed and shop clerk grade and having passed the age of 25, are no longer eligible for promotion to the clerical grade. It may be said that the men in that grade do not perform anything like clerical work but I have been given an outline of the type of work they perform. One of these men has told me that their duties consist of compiling time sheets; appropriating duties performed against hours worked; making out daily and weekly running sheets which show the duties of train crews; requisitioning material and cost-coding of that material; compiling records of engine, carriage and wagon repairs and examinations; compiling various returns regarding employment; payment attending quarterly identification of pensioners; and entering data in factory and workshop registers. That is a very comprehensive list of work for any individual to perform. I submit that it is work of a highly clerical nature. Yet the person performing that work does not qualify, according to Córas Iompair Éireann standards, to be styled as a clerical worker. The wages of these shed and shop clerks compare unfavourably with the wages of established clerical grades.

My particular informant is a young man. I forget whether or not he is past the age of 25 but he is certainly past the age when he could properly compete with a young man recently left school in the ordinary subjects such as are envisaged in the limited examination. Apart from that, I consider him a most intelligent type of young man and, if he is any criterion of the type of men engaged as shed and shop clerks in Córas Iompair Éireann, there should certainly be no bar to their promotion to the clerical grades, whether they are under 25 or over 25.

I commend the amendment to the Minister. I am glad that some of the Labour members are here. They are more familiar with the conditions of service than I am and I am sure they will agree to give these men the opportunity they seek in this amendment. That is only just, having regard to the type of work they do and to the fact that the majority of them attained that grade, in the first instance, in the normal course of promotion.

Mr. M. O'Sullivan

This amendment goes a little deeper than has been set out by Deputy Lynch. I can understand that because conditions on the railway are complex and, obviously, an outsider cannot be as conversant with details as one who has been inside. The amendment should be read immediately in conjunction with the previous amendment and, therefore, in relation to Section 33. That is fundamental. The House should examine this matter at once to know under what circumstances the clerical staff on the railways can get promotion. It has been laid down in previous Acts, and renewed in this Bill, that entrance to the clerical staffs of Córas Iompair Éireann must be by open competitive examination, with certain limitations in that a number of vacancies are available for children of serving railwaymen. The Deputy refers to shed and shop clerks. For the information of the House, may I say that shed clerks are men who are attached to the engine sheds in connection with the operations of railway running and shop clerks are associated with the shops—Inchicore is a good example—for the taking of time, etc., on the various jobs performed in the shops?

This question has come up on a number of occasions. Deputy Lynch may not be aware of the fact that there is a grade for these particular men known as the shop clerks' grade and that a judgment was given by the Wages Board on that particular grade, allotting to them a certain category so far as rates of wages or salaries are concerned. I have a certain sympathy, naturally, because I know the type of men to whom the Deputy refers. They are excellent in every respect. But you have to bear in mind that the amendment seeks to give to the individuals in whom Deputy Lynch and, possibly, others, are interested the full rights and privileges, such as they are, that obtain for the clerical staff as a whole. The clerical staff, as a whole, have got these privileges by virtue of the fact, first, that they had to have a high standard of education; secondly, they had to go through the process of a competitive examination; and finally, they had to serve a probationary period—Deputies will understand it better if I say that they had virtually to serve their time—and to satisfy the authorities that they were suitable types to continue in the service. With one stroke, Deputy Lynch proposes to give to the individual on either the shed side of the industry, as he describes it, or the shop side, the full privileges—in other words, the full scale of salaries—given to the clerk, although in actual fact that individual will still continue to be in that limited or reserved occupation as a shed or shop clerk.

The ordinary clerk, as I say, has to serve his apprenticeship in the normal way and he is subject to transfer—a fact which should be borne in mind—to any portion of the system to which the administration desire to send him. A man in Cork could be transferred to Galway in the morning. He may find himself in Cork invoicing a goods train and in Galway called upon to deal with a mail train. He may find himself in Sligo or Mullingar called on to do work in the district superintendent's office. He has to do this work—these are his obligations—and for that he gets a certain salary and is given certain conditions. This amendment, however, seeks to give to this small group who have not gone through the same process the same privileges and rights. I suggest that the Deputy is asking for a little too much. It is not equitable that it should be so.

I recognise, however, as he does, that that there is a type of person who is called upon to do that work, which is generally regarded as a short hybrid work. That type of thing has been very common in the railway service, particularly where a minimum amount of clerical work is involved. A young man of that type in the very natural order of things seeks advancement or promotion, and my suggestion to Deputy Lynch—I do not know what the Minister's viewpoint is—is that if that young man, who is at present tied up in that small category referred to in this amendment, wants to get the full conditions of the clerical staff generally, the obvious thing for him to do is to qualify for them, and one advance which might be made to meet the Deputy's point of view would be to say that, since these candidates have been in the service for a considerable time and as a result have the advantage of learning the practical side of railway work, they should not be debarred from entering the clerical service by reason of being over-age.

The examination at the moment is in two forms, one an open examination, and the other a limited examination. The only reason that portion of the examination is termed "limited" is that some of the vacancies are reserved for the children of railwaymen, but the examination in fact in both cases is the same. It might interest the House to know that, because of the small number of vacancies for the limited side, railwaymen's sons are now competing in the open section.

I suggest that the only reasonable and logical way to give effect to what the amendment seeks is to concede the point that the men for whom Deputy Lynch speaks should not be debarred by reason of age, which in a sense would be a concession, because the Minister would have to ensure that it would not be a breach of the statutory regulations, from sitting for the examination to qualify for the service and to take upon their shoulders the obligation of having to go from one section of the line to another, to take upon their shoulders, in fact, all the obligations of the ordinary railway clerk. The House, however, should insist that, as a first condition, they must sit for the examination and pass it.

Mr. Morrissey

My approach to this amendment and to the amendment in the name of Deputy Hickey which follows is based on the danger of opening the door, a danger which the Deputy will see if he looks at Deputy Hickey's amendment. My reaction to amendments of this type is that I do not think it is the function of the Minister, nor do I think it ought to be the function of the Oireachtas, to interfere with the company in the recruitment and grading and the settling of the conditions of their staff. I think my predecessor took a similar line and I entirely agree. These are matters that ought to be determined between the company's officers and the men's representatives. Every person employed in Córas Iompair Éireann is a member of a trade union. They have very effective trade union organisations and very effective and, as we know, very energetic leaders and it should not be the function of this House to deal with a matter like this.

Apart from that, however, there is, as Deputy O'Sullivan has said, this question of the clerical positions in Córas Iompair Éireann being filled by open competitive examination and all of us will agree that that is the best and the fairest way in relation to every class of the community. There is in operation a limited examination, but it is open to the types of persons mentioned in the amendment. Deputy Lynch makes the point that there is an age limit of 25 years, but if the company want to alter that in any way, if the company want to step up the age limit to meet particular cases, so far as I know, there is nothing to stop them from doing so.

I am informed that there are 71 involved here and I think 21 covered in Deputy Hickey's amendment, but I am also informed that there are many other employees who would have claims equal to those of the two classes mentioned by Deputy Hickey and Deputy Lynch. I am advised that at least as good a case could be made for garage assistants employed on timetaking, requisitioning materials, preparation of reports and so on, for office tracers or men attached to the district headquarters of the chief engineer's department who perform similar work to that performed by the categories covered in the two amendments and also of course for parcel porters in the parcels offices of the various railway stations who perform work that is, I suppose, of a clerical nature and is generally performed under the supervision of the station master or head clerk in a particular station. I have to resist these amendments and, apart altogether from the point of view of the company and the fact that it would open the door to a flood of applications and a great deal of agitation for people to be included to whom perhaps we are not adverting at all at the moment, my main objection to it is on the same lines as were put up by Deputy Lemass on a former occasion. I entirely agree with him that the matter of recruitment of staff and conditions of appointment is a matter which should be settled in the ordinary way between the company and the trade union leader.

It is also true of course to say that this is a very old agitation. It has been going on at least since 1922 and on every occasion it has been brought up and no matter where it has been brought up they have never been able to succeed in establishing a claim.

Mr. Lemass

Is it open to the company in fixing the terms of a competitive examination for clerical grades to keep the 25 age limit for newcomers but to fix a higher age limit for persons employed in various categories of the company's service or must they raise the limit for everybody?

Mr. Morrissey

My information is that for the class of employees we are now dealing with there is a limited examination to enable a certain number of them to get into the clerical grades, if they make the grade so to speak. The age limits, as Deputy Lynch said, are 18 to 25. I am advised that if the company want to alter the conditions of entry for the examination they can do so even without the Minister's permission.

Mr. Lemass

I know all that. But could they alter them for their own clerks? I have met these people and they made a case to me that before the Government interfered, before legislation was enacted, there was a means by which workers who began their service with the company as labourers in the shops but who had a capacity for clerical work could go up from labouring to clerical work and up into the company's clerical service. I have a recollection that there was some matter of having the shop clerk's grade recognised as a clerical grade for superannuation and other benefits, but I am not quite clear about that. They did urge, however, that there were grounds for special consideration for this limited number of people who began in the shops, doing everyday clerical work in the shops, generally after a very long period of service akin to that done by the clerical grades. It would meet the point fully if there was a means by which they could get into the clerical grades through a competitive examination and that they would not be debarred even if they had to go back to school and start learning sums again.

Mr. A.P. Byrne

It would be hard for them to start learning Irish if they were over 30.

Mr. C. Lehane

It would be no harder to learn Irish than it would be to learn anything else.

Mr. Lynch

Some points were made by the Minister and Deputy O'Sullivan on this amendment which I could not let go unanswered. The first point that I take Deputy O'Sullivan up on is that he says that the clerical grades require a higher standard of education. In many cases the attainment of a high standard of education takes money and while I do not like to show the poor mouth and use it in order to make a case on this particular amendment, I can well visualise young men who have poor fathers or who maybe have not got fathers being very glad to get a job as a messenger or some other immediate occupation on the railways in order to help to support their family at home. If such a young man had the chance to continue at school he might attain as high a standard of education as any man in the clerical grade.

The second point which Deputy O'Sullivan made was that these men who are in the clerical grade at present must have a probation period, but I think that the terms of the amendment could meet any objections that could be raised on that score. Surely the man who has risen from the lowest grade to head clerk's grade must be considered to have had as much probation as any man in the clerical grade. He has had more supervision and has been more carefully checked and as he has attained the shed and shop head clerk's grade he has attained a degree of accuracy which, I submit, is more than is required in many of the clerical grades. Many occupations I am sure would not compare for detail and accuracy with some of these things I have outlined in the normal working day of a shed and shop clerk, such as compiling time sheets, appropriating duties performed against hours worked, making out daily and weekly running sheets, etc.

I should like to compare the situation as I see it with what the Minister and Deputy O'Sullivan tell us. A situation with which I am familiar is the clerical grades of the Civil Service. There is a rift or barrier between the clerical and the executive grades in the Civil Service.

Many a young man leaving school does both the clerical officers' examination and the junior executive officers' examination. He may get the clerical officers' examination but, possibly because so many executive officers were not called in his particular year, he fails to get into the executive grade. It is true that he has opportunities to do the examination for the executive grade for a few years but his luck may be out and comparatively few may be called in the years he does the examination. Finally he finds himself like many men in the Civil Service completely debarred from the executive grade. I challenge any Minister with experience of Government be it long or short to ask his senior officials if he cannot find a standard of education and efficiency among the clerical officers as high as any he can find among the executive officers. Personally I know hundreds in all branches of the service and in all parts of the country, but there is an iron wall or curtain between them and the executive grade. In nine cases out of ten they have not the opportunity or cannot avail of it because of the few opportunities available to get out of the clerical grade.

