When the debate adjourned, I was dealing with the section in this Bill which proposes to make payments exceeding £10,000 to directors of Córas Iompair Eireann. I was endeavouring to make the point that the compensation provided in this section for the stockholder directors is both unwise and unnecessary. It is compensation to which serious objection will be taken by the people as a whole. One of these directors, who described himself as a deputy-chairman, would be entitled under this Bill, if it passed into law, to a sum of £3,000. As far as I am concerned, under no circumstances could I vote for the payment of £3,000 to that particular individual. I was ruled out of order when I endeavoured to deal with the history of that particular individual and his activities against national progress. I remember an incident that took place in the year 1921.
Transport Bill, 1949—Committee Stage (Resumed)
Is this incident relevant to the management and control of Córas Iompair Eireann?
No, Sir, but it has some reference.
If it has not reference to the management and control of Córas Iompair Eireann it is not relevant to this section.
I was endeavouring to make it relevant to the effect of the section in providing a substantial sum of money for a particular individual.
The persons included in this section are being compensated because of certain services given by them in the management and control of Córas Iompair Eireann. That is the only matter that is relevant to discussion on this section. Any other activities in which they may have indulged are not relevant.
Unfortunately, our great difficulty is that the section provides compensation for people who have certainly rendered no efficient service to the community. However, if I cannot refer to national sabotage, then I will not refer to it.
The Deputy has succeeded.
I will not refer to it. I hope that this Dáil will say, by vote, on this particular section that no adequate reason has been advanced by the Minister for the payment of these sums in compensation. I expect the majority of the Deputies, at any rate, to vote against the provisions of this section. It is regrettable that the discussion on the section has led to a discussion on the past chairman. The Minister has given his point of view. Deputy Lemass has made what might be described as a defence of the chairman. I have given what might be described as a critical analysis of the two points of view. I think we might leave the matter there and concentrate entirely on the provisions of the section. We should make up our minds once and for all that if this section is passed into law, the general public will be outraged in being asked to provide compensation amounting to over £10,000 for people who might in the ordinary way lose office by the votes of the shareholders, people who had no security in office except for the number of shares they themselves held and who often obtained their appointments as directors by virtue of their control over shares which were in the hands of the banks and were made available to them by the banks. I ask the House to reject this section and to show clearly that, as far as this House and the country is concerned, services properly rendered will receive reward and consideration but that services of this type merit no reward, justify no consideration and certainly should not inflict any financial burden on the taxpayers.
I said last night on this particular section that I found myself in something of a dilemma. I had not made up my mind then as to whether or not the section was one which should be supported. Generally speaking, I felt the section should be supported. The principle of compensating people from whom an office of profit is taken by legislation should be accepted. I still feel exactly the same way about it. I am sorry to say that I do not think the discussion in the House on this section has assisted me very materially to make up my mind on the question. I think that as a matter of principle this section or some similar section should be included in the Bill and should be enacted by the House. I am somewhat troubled as to whether or not the amount of compensation or the basis of assessment of the compensation is fair, having regard to all points of view and particularly as to whether or not it