Deputy O'Sullivan also said that it would be inequitable to give these shed and shop clerks the opportunity of getting promotion which they seek and which I hope this amendment would afford them. Surely if we are living in a democratic country at all every citizen has an equal right to attain the highest grade in any concern, particularly in a concern which is sponsored and subsidised by the State. It is inequitable for a young man to come up against a stone wall in the course of his career because he might not have been able to attain the same degree of education as his better off next door neighbour. I think that is taking the strictures of equity too far.

The Minister made the point that it was no function of the Oireachtas to dictate to the company its methods of recruiting staff. Are we not, in this section, dictating to the company what means of recruitment it is going to have as between the clerical grades and the grades lower than clerical? Even though the problem is an old one, I want again to submit to the Minister that it is a problem that can easily be met by my amendment. If the amendment is read carefully it will be seen that I am providing two safeguards for the clerical grade. If the members of that grade are jealous of their status, the safeguards which I am providing for them are, I think, sufficiently wide to protect it.

The first safeguard is that the board may only make available to those in the shed and shop clerk's grade a proportion of the vacancies in the clerical grade, that proportion to be approved of by the Minister. There is a double-barrelled safeguard there. Secondly, and possibly the best safeguard, is the other one, namely, that the immediate superior officer must recommend a particular individual for promotion before he will go as far as getting the board's approval or the Minister's approval. I submit that the clerical grade, if they are jealous of their status, have ample safeguards in these two provisos and that if there is to be justice or equity at all, this huge barrier should not be placed in the way of men who, for various reasons, were not able to compete at the outset for appointment to the clerical grade.

If the Minister is not prepared to go to the full limit of meeting what my amendment suggests, I would ask him to consider the proposal made by Deputy Lemass, namely, that an age limit sufficiently high should be applicable to outstanding men in the shed and shop class grade, and that, if there is a limited competitive examination, it should be such as would be suitable for men with experience in the shed and shop class grade: for men who, for various reasons, may not have attained the degree of education that would normally be required for a limited competitive examination or other open competitive examinations that are set at the present time. I take it that the latter are usually of intermediate certificate or leaving certificate standards. I think it would be unfair to these young men, who may have done the sixth or seventh standard in school, to expect them to take the intermediate certificate or leaving certificate standards in mathematics, English, chemistry or physics. I would again appeal to the Minister to be more lenient in dealing with this amendment and not to dismiss it simply as a staff matter. We are legislating here, and if we create a barrier it is going to remain there for a long time.

Mr. Morrissey

The Deputy has been talking about erecting a barrier, of inequity and injustice, and about dismissing this matter lightly. I want to make it clear to him that there is no question of injustice, of inequity or of erecting a barrier. The Deputy, I think, rather spoiled his case towards the end because, in effect, he said that these were men of very limited education or of practically no education.

Mr. Lynch

I instanced that some of them might be.

Mr. Morrissey

The Deputy instanced that they would not have, and could not be expected to have, a knowledge of quite a lot of things. Personally, I can have a lot of sympathy with that point of view.

Mr. Lynch

I would not like the Minister to take me up there. Education is a relative term, if you like. What I meant was the education they received in school. They may have been able to self-educate themselves in later years.

Mr. Morrissey

Perhaps I know even more about that than the Deputy does. Let me state what the position is with regard to those men that we are talking about. They were recruited into the grade as follows: there were 14 of them employed as shop and shed clerks; ten ex-temporary traffic clerks; 14 shop labourers; 17 office messengers; six non-clerical time-keepers; seven engine cleaners; one storeman; one coal checker and one greaser.

The fact of the matter is that these people, because they had a little over the average in ability, energy and application—call it what you will—improved their position up to the stage at which they are now. But there was no barrier. If they were able to take an examination and go into the clerical grade, there was no barrier. What the Deputy has been saying is that the barrier, if it may be so called, to entering the clerical grade that applies to everybody else should not apply to this limited section here. I would ask him to remember that there was no barrier. The men in this grade have got promotion up to the point at which they now stand. The clerical grade was open to them if they were able to make the grade. What the Deputy is really arguing is that we should do something that would be unjust to other people. I do not think that the Deputy has much of a case for this. In any case, I am not prepared to accept the amendment. I could not let it go, however, that my refusal to accept the amendment is because I have a complete disregard for those people. That is not so. We are doing nothing unjust or inequitable.

Mr. M. O'Sullivan

I should like to refer to two points that were dealt with by Deputy Lynch. First of all, he referred to the standard of education, and said there was the possibility that the poor man's son might suffer. May I point out that the men on whose behalf he has been speaking are largely centred in Dublin and in Cork? Everybody knows the splendid Christian Brothers' schools that we have in these two centres. I think Deputies can take it from me that no poor man's son will suffer because he is unable to get the education required to enable him to pass an examination for the railway service.

May I also point out that the present Córas Iompair Éireann Board are doing a very excellent job of work in connection with this particular grade? That is to say, that they are taking office assistants, men of the type referred to in the amendment—young lads in offices or employed as shop clerks—and, in company with apprentices in the craft grades, are sending them to the High School of Commerce at Rathmines. They are sent there in the company's time for the one purpose of having them trained so as to enable them to pass an open competitive examination. I think that is a very excellent arrangement. In my view it is the correct way to approach a problem of this kind.

As regards his second point, Deputy Lynch maintained that I said it was inequitable for any man to attempt to improve himself by getting into the clerical service. I said no such thing. I said it was inequitable, and I repeat it, for any man in this limited form to seek, without any more ado, to get rights and privileges and the obligations, shall I say, of the clerical staff who have sat for an examination. I repeat that, in the case of any of these young men who desire to enter the clerical service there is a way for them of doing that. With Deputy Lynch I would appeal to the Minister—I did so in my opening statement—to consider the question of an extension of the age limit so that these men would not be barred.

Mr. Hickey

I take it that the Minister's decision on this amendment will have a direct bearing on mine. Therefore I think we might take the two together.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

They could go together.

Mr. Hickey

One thing I should like to point out in supporting Deputy Lynch's amendment is that these are non-recurring vacancies which we are talking about. These men who are in the sheds and shops as well as the other men covered by my amendment were always clerks. They are office assistants. They had been there for some years and, because of the system which grew up in the old Great Southern Railway, they were taken over by Córas Iompair Éireann. My amendment is that any such man who has four years' continuous employment should be graded as a clerical officer. I have some knowledge of the work being done in the bus offices and in Córas Iompair Éireann and these men have been doing the actual work of an appointed clerical officer. I do not for a moment disagree with a lot of what Deputy O'Sullivan said. It is not a question, however, of being unfair to those who stood for the examination. These persons came into the Great Southern Railway and were appointed as clerks. They were called office assistants because they stood for an examination by Córas Iompair Éireann. It is pretty hard on the men referred to here that, having qualified to do the work they are doing side by side with the clerical grade, after having five, six or seven years' service they would not get that grade now because the change is taking place.

I do not think it is a question of dictating to Córas Iompair Éireann what they should do. We had some agitation about these clerks before. They maintain that they were efficient, if not more efficient, than those who were in the clerical grade. I think these men should be graded properly. As to the men referred to by Deputy Lynch, I know some of them who went in as cleaners and, because of their exceptional intelligence, they were transferred as clerks in the shops and the sheds. I know some of them who were transferred to the superintendent's office and got the grade. It is hard to find fault with what Deputy O'Sullivan said about the men who had to stand the competitive examination. But, as this is not a recurring matter and it is not a question of saying that in future any clerks should enter except through a competitive examination, I should like the Minister to take note of what I am saying. All we are asking is that these men who are there for so many years as clerks should be graded as clerical officers and let nobody else come into the clerical grade without passing a competitive examination.

I appeal to the Minister to reconsider the matter. I think the fact that we are asking that it should be left to the recommendation of the officers in charge of these people should be sufficient. I know some of these men both in the bus offices and the railway offices. I think it is rather hard that because they did not stand for a competitive examination they should be prevented from getting the grade they deserve. I know two or three of these who were graded up to the superintendent's office and the engineer's office because they had shown ability. As it is not a recurring matter or a matter of recruitment in future without competitive examination, I appeal to the Minister to reconsider his attitude.

Mr. Larkin

It is very easy at times to be misled by sympathy. Frankly, I had a great deal of sympathy with Deputy Lynch's amendment until I started to ponder what we were being asked to do. Let us leave aside the question of the poor man's son and the opportunities for education and everything else and deal with this amendment as it is. The purpose of it is to get an increase of wages or salaries. I have every sympathy with men who are trying to do that, but I do not think this is the place to do it. We should bear in mind, when we talk of open competitive examination, that it is the passing of the examination that determines the salary. If we take away the value of that examination, we may be affecting in many ways the whole wages and salaries scale of the company. I have no objection to doing that, but, again, this is not the place to do it.

It would be very easy in dealing with a measure like this to try to clear up the various odds and ends which may require it and I would agree, if there were not adequate machinery for doing that, that we should do it. But I think that neither Deputy Lynch nor Deputy Hickey would suggest that we should put in a clause that a particular section to the number of 70, 100 or 200 should be given an increase of wages. I think that Deputy Hickey, like myself, would be the first to object to that. But that is, in effect, what it is proposed to do. I think it exceptionally dangerous for an Assembly like this, which clearly cannot have a full knowledge of the facts or the background or of the possible repercussions on the whole system of wages and salary adjustments, to deal with this matter because we have sympathy with individuals, not realising that we may upset arrangements, not only of long standing, but which require very difficult working out in practice.

I do not represent clerical workers to any large extent, but in very many cases the basic factor in the fixing of wages for clerks is the type of examination passed. In so far as railway clerks are concerned, their prior and immediate claim in the fixation of salaries for a particular type of employment is the passing of that examination. If we insist that that particular status should be lowered by bringing men into the grade who have not passed an examination, whether we like it or not that will be used in future negotiations by the officials of the railway company against the men representing the clerical grade in Córas Iompair Éireann. I think we would all wish to avoid that. I think this particular case can be met along the lines suggested by waiving the age limit for this particular type of employee and creating a special clerical grade suited to their requirements, allowing for the fact that many of them are advanced in age and could not be expected, even if they had the opportunity, to go through an amended competitive examination, and also for the particular points in the salary scales to which they would be duly entitled to go forward.

I think it would be as well that we should not try to solve this problem by embodying actual sections in the Bill because of the possible repercussions. If we proceed on that line, we are going to invalidate the status that the clerks in the company have attained, and part of that status consists in the fact that they passed a competitive examination. We are also going to place in that general clerical grade new clerical officers who quite clearly, if they have not been required to pass a standard examination, will in certain cases not be up to the educational requirements necessary to go to the top of that grade, and we will have various other complications arising in the future. I suggest that if we had an indication from the Minister that the matter would be brought by him to the attention of the company the matter could be adjusted between Córas Iompair Éireann and the organisations representing these men. That would be a far better way to deal with it than to allow ourselves to be misled by our sympathy in this matter and, in trying to do what Deputy Lynch feels is justice to this body of men, undo the good work which has been done by other large bodies of men and organisations over a long period and, it may be, do an equal degree of injustice to employees in Córas Iompair Éireann.

Captain Cowan

What strikes me as important in regard to this particular matter is this, that we ought to provide by this Bill that every employee of Córas Iompair Éireann from the lowest grade will have an opportunity of reaching the top. I think it is desirable that no matter in what grade a person comes into Córas Iompair Éireann, that person ought to have an opportunity of reaching the top. From what Deputy O'Sullivan has said, it does seem that facilities are provided for able young men in the service to acquire the knowledge necessary to enable them to put their feet on the first effective rung of the ladder to promotion.

Undoubtedly, the cases mentioned by Deputy Lynch and Deputy Hickey create some difficulty. The people concerned, who are in a separate grade —it is a special clerical grade, I understand—may or may not have opportunities of sitting for the open competitive examination or for the limited competitive examination. Suggestions have been made by Deputy O'Sullivan and, I think, by Deputies Larkin and Lemass, that probably the age limit in their case might be increased. I think that is really a matter for the new board. All we can do here is lay down certain headlines.

It is my experience that certain people who enter a grade in Córas Iompair Éireann less than the clerical grade, by open competitive examination, may in the course of time become exceptionally able. Because of their experience they may have a grasp of transport matters much superior to persons who have entered a higher branch of the service. I think that is the experience that every person in industry and business has, and there ought to be some machinery whereby men of outstanding ability of that kind could be promoted, not only to the clerical grade but probably to a higher place in the clerical grade.

I do not think we can do that in this Bill. It may be necessary to give some form of statutory authority to the new board to do that. If that is necessary, I suggest to the Minister that he might consider the preparation of an amendment which could be introduced on the Report Stage which would give that particular power to the new board. If that were done, it would get over the difficulties envisaged by Deputies Lynch and Hickey in the matters to which they drew attention in their amendments and at the same time it would preserve the guarantees and the protection that Deputy O'Sullivan referred to in the very informative contributions he has made to the debate.

Those are my views—that every person in the employment of Córas Iompair Éireann should have an opportunity of reaching the top. Reaching the top in Córas Iompair Éireann will probably be by the hard tedious method of study and application within Córas Iompair Éireann. There is another method, of course, in reaching the top —through the political sphere or otherwise. As I would like to see it, the top should be reached by experience within Córas Iompair Éireann. For that reason, I would like to see enshrined in the Bill the principle that every entrant to Córas Iompair Éireann service should have an opportunity of reaching by his own ability the highest position in the service.

Mr. Childers

I was very interested to hear Deputy O'Sullivan speaking on this matter and if, as seems likely, the Minister is not going to accept Deputy Lynch's amendment, we ought to hear a little bit more of his views in regard to the proposal that the age limit be increased for persons not in the clerical grade who take the examination. Deputy Cowan said that every single person should have a chance of getting to the top in Córas Iompair Éireann and he raised a matter which is of interest in discussing a Transport Bill or in discussing the general attitude of the board towards promotion within the service—that when you say everyone should have a chance of getting to the top, you immediately ask yourself: "In what time?" If it is admitted that the chance of getting to the top must not be limited in respect of time, then it seems to be quite sensible for the Minister to give some sort of direction to the new board to encourage members of the staff of Córas Iompair Éireann to educate themselves both in the strictly narrow academic sense and in the sense of learning how Córas Iompair Éireann works—how it is managed.

It seems to me that if there is any sincerity in the minds of those who say that there should be equal opportunity within an industry for promotion to the top, the suggestion by Deputy O'Sullivan of a change in the age limit is very important. I quite agree with Deputy Larkin that it would be most undesirable for discussions to take place in this House, particularly in regard to a Transport Bill, which have the effect of interfering in the wage structure of an industry by amending the Bill in such a form as that although you appear to alter the conditions of service you are, in fact, increasing the wages of a particular class of person. Deputy O'Sullivan's suggestion does not conflict with Deputy Larkin's warning or with his admonition against such a course. It seems to me that in the present condition of the world education continues long after the school leaving age and the Minister should now take the opportunity of at least stating a principle for the board to follow in the future. Unless Deputy O'Sullivan's suggestion is adopted, a man who is in one of these lower grades and passes the age 25 because he has not been quick enough in taking such courses as are available to him to improve his educational standard will not be able to get to the next stage because he has reached age 26. It is a very important principle and I think it is one that should engage the attention of the Minister.

Mr. Lynch

There is one point I would like to make clear. Since the principle of limited competition has been accepted, I would suggest that, as well as raising the age limit, the examination itself should be set with special attention to the particular types of work done in the particular grade with which I am concerned, plus the added possibility that the man who would sit for the examination would not be expected to compete with boys leaving school or in their first few years at work.

Mr. Morrissey

I have as much sympathy with the point of view expressed by those who have spoken in favour of these amendments as have the Deputies themselves. I very naturally desire to see that the man who has had very limited opportunities in his youth will get an even break, and even something more than an even break. But there are bigger and wider issues at stake. Let me assure Deputy Cowan that, so far as I know now and in the future, there is nothing to prevent any man with the necessary ability and capacity reaching the top in Córas Iompair Éireann. There are two types of examination. There is the open competitive examination and there is the limited competitive examination. The latter is limited in order to give a better opportunity to the employees and the sons of the employees of Córas Iompair Éireann. The open competitive examination ensures a fair deal for every man's son or daughter, as the case may be, be he rich or poor. I think these amendments ask me to do something in relation to Córas Iompair Éireann that has neither been done nor sought for in relation to any other employment or in relation to any other national or public authority in the country. That is quite true. May I put this to Deputy Lynch and Deputy Hickey? If I am wrong on this I am open to correction. If a man is employed by the Corporation of Cork and he enters their employment as a street cleaner and, by his own efforts, gradually becomes a ganger and then a foreman, in which capacity he may have to do a certain amount of clerical work such as timekeeping and so on, does he get an opportunity of going on eventually to the clerical staff of the corporation?

Mr. Hickey

I do not think the cases are similar.

Mr. Morrissey

They are analogous. I give that as an example. I am not prepared to put into the Bill anything of this nature. There is no doubt that the new board will be aware of what Deputies have said on this matter. As far as I am concerned, I would like to go as far as it would be fair to go in order to ensure that these people would receive fair treatment—I would nearly go so far as to say exceptional treatment. But I cannot accept these amendments.

Amendment No. 51, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment No. 51(a) not moved.

Question proposed: "That Section 33, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

Captain Cowan

On the section, there are one or two observations I wish to make. Sub-paragraph (b) of sub-section (2) says that Irish shall be a compulsory subject at every open competitive examination held in pursuance of this sub-section. I do not think that is quite the type of phraseology in relation to this matter that should appear in a Bill in 1950. I understand from Deputy O'Sullivan that the age limits for these examinations are 18 to 25. Undoubtedly those coming within that age group should be capable of doing all the work he or she might be called upon to do through the medium of Irish. All these candidates will have done Irish compulsorily at school. Leaving it in the form in which it is may offer an opportunity to a board unfavourable towards the Irish language of setting an unreasonably low standard. The sub-section as it stands is, in my opinion, both too negative and too neutral.

Conchubhair Ó Liatháin

Ba mhaith liomsa cur leis an méid atá ráite ag an dteachta deireannach a labhair agus is rí-mhaith liom gur mar sin a labhair sé. Tá sé thar am dúinn deire a chur le caint mar gheall ar "Ghaeilge éiginteach," agus dearmad a dhéanamh, ag an am céanna, go bhfuil Béarla éigeanteach ann i gcónaí. Ba mhaith liom cur leis an méid a dúirt an Teachta Ó Cabhain 'sa tslí seo—go molfainn do'n Aire gur cóir go bhféachfadh an bórd nua chuige go mbéadh dóthan Gaeilge ag duine sar a dtubhairfear céim ar aghaidh dó.

I should like to support what Deputy Cowan has said. We have been so used to accepting this phrase about "compulsory Irish" that many of us allow it to slip past unnoticed and I am very glad that he drew attention to the manner in which it is in the section. If it had come to my attention before now I should certainly have tabled an amendment in regard to it. Many of us now accept the phrase "compulsory Irish" and consider that it is quite an acceptable way of phrasing the national policy on it. Deputy Cowan was perfectly right and I am very glad that he drew the attention of the House and of the Minister to the fact that that is not the way that the idea should be contained in the section. He is perfectly right in suggesting to the House and to the Minister that provision should be made so that no persons would be appointed to positions in Córas Iompair Éireann in the clerical grades, and entering by open competitive examination, who would not have a full and adequate knowledge of the Irish language sufficient to enable them to transact any business they might have to transact in that language. I am very pleased that Deputy Cowan adverted to that fact. It is something that we have allowed to be glossed over in the past.

I hope that in its administration, in so far as the board can get any direction from the Minister, it will get a direction to ensure that when it comes to a question of promotion due regard will be given to the necessity for people, so promoted, having a competent knowledge of the Irish language and that the position will not be allowed to develop whereby some low standard examination in the Irish language will be set merely to enable those responsible to say: "We have a compulsory Irish examination" but that there will be demanded of people entering clerical positions in the new company a competent and adequate knowledge of Irish sufficient to enable them to discharge their duties in that language.

There has been far too much tolerance or pseudo-tolerance regard to this question of Irish. We hear talk about "compulsory Irish" in this House and outside but we hear nothing about the compulsory English which is forced down the throats of the people of this country every week.

Seán Ó Loinsigh

Ba mhaith liom cur leis an méid atá ráidhte ag an Teachta Ó Cabhain agus ag an Teachta Conchubhair Ó Liatháin faoi'n gceist seo. Amhail leo, ní maith liomsa an tslighe in a bhfuil an tAlt sin scriobhtha. Ba chóir go mbeadh an Gaeilge in a abhar thabhachtach in aon scrudú chun dul isteach i gCóras Iompair Éireann agus ba chóir, dar liomsa, go mbéadh slighe éigin eile ann chun é sin go chur isteach 'san mBille.

I should like to support what has been said on this particular subject by the two previous speakers. Like them, I do not approve of the method in which the paragraph is set out. It is probably because the words "compulsory" and "Irish" are so close together in the paragraph that I disagree with the method in which it is written. I think the question could easily have been met either in the method suggested by Deputy Cowan and Deputy Lehane or by inserting a provision to the effect that the same subjects as are compulsory in the intermediate certificate examination, or whatever the standard of the examination may be, are required, when positions for which open competitive examinations are necessary are advertised. As a rule, at the end of such advertisements one reads that the standard of the examination shall be that required for the intermediate certificate or the leaving certificate, and so forth, as the case may be. I think that instead of this objectionable combination of words "compulsory" and "Irish" being used in the section some such form as suggested by Deputy Lehane or as I now suggest be adopted—for instance, a paragraph to the effect that the same subjects as are compulsory in the intermediate certificate examination or in the leaving certificate examination shall be compulsory in the examinations which are held for these positions.

Mr. Coburn

Seeing that the sub-section does not seem to meet with the entire approval of certain Deputies of this House I respectfully suggest to the Minister that he should delete the section altogether. Most Deputies who have spoken on this section seem to forget that Córas Iompair Eireann belongs to the taxpayers of this country in general—subscribed to by all the people of this country—and that if the all-supporting hand of the Minister, as representing the general taxpayer of this country, were withdrawn for one single moment Córas Iompair Éireann would cease to exist within six months. I would respectfully suggest, knowing the position of Córas Iompair Éireann and feeling that we should be realists in this matter, that it is not experts in. Irish or in anything else that we want but more traffic. Córas Iompair Eireann wants more traffic, not experts.

On the question of making Irish a compulsory subject, I have only this to say. If, in 1950, after all the years we have spent in trying to force the Irish language down the throats of the people, we now have to use the word "shall" it is certainly not a matter of love, seemingly. I think, by virtue of the fact that certain young men and students and boys attending school have not the same opportunity of being proficient in the Irish language as some others, that it is penalising any of these young men who may have occasion to enter for this examination. Because of that fact and because Córas Iompair Eireann is kept going by the general taxpayers of this country, irrespective of whether they have an efficient knowledge of the Irish language or not, I think they are entitled to an equal chance of entering for these examinations and qualifying and passing them if they can. Though it may be heresy to preach it now, I think the word "shall", making this thing compulsory, should be left out altogether. It could be included, all right, but I do not agree at all with the importance which certain Deputies have attached to a knowledge of the Irish language. It is going to have no effect in so far as the success or non-success of Córas Iompair Éireann is concerned. Anybody who has spent even three minutes studying the annual balance sheets of Córas Iompair Éireann over the past ten years must realise the fact that it is in a very bad position and that it will require the co-operation of everyone, from the lowest employee to the highest, to put that company on its feet. It seems to me, without offence, that many Deputies seem to have the idea that Córas Iompair Eireann is a gold mine and has been a gold mine for the last ten or 15 years. Most of the amendments seem to have for their purpose an increase in the expenditure of the company which was finding it very difficult to carry on and which was, in fact, without funds. It was because it was not able to carry on that we are discussing this Bill at all. No man knows that better than Deputy Lemass, who introduced the 1944 Act. I personally sympathise with the magnitude of the task which he undertook.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

This has to do with the appointment of officers.

Mr. Coburn

Knowing the position of Córas Iompair Éireann, I think what the Minister should do, seeing that there does not seem to be unanimity on this matter, is to delete the reference to Irish altogether from the sub-section.

Mr. Morrissey

May I intervene for a moment? The position is bad enough but let the debate not develop into a discussion on compulsory Irish or into an argument as to whether we should have Irish at all as a subject. I do not think there is anything objectionable in the sub-section. We simply say that Irish shall be a compulsory subject.

Mr. C. Lehane

Neither myself nor Deputy Cowan had any desire to blame the Minister in connection with this matter. We are simply of the opinion that it is a pity that some other means was not found of dealing with this matter having regard to the way in which the phrase "compulsory Irish" is used by opponents of the language. We had no desire to criticise the Minister at all.

Mr. Morrissey

I know that. May I say that so far as the examination is concerned, the knowledge of Irish necessary is based on the leaving certificate programme?

Section 33, as amended, agreed to.

SECTION 34.

Mr. Morrissey

I think amendment No. 52, in the name of Deputy O'Sullivan and others, is met by amendments Nos. 53 and 60.

Mr. M. O'Sullivan

We might have a little clarification of the position in the light of the Minister's amendment as against the position as we saw it when our amendment was put down. I should like to say that the reason we put down our amendment was that it has been a feature of legislation, for a considerable number of years in our own country, that on the occasion of the amalgamation or absorption of railways, what might be termed customary practices were transformed into legal obligations. We were worried in the early stages because sub-section (4) of Section 21, which has now gone, stated that the board shall be subject to all liabilities and obligations arising by statute or otherwise to which the dissolved undertaking was subject. I think Deputy Lemass was concerned with that phrase also. It might be argued that the term "or otherwise" included what are described as customary practices. I should like to have it clear from the Minister whether in fact these concessions or privileges which originated either with Córas Iompair Éireann or with the Grand Canal Company will be transformed into legal obligations and that they are sufficiently covered by the next amendment.

Mr. Morrissey

They are covered by amendments Nos. 53 and 60. These amendments meet the point completely. Amendment No. 53 should be read in conjunction with amendment No. 60.

Mr. M. O'Sullivan

Amendment No. 53 seems to be satisfactory.

Amendment No. 52 not moved.

Mr. Morrissey

I move amendment No. 53:—

To insert before Section 35 the following new section :—

35. For the purposes of Sections 36 and 37—

(a) a person, who becomes by virtue of Section 34 an officer or servant of the board, shall be deemed to suffer a worsening of his conditions of service as an officer or servant of the board if, by reason of the transfer effected by Section 34 or, in case he is transferred, without his consent, by the board from one position to another in its service, by reason thereof he suffers any direct pecuniary loss or is in a worse position in respect of the conditions of his service as a whole (including tenure of office or employment, remuneration, gratuities, superannuation, sick fund or other benefits or allowances, whether obtaining legally or by customary practice and whether applicable to himself or his widow or children or other dependents) as compared with those obtaining in respect of him before the transfer;

(b) a person, who becomes by virtue of Section 34 an officer or servant of the board and who is transferred by the board from one position in its service to another, shall be deemed to suffer a worsening of his conditions of service as an officer or servant of the board if he is required by the board to perform in the position to which he is so transferred duties which are not analogous to or are an unreasonable addition to those which before the transfer he was required to perform in the position from which he was so transferred.

I should say for the information of Deputies that if this amendment is accepted, Section 35 will be deleted and, in consequence, Deputies' amendments Nos. 54 to 57, inclusive, will fall. It is suggested therefore that Deputies might make their points on amendment No. 53. Amendment No. 53 was introduced as a result of representations which were made to me on behalf of the canal workers. It is introduced to clarify their position and to see that we cover not merely a worsening of their conditions, but the loss of any amenities which they may have in their present employment with the canal company. I think Deputy O'Sullivan will agree that, taken in conjunction with amendment No. 60, the amendment does meet the point. It provides that their amenities, etc., shall be safeguarded.

Mr. Lemass

So far as I am concerned, amendment No. 53 appears to be quite satisfactory and covers the point which I had in mind when tabling amendment No. 57, which I am prepared to withdraw. As the Minister said, however, amendment No. 53 has to be considered with amendment No. 60. Amendment No. 53 sets out to define the circumstances under which a person who becomes an officer or servant of the board is deemed to suffer a worsening in his position and, of course, it has no meaning at all except in relation to Section 36, which prescribes the compensation which is payable where a person affected by the section suffers a worsening of his conditions. We have, therefore, to consider amendment No. 53 with amendment No. 60 which the Minister is proposing to Section 36. Sub-paragraph (a) is all right. Sub-paragraph (b) says that a person who is transferred by the board from one position in the board's service to another shall be deemed to suffer a worsening of his conditions if after he is so transferred he is asked to perform duties which are not analogous, or which are an unreasonable addition to those which he performed before the transfer. I notice, however, that in amendment No. 60 the Minister is proposing to retain in the sub-section words which I was proposing to delete from the sub-section. These are the words "on grounds of redundancy". It seems to me that the retention of these words has the effect of limiting the payment of compensation and, consequently, the definition of the worsening of conditions of persons who are transferred by the board from one position to another "on grounds of redundancy". Personally, I cannot see why these words are retained and there is an obvious danger in retaining them. If the board transfers an officer from one position to another, in circumstances which bring him within the definition in amendment No. 53, as suffering a worsening of his conditions, he still is not entitled to compensation for that worsening of his conditions unless it is agreed or ultimately decided that the transfer was due to redundancy. Could the board escape the obligation to pay compensation by claiming that the transfer was not on grounds of redundancy but on grounds of personal efficiency or suitability or merely that the departmental manager did not like the individual concerned? As it stands, it would appear to be open to the board to avoid payment of compensation merely by giving some other reason for the transfer than the reason of redundancy. Why is it necessary to limit the payment of compensation to cases where there is redundancy? If a person who becomes an officer or servant of the board suffers a worsening of conditions in the service of the board in circumstances which are defined in amendment No. 53, then he should be entitled to compensation whether that worsening of conditions is due to redundancy or any other cause.

Mr. M. O'Sullivan

It is well that we should recall Section 43 of the 1944 Act, which dealt with the question of compensation also; and in that case the individual had to prove that his office was abolished due directly and solely to amalgamation. I can see a certain element of danger, in any case, that if the individual here has to prove that his worsening of conditions arises solely because of this particular term "redundancy," he may find himself in the very same position of trouble that definitely arose out of Section 43 of the 1944 Act, where the individual had also to prove before the tribunal that his position was abolished directly and solely because of amalgamation—difficult things for the individual to prove. I would like to hear the Minister on the question of the insertion of the term "redundancy" here.

Mr. Lemass

This phrase "on the ground of redundancy" was not in the relevant section of the 1944 Act.

Mr. Morrissey

I am advised that it was necessary to have this here, as otherwise there might be a whole lot of frivolous claims being made—people might claim compensation because the conditions were different, or the houses were not satisfactory, or things like that. If it would have the effect that Deputy Lemass or Deputy O'Sullivan fear, then certainly that is not the intention. On the other hand, we do not want to open it so wide that there would be all sorts of frivolous claims for compensation, where a fellow could say his conditions were worsened because he had to walk a step further in one place than he had in another. It is merely to try and prevent that sort of frivolous claim, through someone stretching it too far, that this has been put in. I am quite prepared to have it looked into, but I think it goes as far as one can possibly go to meet the legitimate fears that were expressed on behalf of those employees. On the other hand, I have to try to ensure that we do not leave it so wide that there can be these frivolous claims.

Mr. Lemass

I think the phrase is dangerous.

Mr. Morrissey

I will have another look at it.

Amendment No. 53 agreed to.

Section 35 deleted.

Amendments Nos. 54, 55, 56 and 57 not moved.

SECTION 36.

Mr. Morrissey

I move amendment No. 58:-

In sub-section (1), paragraph (b), to delete, in page 29, sub-paragraph (ii), lines 5 to 8, and substitute:—

(ii) had, except for casual interruptions of employment caused by emergency conditions, been employed by either dissolved undertaker during the whole of the four years ending on the day immediately preceding the establishment date.

This amendment was introduced to meet points that were made about certain men with long service who would be excluded if there had been a break in their service. They cited certain cases like coalmen employed by Córas Iompair Éireann whose employment was conditional on regular coal supplies. They made certain suggestions. There is a difficulty about interpreting the phrase "reasonable continuity" and we are suggesting that this amendment would meet the position. I think Deputy O'Sullivan, who raised this matter originally and who has an amendment down, might consider that his point is met by this.

Mr. M. O'Sullivan

Except, may I say, that the Minister's amendment sets down that the period of employment shall be a minimum of four years. There is, in fact, a decision of the Joint Industrial Council—the body which decides disputes and pronounces on matters of that kind as between the company and various trades unions— that a man should be regarded as permanently employed after three years' service. The general rule is that a man is so regarded and the Minister will be bringing existing policy and practice into line if he makes the period three years instead of four.

Mr. Morrissey

I have gone a long way to meet a rather difficult point. The main case made was that this was interruption of service that took place during the war years.

Mr. M. O'Sullivan

It is true, of course, that the section as it originally stood would exclude quite a large section of men who are graded as temporary men at the present time. We regard the introduction of the amendment as a valuable concession dealing with that particular section of employees. The position would be impossible for any of them of the particular types the Minister or members on this side wanted to include, because it meant continuous over a continuous period. In point of fact and due to conditions over which they had no control, they could not so qualify. Regarding the very section the Minister refers to—coalmen—it is quite possible that a boat might be late or held up under certain conditions at the port and men who would normally be engaged would have to be disemployed if that boat did not arrive on a particular schedule or under certain conditions for discharge. In that case, the men, through no fault of their own, would lose a day's employment and, as the section stood, they could not have been included at all. To the extent that it has been altered, we welcome it. However, as the Minister has gone so far now, might I suggest that he go that little bit extra as he could cover what, in fact, would be ordinary agreed policy as between the trade unions and the company, if he alters the figure and makes it three years instead of four? The actual difference from the point of the Minister would be negligible, but it would be valuable to the staffs concerned and would make the practice uniform.

Mr. Lemass

In support of Deputy O'Sullivan's point, the Minister may not appreciate that, under the Unemployment Insurance Acts, there is an exemption from insurance for permanent employees of Córas Iompair Éireann, such permanent employment being deemed to commence after the individual has been three years in the company's service. In other words, a person who has been in the company's service for three years or less is insured against unemployment, but the person who has exceeded three years, if his services were dispensed with, would not be eligible for unemployment insurance. As the purpose of the section is to prescribe that the person's service may not be dispensed with without compensation, there would be some relationship between the purpose of the section and the provisions of the Unemployment Insurance Acts as they apply to Córas Iompair Éireann. There is one further point about which I should like some information although I am sure that it is covered, if not here, by previous legislation. I take it that if an employee of a company was out of the service of the company by reason of a trade dispute during the four years it would not be deemed to have interrupted the continuity of his service for the purposes of this section. Could I bring in the bus strike on this?

Mr. Morrissey

I thought the Deputy was keeping very far away from it.

Mr. Lemass

I put through a Transport Bill when there was a transport strike in progress.

Mr. Morrissey

We will get this one through, I hope, strike or no strike. I think I have gone a long way to meet this and, I suppose, having gone so far, I ought not to strain the point. We will have to re-introduce this on Report, making it three years.

An Ceann Comhairle

I would like to be clear. Is it the position that amendment No. 58 is withdrawn, to be re-drafted for Report?

Mr. Lemass

I take it we could substitute "three" for "four" now.

Mr. Morrissey

I am satisfied.

An Ceann Comhairle

Is it agreed now?

Amendment No. 58, as altered, agreed to.

Amendments Nos. 59, 60 and 61 not moved.

Mr. Lemass

I move amendment No. 62:—

Before sub-section (4) to insert a new sub-section as follows:—

( ) Any person entitled to compensation under the preceding sub-section on the grounds that he has suffered a worsening of his conditions or services may, at his option, resign from the service of the board whereupon such person shall be entitled to compensation calculated in the manner set out in the Fourth Schedule to this Act.

This is a different point. In moving this amendment, I admit that a similar provision did not appear in the 1944 Act, but it did appear in the 1924 Act. I am not quite sure to what extent any problem will arise at all following the passage of this Bill and the amalgamation of the Grand Canal undertaking with the Córas Iompair Éireann undertaking. But, in 1924, when there was a number of companies being amalgamated into one, it was considered necessary to give a person whose conditions of service were worsened the option of retiring from the company's service in lieu of taking the compensation provided for in the legislation. Such retiral carried with it the special rights of retirement provided for in the legislation. One can see circumstances under which a person might be employed, say by the Grand Canal undertaking, transferred to the service of Córas Iompair Eireann, removed from the Grand Canal undertaking of Córas Iompair Eireann to some other portion of Córas Iompair Éireann services in circumstances which result in a worsening of his conditions of employment and feeling that he is not really being compensated for that situation, particularly if it means a change of residence, by the payment of a lump sum and preferring, instead, to retire from the service of the board. I think there is a case for giving him that option. As I say, it was provided for in the 1924 legislation and I think that the circumstances here are sufficiently similar to justify its reproduction.

Mr. Morrissey

No. I do not think there is the same case at all here. I think we are making very generous and very fair provision here. It could mean that the board might lose the services of a number of very competent, skilled and experienced officers whose service they would wish to retain.

Mr. Lemass

It would not arise at all unless they had a worsening of their conditions.

Mr. Morrissey

If they had, they have to be compensated for that.

Mr. Lemass

By lump sum.

Mr. Morrissey

They have to be compensated but I do not think they ought to be given the option to retire.

Mr. Lemass

Will the Minister visualise the case of a man who is transferred from one position in the board's service to another, that transfer meaning the transfer of residence. There could be circumstances where justice would require that he should be allowed to retire rather than that he should take whatever lump sum compensation is involved and move.

Mr. Morrissey

The Deputy has in mind one of the absorbed company's employees but we have already provided, not merely compensation for worsening of conditions, but further compensation for the loss of certain amenities that he may have had in addition, such as we were discussing a while ago. There is, of course, full protection given. I think it would be going a bit too far to give him the right to retire and demand his compensation any time he liked without giving any reason.

Mr. Lemass

Oh, no.

Mr. Morrissey

It amounts to that.

Mr. Lemass

I am not suggesting that he should be allowed to retire any time he liked. There must be a decision that he suffered worsening of conditions. He must have established his right to compensation under that provision of the Bill. It is only when he has established his right to lump sum compensation for worsening of conditions that he can exercise the option of retirement.

Mr. Morrissey

I am afraid that it will not be difficult, by the time this gets through, to establish worsening of conditions.

Mr. Lemass

This provision was particularly helpful in 1924. Under the 1924 Act there was a tremendous number of amalgamations and a great deal of redundancy.

Mr. Morrissey

I do not think there is the same case.

Mr. Lemass

There was also considerable desire to avoid payment of compensation where it could be done. There is not the same case here, I agree. Amalgamation is not so drastic. But it was a very useful provision in the 1924 Act.

Mr. Morrissey

There is not much difference in the conditions between now and 1944.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Lemass

I move amendment No. 63:—

To add a new sub-section as follows:—

( ) Where the office or situation of a person who becomes an officer or servant of the board by virtue of Section 34 is abolished before or after the establishment date directly or solely in anticipation or as a result of the transfer of the undertaking of a dissolved undertaker to the board such person may retire from the service of the board and thereupon shall be entitled to compensation calculated in the manner set out in the Fourth Schedule to this Act.

This is another point which arose in earlier legislation. Now we are transferring two established undertakings to this new board and there will be no reason, I suppose, why the management of either undertaking being transferred to it would be anxious to penalise any individual, but experience did show that it was necessary to provide for the possibility of compensation where the office of somebody was abolished before the establishment date, in anticipation of the right to compensation arising after the establishment date. The risk would only, possibly, arise, it seems to me, in relation to some individuals employed in the managerial section of the Grand Canal Company but, if there is a risk, I think we should provide against it.

Mr. Morrissey

I am advised that the abolition of office would be covered by the redundancy section.

Mr. Lemass

That is all right then. Even if the abolition of office took place before the establishment date?

Mr. Morrissey

In any case, he has to get suitable alternative employment. If he does not, he can retire on pension.

Mr. Lemass

If the Minister is satisfied, all right.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Section 36, as amended, agreed to.

SECTION 37.

Mr. Lemass

I move amendment No. 64:—

In line 31, after the word "trains" to insert the words "or to operate in whole or in part the undertaking of the Grand Canal Company".

The section provides that, where the board ceases to provide a service of trains and, as a consequence, the retention of an officer of the board becomes unnecessary, the board, if it dispenses with his services, must retire him on the special retirement pension provided in the Fourth Schedule or must compensate him, if he is transferred to another position. Quite a similar consequence could arise if the board ceases to provide a service on the canal, and in fact the Minister, in a later amendment, appears to contemplate the possibility of the company ceasing to operate the canal undertaking in whole or in part, and it seems necessary to insert here the words which I suggest and which provide that, where the board ceases to operate a service of trains or to operate in whole or in part the Grand Canal undertaking, the same right would attach to the individual whose services were deemed to be unnecessary and who was released from his employment or transferred to another employment in such circumstances.

Mr. Morrissey

There is not just that analogy which the Deputy tries to draw between the railway and the canal. The canal company are obliged by statute to keep the canal open for traffic, but they are not obliged to operate such traffic. It is quite a different point and there is that protection for the employees of the Grand Canal Company that we have already been dealing with. I do not think there is any analogy at all as between the canal and the closing of a branch line.

Mr. Lemass

Suppose that, under amendment No. 84 (a), the board applies to the tribunal to be released from the obligation to keep the canal, or part of the canal, open, and, as a result of the tribunal assenting to the application, some employee of the Grand Canal Company loses his employment or is transferred to some other part of the Córas Iompair Éireann system under a worsening of conditions. There is no provision in the Bill for that individual, unless it is inserted in this section. If the board ceases to run a service of trains, it must pension off unnecessary employees or transfer them, with compensation, elsewhere; but if it ceases to provide a service on the canal, there is no such provision, and it seems to me that that is a mere oversight because, presumably, it would be intended to do for one class of the board's employees what is done for another class.

Mr. Morrissey

There may be something in that and I will look into it, but it should be made quite clear that it should be limited——

Mr. Lemass

To Grand Canal Company employees.

Mr. Morrissey

Not only that, but to the closing or decision not further to operate a particular canal.

Mr. Lemass

The Minister is worried about what constitutes a cesser of services on the canal? I suppose the dropping of one canal boat would scarcely be such a cesser.

Mr. Sweetman

Amendment No. 84(a) covers a case where there has not been a boat for 15 years.

Mr. Lemass

It could cover a case where there is a boat running now.

Mr. Larkin

Would the Minister look at it from this point of view? The canal company is obliged to keep the canal open. On that canal, there are what are called hack boats, not owned by the canal company, and there are boats owned by the company with employees of the company working as crews of the boats. Suppose the canal company keeps the canal open but does not operate its own services. Are we to take it that the men who have been in the employment of the canal company, some for a very long number of years, have not got an equal claim with that of employees of the railway company whose services are terminated because the company decides to stop running a train service on a particular section of line? The analogy is complete. We are concerned with the employment of men and not with whether the canal is still a waterway for private boat owners or not. I think it is important that the position of the employees of the canal company should be put on an equal footing with that of the employees of Córas Iompair Éireann, particularly when the two concerns are to be amalgamated and it is quite possible that the road services owned by Córas Iompair Éireann may be the means of bringing about the termination of the canal traffic of the former canal company.

Mr. Lemass

I take it that the employees of the canal company now engaged in the operations of the canal company's barges will become officers and servants of the board on the appointed day?

Mr. Morrissey

And we think they are covered by the redundancy section.

Mr. Lemass

No. The redundancy section provides, as I understand it, for payment of lump sum compensation on worsening of conditions.

Mr. Morrissey

Perhaps we had better leave it there and I will look into it. If there is any danger of injustice, we will have it rectified. I think it is clear now, but we can make sure.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Section 37 agreed to.

SECTION 38.

An Ceann Comhairle

Amendment No. 65 is related to amendment No. 69. I wonder on which amendment the Deputy would care to discuss the point.

Mr. M. O'Sullivan

I would regard amendment No. 69 as meeting the point if I were satisfied with regard to the wording. It says:—

"The decision of the standing arbitrator on any question of fact shall be final but the standing arbitrator may state, at any stage of the proceedings, in the form of a special case for the opinion of the High Court, any question of law arising in the course of the proceedings and may state his award as to the whole or part thereof in the form of a special case for the opinion of the High Court."

Suppose the request was made on behalf of an applicant before the court, would there be any obligation on the arbitrator to ensure that the course set out in the amendment would follow?

Mr. Morrissey

We have gone a long way to meet the Deputy.

Mr. M. O'Sullivan

I miss my legal adviser here and it is easy to get confused by phraseology of this type.

Amendment not moved.

Section 38 agreed to.

SECTION 39.

Mr. Lemass

I move amendment No. 66:—

In paragraph (d), line 30, to delete all words from "purchase" down to and including the word "select" in line 32 and substitute the following "through an annuity scheme approved by the Minister".

I am merely curious as to why the Minister thought it necessary to make a change here from the provisions of the 1944 Act. The section is the same as that in the 1944 Act, except that that provided for the determination of the capital sum to be paid by way of commutation on the basis of what amount would purchase the pension through an annuity scheme approved by the Minister, whereas in this case the Minister brings in "the amount required to purchase through an assurance company licensed under the Insurance Act a life annuity of similar amount". I do not know that there is any necessity for the change and it seems to me that its introduction implies the possibility of variety of treatment in individual cases. If there is any difference between the practice of insurance companies in this regard the Minister might approve of different insurance companies in each case. That might vary and it might be safer to keep the thing in the hands of the Minister who presumably could be advised by actuaries. As it is the only change in this section I was curious to know why it was made.

Mr. Morrissey

To be quite honest about it, I was anxious to get rid of as many Ministerial functions as I could in relation to this. There is not very much contained in that in view of the fact that there are 15 insurance companies to select from.

Mr. Lemass

But the board would obviously select the one that quotes the best terms.

Mr. Morrissey

Why not?

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Section 39 put and agreed to.

SECTION 40.

Captain Cowan

I move:—

In sub-section (1), lines 38 and 39, to delete the words "The Chief Justice whenever so requested by the Minister" and substitute therefor the words "The Government".

This is a small amendment which, I take it, the Minister will have no objection to accepting. Section 40 provides for the appointment of a standing arbitrator. It provides that the Chief Justice whenever so requested by the Minister shall appoint a person to be standing arbitrator for the purposes of Sections 38 and 39 and shall fix the fees to be paid to that person. I understood the Minister to say on the Second Reading of the Bill that the Chief Justice had agreed if requested so to act. I am of opinion and submit it to the House with respect that that is not the function of the Chief Justice, that under the Constitution and the law the Chief Justice has particular functions. One of his functions is that he is President or head of the Supreme Court which is the final court of appeal in this country and that being so I think that in the interests of justice and of the judiciary who under the Constitution have a very special place the Chief Justice ought not be brought into any job such as this. The standing arbitrator will exercise certain functions in any dispute between the board and a person who is entitled to compensation. Judges themselves are appointed on the recommendation of the Government and it does not seem to me to be right that the Government which has very important functions under the Constitution should simply say: "We will get rid of these functions and hand them over to the Chief Justice". It is quite possible that in the exercise of his duties under Sections 38 and 39 the standing arbitrator might leave himself open to some proceedings in the court. That is quite possible no matter how one may intend to guard against it in the sections and if proceedings are instituted in the court they may in the last resort come before the Supreme Court and the Chief Justice may feel under the circumstances that in the exercise of his functions as judge he may be embarrassed by the fact that he had appointed the particular standing arbitrator. For those reasons I feel that the appointment should be made by the Government who should take the responsibility themselves and exercise it themselves.

There is another point. Under the section the Chief Justice has the right to fix the fees paid to the standing arbitrator. This House has always jealously guarded the function of dealing with remuneration whether it is by way of fee or otherwise and if we were to pass the section in its present form I see no means of bringing before this House as being representative of the community any question regarding fees which the Chief Justice for the time being may fix as remuneration for the standing arbitrator. If the fees are fixed by the Government that matter may be examined here, can be discussed here and can be opened up to the examination of the public. If the fees fixed are excessive and are so considered by the people as a whole the fact that those fees have been fixed by the Chief Justice may bring him into some disrepute and may bring his office which is a very responsible office into political argument and political discussion. For those reasons I feel that it is unwise to place that responsibility on the Chief Justice. That responsibility should be retained by the Government and for that reason I have put down the amendment which I now purpose.

Mr. Cosgrave

The procedure for the appointment of an arbitrator in this case is one which has been followed for a number of years. I think that the 1924 Act contained a provision of this nature and certainly the 1944 Act and I do not think there has been any objection to the manner in which the appointments made under both of these Acts have worked. I think that a person who does not stand in relation to the company in the manner the Government may stand is in a better position to decide and select a person for the appointment than the Government. In practice I understand that the Chief Justice over a number of years has always appointed a barrister. As the Deputy knows, a work of this nature requires legal training. In some cases the decisions are semi-judicial and the case for the two parties is argued by these parties before a person who has to come to a decision on the facts presented to him. For that reason, I suppose, the practice which has obtained of appointing a barrister or a person with legal training works satisfactorily. I think the fact that it has worked satisfactorily is an indication that a change is not desirable. Leaving aside the question as to whether it has worked satisfactorily or not, if the Government were to make a selection it would always be open to the charge that a person was appointed either for his political views or possibly for the opinions he held vis-a-vis the two parties to the question at arbitration.

In so far as the Chief Justice is concerned, he is a person who is outside the scope of such a suggestion as his term of office is provided for in the Constitution. The suggestion that he would be actuated by the political or other motives which might influence a Minister or a Government cannot be made against him. For these reasons, I think the system which has worked satisfactorily should be adhered to, and, consequently, I must resist the amendment.

Captain Cowan

I do not think it is a satisfactory argument to say that this has been done before and that no objection has been raised to it.

Mr. Cosgrave

I did not say no objection. What I said was that it had worked satisfactorily.

Captain Cowan

To say that it has worked satisfactorily is not, I submit, a reasonable ground on which to support this particular thing in view of the nature of the objection there is to it. The Parliamentary Secretary says that the Chief Justice has always appointed a barrister. There is nothing to oblige him to appoint a barrister, although it is very likely he would appoint a barrister. It is undoubtedly a judicial function that has to be exercised. It is a matter for consideration whether that might not have been done by, say, one of the judges of the High Court appointed by the President. I feel that the office of Chief Justice should be protected from all types of suggestion that might be made against it. To give the Chief Justice the right to appoint a person to whom fees are to be paid, and to give him the right to fix the fees which will be paid by the State, is, in my view, an exceptionally bad principle. I can see some saying: we are semi-parties to this; we want to show our absolute independence by leaving it to the Chief Justice who is head of the judiciary, leaving it to him to appoint a person to act as arbitrator. I think that the principle is a bad one, the principle that gives the control of public funds to a person who is not subject to, in the exercise of that function, this House or even to the Minister for Finance. In view of what the Parliamentary Secretary says I have no hope that this amendment of mine will be accepted. I do hope that the Chief Justice, when he has an opportunity of considering the objections on principle that are to his so acting, will inform the Government and the Minister that he will not accept any such appointment.

Mr. Lemass

If I felt there was any danger of the amendment being carried I would promise to ally myself with the Government on this Bill to the last ditch. Does the Deputy realise what he is proposing? Let us suppose there is a dispute between this powerful board exercising a transport monopoly and a humble worker. The worker is seeking compensation. Here is a board that is appointed by the Government and subsidised by it. The Government will have a political and every other kind of interest in keeping down its expenditure. The Deputy proposes that a Government, standing in that relation to the board, should appoint the arbitrator where there is a dispute between the board and one of its workers. For myself, I would sooner have Deputy Cowan appointed as arbitrator.

Captain Cowan

I am sorry that Deputy Lemass has intervened because I have a tremendous regard for him. I am afraid that it has been weakened somewhat by his last contribution. Here is a Government that has, under the Constitution, all the power of appointing not only arbitrators but the Chief Justice himself. Some constitutional lawyer will say that it is the President who does that.

Mr. Cosgrave

The Government has the nomination.

Captain Cowan

The President is just the operating machine.

Mr. Coburn

The rubber stamp.

Captain Cowan

No, I do not say that. The Government appoints the Chief Justice and the judges of the High Court to decide the most serious issues between the most humble workman and the State. Under the Constitution, that is the Government's responsibility. It is the duty of the Government, when making these appointments, to appoint men of ability and of impartiality. If they appoint persons that can be objected to, then, in view of the fact that they have made the appointment, it can be raised in this House and can be discussed. If the Chief Justice appoints a dud the Ceann Comhairle will not allow one word to be said, and very properly so, of the Chief Justice, so that when we do this we deprive ourselves of the right to criticise the appointment of the person who will be appointed here. That is a serious objection. It is not as serious as the other one in which you give the Chief Justice the power to say what fees will be paid to this standing arbitrator.

Mr. C. Lehane

There are occasions when there is power to do that.

Captain Cowan

When that was done I was not in the House or I would have objected to it. There is the constitutional control of finance that is exercised by this House. We give that away when we give the Chief Justice the right to fix these fees. Deputy Lemass will realise that when the Government have the power of appointing judges they ought to take upon themselves the power to appoint these standing arbitrators. They are a type of judge who should be selected by the Government which in that case would have some responsibility to this House rather than by a person who is outside the control of the House and cannot even be criticised in it.

Mr. Cosgrave

I think that it would be absolutely undesirable that the Government, in view of their relationship to the transport company and of the comparatively weak position of the applicants whose cases would come up for arbitration, should appoint the arbitrator. As Deputy Lemass said, if the Government had power to appoint the arbitrator it would be immediately open to the objection that the arbitrator was biassed in favour of the company. On the other hand, assuming they appointed an arbitrator who was lenient and took a less strict view, then the Government or the company would be obliged to object to him. I think it is quite obvious that a person, such as the Chief Justice, who is in a judicial position, whose tenure of office is provided for in the Constitution and who stands in no such relationship to either of the parties to the arbitration, should appoint the arbitrator. The fact that the system has worked satisfactorily, whether the Deputy likes it or not, is an argument in its favour. It has been in operation for a number of years and there have been no serious objections. Parties to an arbitration proceedings are both rarely in agreement on the award, but there has been no objection to it. For that reason, I think the amendment is one which does not commend itself to Deputies. Certainly, it does not commend itself to the Government.

Captain Cowan

I withdraw the amendment, but I do say that we ought to be exceptionally careful about placing the judiciary, and particularly the Chief Justice, in a position to be open to serious criticism. It happened in the last Parliament and I hope that it will never happen again.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. M. O'Sullivan

I move amendment No. 68:—

To add at the end of sub-section (3), the following new paragraph:—

(f) may, in any case in which he is of opinion that the facts and circumstances and the documents applicable thereto are peculiarly within the knowledge or procurement of Córas Iompair Éireann, require Córas Iompair Éireann to give such evidence thereof as he may deem to be reasonably necessary to enable him to reach a decision.

So far as ordinary litigation is concerned, the fact that the onus of proof is on the plaintiff generally involves no hardship because he is usually called upon to prove his case on facts within his knowledge. It does not necessarily follow, however, that the same considerations will apply to claimants under this Bill. It might very well be that a man would appear before the tribunal in reference to the loss of his position or the worsening of his conditions of employment. To prove his case he might need to have details of such questions as the volume of traffic, traffic receipts, redundant employees or the plans of the company in respect to reorganisation, all of which would be peculiarly within the knowledge of the company and not within the knowledge of the individual. The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that, in order to prove his case, he may have the necessary information under such heads as I have detailed.

The Parliamentary Secretary may say that under sub-section (3) there is provision for the standing arbitrator to request a particular witness to produce a document if he so desires. But I would point out to the Parliamentary Secretary that the onus is on the individual and, if the arbitrator does not make that request, the individual may fail in his application for want of information, for want of facts which are peculiarly within the knowledge of the company. The aim of the amendment is to ensure that the man will have absolute fair play before the tribunal.

Mr. Cosgrave

I do not think the amendment is necessary because, as the Deputy said, it is provided for in sub-section (3) (c) that the arbitrator may summon witnesses to attend before him, examine on oath any witness attending before him, and require any such witness to produce any such document in his power, procurement or control as the arbitrator considers necessary. That sub-section enables the arbitrator to summon any witness. I take it that any witness includes any person in the employment of the company, whether he be an official or even a member of the board and that he must attend before the arbitrator and give evidence. If the arbitrator is not satisfied with the evidence, he may ask him to produce any document or supply any information within his procurement or control. Consequently, I think the amendment would only add additional words which, in effect, have the same meaning as the sub-section as it stands.

Mr. M. O'Sullivan

Will the Parliamentary Secretary satisfy me that that sub-section which provides for the standing arbitrator to ask a witness to produce certain documents means, if the individual appearing before the tribunal or his representative makes a request, that that will be done?

Mr. Cosgrave

The arbitrator has absolute discretion. Assuming the individual attending before him, either directly or through his representative, asks for certain information, if the arbitrator says: "I do not want that information brought forward," or refuses to allow it, then that is that, and the addition of this sub-paragraph (f) would not make any difference. But, once he directs that information or whatever documents are necessary should be produced, then the company must produce them.

Mr. M. O'Sullivan

Would the Parliamentary Secretary not agree that a man's case might be prejudiced? Supposing the man or his representative states that in order to prove the case he must know what the reorganisation plans of the company are, I understand the arbitrator may say: "No, I will not hear it". Might not the man's case be prejudiced as a result of such refusal?

Mr. Cosgrave

The arbitrator has a discretion as to whether he will allow a particular document or information to be produced. I think the addition of this sub-section would not alter that. As it stands the discretion is left to the arbitrator. I think it is generally found that, in proceedings of this kind, if he feels that the information will be of benefit in coming to a decision, he invariably asks the other side to produce it.

Captain Cowan

There is one point that arises in regard to that. Where statutory functions are conferred upon a standing arbitrator, as in this Bill, these functions are limited very definitely to what is set out in the Bill. If the standing arbitrator attempts to exercise a function not given to him by statute, he can be dealt with by judicial process and told very plainly that he has not that function.

I agree with the Parliamentary Secretary that, in the ordinary way, it would be the duty of the standing arbitrator to send for such witnesses or documents as he feels are necessary for the purpose of doing justice. At the same time I think the point might be considered, so that between this and the next stage a very short amendment would be put in to the effect that it would be one of the functions of the standing arbitrator to do justice, and for that purpose he would have the power to call witnesses.

There is power given to him to administer an oath. We all know that that power is necessary, because the administration of an oath by a person who has no authority in law so to administer it is a criminal offence. Therefore, the power to administer an oath must be there. He is given power to award costs and summon witnesses; he is given power to examine on oath any witnesses attending before him; he has power to require any such witnesses to produce documents; he may at any time correct clerical mistakes or errors in an award, and he can hear proceedings in open court. I think there ought to be a very simple provision to the effect that he will do such things as are necessary to see that justice is done to the parties appearing before him.

Mr. Cosgrave

This section is in stereotyped form and I think Deputies will recognise that it has appeared in numerous Acts, and the various subheads under which the arbitrator's duties are defined govern arbitration or govern similar proceedings under a number of Acts. The addition of the words which Deputy Cowan suggests, that the arbitrator should do justice, would not affect it in any way or would not influence the arbitrator or influence the effect which any decision by the arbitrator might have.

Mr. Coburn

It would be an actual reflection on the arbitrator.

Mr. Cosgrave

In so far as the various directives laid down are concerned, I think they are satisfactory in that they worked in a number of cases of this nature where arbitrators were appointed. As Deputy Cowan says, arbitrators invariably accede to the request of parties before them who may suggest that the other party to a case at arbitration has information peculiarly within that party's knowledge which can affect the issue and, if they do not accede to that request, then that party can take other means to compel the arbitrator to produce whatever evidence is necessary.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Morrissey

I move amendment No. 69:

To insert the following new sub-section:—

(6) (a) The decision of the standing arbitrator on any question of fact shall be final, but the standing arbitrator may state, at any stage of the proceedings, in the form of a special case for the opinion of the High Court, any question of law arising in the course of the proceedings and may state his award as to the whole or part thereof in the form of a special case for the opinion of the High Court.

(b) The following provisions shall apply in relation to any special case stated for the opinion of the High Court under paragraph (a) of this sub-section—

(a) the board shall pay the costs of all parties thereto,

(b) the decision of the High Court shall not be subject to appeal.

An Ceann Comhairle

This amendment was debated in conjunction with amendment No. 65?

Mr. Morrissey

Yes.

Amendment agreed to.

Section 40, as amended, agreed to.

SECTION 41.

Mr. M. O'Sullivan

I move amendment No. 70:—

Before sub-section (2) to insert a new sub-section as follows:—

(2) The board shall be required by the Minister to submit to the Minister within three months after the establishment date a superannuation scheme for establishing on a contributory basis, a superannuation fund for the benefit of employees of the board who are salaried officers or clerks within the meaning of Rule 2 (1) of the Schedule to the Great Southern Railways Company (Superannuation Scheme) Act, 1947, but who are not eligible for membership of the scheme established by the said Act, and such superannuation scheme when confirmed by the Minister as hereinafter provided, shall contain terms and conditions no less favourable than are contained in the scheme established by the said Act.

I will not delay the House unduly on this question, but I should like to mention that this matter was the subject of a decision by the House in connection with the 1944 Act, as a result of which the fund which was then operating for the clerical officers of the Great Southern Railways Company, subsequently Córas Iompair Éireann and administered from London, was transferred from London and is now under the control of a joint committee in Dublin.

One of the decisions following that change and the new set-up was that membership of the fund would be confined to all those who were then in membership, so that any of the clerical staff who joined the railways after January 1st, 1945, were not eligible for membership of that fund. The trouble has been that since then, although contributions are being taken from the staff, they are being placed in a suspense fund and a fund proper has not been set up for those who have joined the staff since January 1st, 1945.

The suggestion is that the conditions which apply to the reorganised fund, or some such conditions, should apply to the staff who joined since 1945. I understand that negotiations between the company and the trade union catering for the staff have been taking place and, if the Minister will indicate that he will see to it that these negotiations are speeded up before the passage of this Bill, that we may have some indication that the staffs I have referred to will be duly protected either by being admitted to the present fund or by having a fund giving not less advantages to the staff, I shall be satisfied. If that takes place before the passage of this Bill, we will be all quite happy over it.

Mr. Morrissey

I think the Deputy knows my mind on that matter.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

An Ceann Comhairle

Amendment No. 71 is related to amendment No. 75. I do not know on which the debate will be conducted.

Mr. Hickey

I move amendment No. 71:

To delete sub-section (2) and substitute the following:—

( ) The board shall be empowered to review and improve existing superannuation schemes, and shall, as soon as possible and in conjunction with the trade unions concerned, examine all such schemes with a view to having them replaced by satisfactory ones based on service.

All I ask is that the board, when it is established, will be empowered to review and improve existing schemes and shall, with the trade unions concerned, examine those schemes with the object of having them replaced by satisfactory schemes based on service.

Mr. Morrissey

I think the Deputy is aware that there are certain conversations proceeding. I could not accept this amendment.

Mr. Hickey

On what grounds?

Mr. Morrissey

It would change the whole scheme.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Lemass

I move amendment No. 72:—

In sub-section (2), line 33, to add after the word "resubmission" the words "and the board shall reconsider and resubmit the scheme".

Sub-section (1) provides that the board may prepare and submit to the Minister a superannuation scheme. When the scheme is submitted to the Minister he may refer it back to the board for reconsideration and resubmission. I am not sure that the wording there is adequate to ensure that, in the event of the Minister sending the scheme back to the board, the process of preparing the scheme will go on.

My doubt arises out of the history of the provision in the 1924 Act. Under that Act the Great Southern Railways Company was required to prepare a scheme and submit it to the Transport Tribunal, which had the responsibility of determining whether it met the reasonable requirements of the employees. Presumably it was intended. if the Transport Tribunal decided that it did not meet the reasonable requirements of the employees, that the company would amend the scheme in such manner as would meet the approval of the tribunal.

In fact, when the company prepared a scheme and submitted it to the Transport Tribunal and the tribunal decided that it did not meet the reasonable requirements of the employees and sent it back to the company, nothing happened and there appeared to be no legal obligation upon anybody to do anything about it. When the matter was raised here a formal decision was given that the provision of the Act was spent and that there was no legal obligation on the company to amend a scheme and resubmit it with a view to having it brought into effect.

I am anxious to ensure that the wording of this Bill does not contain a similar loophole, that when the company has prepared and submitted a scheme to the Minister, if the Minister does not approve of it or desires its amendment and sends it back to the company for that purpose, the company will be under statutory obligation to amend it and resubmit it for reconsideration by the Minister.

Mr. Morrissey

I do not think it is really necessary particularly in the new set-up of the company, but I have no particular objection to it. I am prepared to accept it.

Mr. Lemass

I agree that circumstances are different and there will not be the same desire to evade the obligation that existed before.

Mr. Morrissey

I do not see any harm in the amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Lemass

I move amendment No. 73:—

In sub-section (4) after the word "section" in line 51 to delete the words "and after consultation with the Minister for Finance".

What is the Minister for Finance doing in here?

Mr. Morrissey

You find him everywhere.

Mr. Lemass

I do not like him in here. I think he can only be in here for the purpose of doing damage.

Mr. Morrissey

Very few Ministers like the Minister for Finance anywhere.

Mr. Lemass

In this particular paragraph there is no justification for his appearance. It may be necessary to bring him in where State funds are concerned but here we are dealing with a superannuation scheme for Córas Iompair Éireann, which is submitted to the Minister for Industry and Commerce and approved of by him. I think the Minister for Finance should be left out of it. I know what happened. A draft Bill was prepared in the Department of Industry and Commerce and went, in accordance with the usual Cabinet procedure, to the Department of Finance. Now in the Department of Finance they keep a special clerk to consider draft Bills. He has a rubber stamp marked with the words "With the consent of the Minister for Finance" and everywhere he finds an opportunity in the Bill he stamps it.

Mr. Morrissey

That did not happen in this case. The Deputy must admit there is a reason.

Mr. Lemass

I think he would only be a nuisance here. He would examine that scheme in relation to the Córas Iompair Éireann problem, not from the point of view of the requirements of the staff but solely for the purpose of considering if what is done will give any section of the Civil Service an argument for increased pensions. It is on that basis the Minister for Finance would express an opinion on it.

Mr. Morrissey

I am in complete agreement with a great deal of what the Deputy has said, but I think there is a case here for the Minister for Finance. It is not only possible but probable that there may be a serious State financial obligation in connection with this company for some time at least and I think the Minister for Finance has a right to be consulted in the matter. I think the Deputy will agree on reflection that this is not just purely a case for a rubber stamp where somebody in the Department of Finance wishes to leave his mark.

Mr. Lemass

O.K., if you want him you can have him.

Mr. C. Lehane

I think there would be a good deal of substance in what the Minister says if it was referable to certain other sections in this Bill. I do not see what function the Minister for Finance can serve in relation to a superannuation scheme for the staff of Córas Iompair Éireann. Let us be frank about it. Many of us in this House are apprehensive of interference by the Department of Finance in matters of this nature and in cognate matters. Very often it is not so much the actual details of schemes or Bills submitted to them that affect their approach. Their approach is overshadowed rather by a general philosophy existent in the Department of Finance irrespective of whatever Government is in power. I cannot see the Minister has made any case for the retention of his colleague in this sub-section.

Mr. Larkin

The Minister seems to have an objection to Deputy Lemass's argument, but I think the Minister should actually welcome any little degree of accord he gets in relation to removing the Minister for Finance out of as many sections of our Bills as we possibly can. I am afraid that the rubber stamp referred to by Deputy Lemass is not the only rubber stamp the Minister for Finance has at his disposal. I think it is correct, as Deputy Lemass has pointed out, that this matter would not come before the Minister but would come before some officer of the Department by whom it will not be dealt with in relation only to Córas Iompair Éireann. We are dealing here with Córas Iompair Éireann from the point of view of an overriding obligation assumed by the Government, for which the Minister for Finance has a responsibility, in relation to Córas Iompair Éireann. The Minister is given more than ample and sufficient powers in this Bill to protect the financial interests of the State in all the other sections. Here we are dealing purely with the superannuation scheme. Some of us have had an unhappy experience of what can happen to such schemes when they go before the Department of Finance. As there would appear to be no justification for the retention of this particular qualification here, except the very general one that the Minister for Finance is interested in every pie and wants to get his finger into it, I suggest now that the view expressed in the House should be accepted and the wording of the section should be changed. We all know that this particular type of phrasing in Bill after Bill creates continuous difficulty and trouble and delay, not perhaps related to the Minister for Finance himself but quite definitely related to his Department. The Department of Finance creates difficulties for other Ministers and the sooner we have a clean up in this matter the better it will be, not merely for the Minister for Finance himself but also for his colleagues who get blamed for things for which they may not be directly responsible at all.

Captain Cowan

I am glad this has been said because a large volume of opinion holds the view that this country is being crucified by the Department of Finance. Not alone that, but the Department of Finance in its own good time can bring down successive Governments. I do not want to quote historical examples, but two Governments have failed because of the advice received from the Department of Finance.

Mr. Lemass

Better not name any names. We have only had two.

Captain Cowan

They will knock this one. What will replace it I do not know, but for a certainly they will knock it.

Mr. Morrissey

Not on this section.

Captain Cowan

I hope we will get rid of them on this section. The Department of Finance is a strangle-hold on every other Department. Most other Departments spend the bulk of their time fighting with the Department of Finance in an effort to get things done. Not only does the Department of Finance exercise that control, but in recent years it has been sending out its trained experts to other Departments so as to get a grip on them from the inside. Last year I asked a question as to the number of officials of the Department of Finance sent out to the other Departments of State in order that I could get some idea of the intensity of this strange-hold exercised by the Department of Finance. Deputy Lemass was Minister for Industry and Commerce for a long number of years. I am sure he had experience of this official with the rubber stamp about whom he has told us now. I did not think they had reduced it to the stage of placing a rubber stamp on the document. I was under the impression that it was the function of some particular official in that Department to draw attention to this particular section and to suggest that the words "after consultation with the Minister for Finance" should be inserted. I thought that then went up along the line through at least nine or ten officials, all of whom would agree. As a matter of fact while the Department of Finance may endeavour to make other Departments economical, it is itself very extravagant. I think, and a lot of people agree with me, that things will never be right until we have cleaned up the Department of Finance. I do not know whether Deputy Lemass is going to withdraw this amendment or not but I think the Minister ought to accept it because there is no function to be exercised by the Department of Finance in this particular matter. If these schemes are to be drawn up let them be drawn up between the Minister and Córas Iompair Éireann in the ordinary way but do not let the Department of Finance have anything to do with it, if we are not to have trouble for years in endeavouring to establish a superannuation scheme.

Mr. Morrissey

I do not think the Department of Finance is quite as bad as Deputies have endeavoured to make out this afternoon. However, the Department of Finance has a very definite and a very important function to perform in the work of this State. Other Ministers may not always see eye to eye with them but, in this case, I think that there is a very definite reason why the Minister for Finance should be there. The Minister for Finance does not appear very much in this Bill—not nearly as much as he does in many other Bills. But let us read the sub-section and see what we are discussing and what we are afraid of:—

The Minister may, subject to paragraph (c) of sub-section (3) of this section and after consultation with the Minister for Finance, by Order confirm, either without modification or with such modifications (whether by way of addition, omission or variation) as the Minister thinks proper, a superannuation scheme submitted or resubmitted to him under this section.

That gives the Minister for Industry and Commerce fairly wide powers so far as the superannuation scheme is concerned. I would venture to say that whatever changes would be made in that superannuation scheme would be changes that would be made by the Minister for Industry and Commerce himself, because of his own views on it or the views of his Department, and that he would not allow himself to be influenced on the merits of the superannuation scheme by the Minister for Finance.

We have to face the fact that there has been, and is, and is likely to be for some time at least, very heavy financial obligations on the State in regard to the Córas Iompair Éireann organisation. The Minister for Finance must have an interest in every expenditure ——

Mr. C. Lehane

In the superannuation scheme?

Mr. Morrissey

——in every expenditure which the company undertake or has to undertake. He has a very definite function there. I think it would be impossible and unreal to try and make a case against the Minister for Finance being there in the capacity in which he is there in the section. The Minister for Industry and Commerce may vary, alter or modify the scheme submitted to him after consultation with the Minister for Finance. That does not say that there must be agreement as between the Minister for Finance and himself. Very often there is not— even on the consultation.

Mr. Lemass

The Minister does not appear in the corresponding section of the 1944 Act.

Mr. Morrissey

They are completely and absolutely different.

Mr. Lemass

There is no difference between the two sections.

Mr. Morrissey

There is a complete difference in the situation.

Mr. Lemass

I was not thinking of pressing the amendment, but I must say that I am very much perturbed by what the Minister has said.

Mr. Morrissey

The Deputy means that he has been very much encouraged.

Mr. Lemass

No, I am very much perturbed. The Minister has said that because of the financial obligations which the Minister for Finance is undertaking in relation to the Córas Iompair Éireann Board—particularly, I take it, the proposals to give subsidy —he is naturally concerned with everything involving expenditure by them. That opens up a picture to me of the Minister for Finance getting his tentacles in Córas Iompair Éireann administration.

Mr. Morrissey

No.

Mr. Lemass

Insisting on economics there.

Mr. Morrissey

The Deputy is trying to make something out of what I did not say.

Mr. Lemass

That is the picture which was painted by the Minister. It is particularly vivid in relation to this question of the adequacy of the pensions scheme.

Mr. Morrissey

Nobody knows better than Deputy Lemass that there is no fear of that.

Mr. Lemass

I kept them out in 1944.

Mr. Morrissey

The Deputy said then that there would be no charge on the State.

Captain Cowan

The scheme is to be on a contributory basis. In other words the employees are to contribute and Córas Iompair Éireann are to contribute. Is that not the first—the contributory scheme? I do not know what the basis of contribution will be. Will the employees contribute a certain amount and will Córas Iompair Éireann contribute an equivalent amount?

Mr. M. O'Sullivan

Equal contributions.

Captain Cowan

The employees are contributing a certain amount and the company are contributing a certain amount. Out of these contributions the very best scheme that can be devised will be arranged. What is the Minister for Finance going to do? Is he going to come in to improve the scheme, or what? Is he going to say to the company : "You must reduce your contributions to this scheme"?

Mr. Morrissey

He might not do anything at all.

Captain Cowan

I know that he might not do anything at all but the trouble is that he might. As has been said, unfortunately the Minister for Finance plays a small part in it. That is the unfortunate thing. The Minister for Finance plays a very small part in it although he may be mentioned in the statute. That is what some of us are alarmed about—having had experience of how the Department of Finance operates. I think that, whether the Minister agrees to it now or not, he should consider deleting those words which Deputy Lemass proposes to delete and, if we are going to have a test on it, the amendment can be resubmitted on the Report Stage and the matter could be tried out then.

Mr. M. O'Sullivan

On a point of information. Deputy Cowan asked me if the usual procedure was equal contributions. Broadly speaking, that is so but I would point out that there are two separate forms—(1) for the clerical staff and (2) for the wages grades. In the case of the clerical staff the contributions are equal in so far as the individual and the company are concerned. In the case of the wages grades, a figure of contribution is named on the part of the employee but it is impossible to say what the amount paid by the company is.

Mr. C. Lehane

Would the Minister permit me to say just this to him? I do not think he did justice to himself in the case he is making and I think he is giving himself undue trouble to create difficulties for himself and Córas Iompair Éireann in the future. The Minister sought to suggest to the House that the consultation with the Minister for Finance might be something which he, the Minister for Industry and Commerce, might disregard. I would draw the Minister's attention to the fact that the consultation with the Minister for Finance is, under the sub-section, mandatory. It is a matter of interpretation—and I should not like to be asked to interpret it—as to whether the Minister for Industry and Commerce would not be bound to have agreement before he could order or confirm, "either without modification" or "with such modifications," the scheme. My submission would be that the section as it stands is capable of the interpretation that consent or agreement between the Minister for Industry and Commerce and the Minister for Finance would have to be reached before such confirmation could take place.

Mr. Morrissey

It does not say that.

Mr. Lemass

The real technical question is whether the Minister must await a reply from the Minister for Finance or how long he must wait.

Mr. C. Lehane

Certainly consultation is mandatory. One view is as good as another as to the effect of the remaining portion of the section. The Minister is going to create for himself all that difficulty when at the same time it is perfectly open to him to consult the Minister for Finance without any reference to consultation being made in the section. It is perfectly open to the Minister to say: "Well, I am not going to confirm this until such time as I have consulted the Minister for Finance." I think the Minister is creating a difficulty for himself that he may live to regret. I put this further consideration to the Minister. The experience of Deputies in this House—and I speak as one with very short experience but I know the experience of other Deputies—is that when you go to deal with the Department of Finance you go into the realm of lengthy delay. Let us be frank about it. There is ever present in that Department a mentality which considers that they are the real Government. They adopt the attitude: "You may change your Party name or you may change the Government, but so long as we are in the Department of Finance we are the economic dictators."

Mr. Morrissey

That has been said about Departments of Finance other than our own.

Mr. C. Lehane

It has been said with great justification.

Mr. Larkin

I think what we are all concerned about is the reason why the Department of Finance should be brought into this section at all. Going through the whole Bill, you will find that the only other section in which the Department of Finance is mentioned is that dealing with the borrowing powers of the board, all of which we accept. If Córas Iompair Éireann wants to buy five new locomotives must they consult with the Department of Finance before embarking on that expenditure? The reason we are so concerned with this matter is that we are quite satisfied that this clause was put in because we are dealing with the question of superannuation and somebody in the Department of Finance wants to make sure that it is not going to create a precedent. I would not mind so much if it were merely a question of consulting the Minister for Finance himself, but the difficulty is that the rubber stamp of the Minister that appears on any proposition will never have been impressed on it by the Minister himself but by some clerk whose particular job seems to be to imprint upon certain proposals the name of the Minister. In this case there seems to be no justification for that procedure and it is regrettable that the Minister will not take the opportunity to cut the Minister for Finance at least out of one section where there is no necessity for his name to appear.

Mr. Morrissey

I must say that I have not been convinced by anything said in this connection. Deputy Larkin and Deputy Cowan have both said that they would not feel so aggrieved if it were merely a question of putting in the name of the Minister for Finance but they said it would be some junior official with a rubber stamp——

Captain Cowan

Some senior official.

Mr. Morrissey

A senior or junior official. In my short experience as Minister for Industry and Commerce on a matter of importance, even on a less important matter than the question of a superannuation scheme, where I had a particular view, whether it was a question of urgency or anything else, I certainly would not take the point of view of any official, senior or junior in the Department of Finance. I would not allow it to be held up unduly or indefinitely by any official, and I would certainly go to the Minister myself on the matter. Deputy Lemass would probably have done the same. I cannot imagine Deputy Lemass allowing any senior or junior official to hold up any scheme that he wanted to put through. While I may not get as far with the Department of Finance as Deputy Lemass did on many occasions, I can assure Deputy Cowan, Deputy Larkin and Deputy Lehane that in connection with any superannuation scheme that comes up under this section while I am here it will not be decided by any official of the Department of Finance.

Captain Cowan

I think it would be very wise to give the Minister an opportunity to sleep on this.

Mr. Morrissey

The more the Minister goes out of his way to meet Deputies, the more they want to take advantage of it.

Captain Cowan

Let him consult with the Minister for Finance and finish that consultation now. I would suggest that because it will save a lot of consultation afterwards. I think the case made by every Deputy who has spoken here in favour of deleting these words is really unanswerable.

Mr. Morrissey

The same case could be made in every section of every Bill where the name of the Minister for Finance appears.

Captain Cowan

There is only one other section that slipped through in which his name appears where it should not appear and that is noted for Report. He slipped in in another section where he has no business to be but we shall get him out.

Mr. Lemass

Do not overestimate your strength.

Captain Cowan

We shall make an effort to get him out. In the other sections, in which the name of the Minister for Finance appears, he has some responsibility in regard to moneys that are to be put up by the State. One must be reasonable in all these things and that is what we are trying to be with the Minister. We say that in regard to superannuation funds the Minister for Finance has no function at all. Deputy Larkin, Deputy Lemass and Deputy Lehane take the point of view which I agree that the consideration that will be given to a scheme such as this in the Department of Finance will be this: "Can we permit such a superannuation scheme to go through? Can we permit such a superannuation fund to be created because if we do, persons in some other employment will be anxious to have similar superannuation schemes and these similar superannuation schemes may have an effect on the Civil Service." That will be the mentality behind the examination of the scheme. It will not be: "Is it good for Córas Iompair Éireann; is it the best that can be done with the money available?" Other Deputies and I feel that that is not the type of examination it will get. I am anxious to give the Minister an opportunity of thinking over it to-night so I shall move to report progress.

Progress reported, Committee to sit again to-morrow.

The Dail adjourned at 10.30 p.m. until Wednesday, 22nd February, at 3 p.m.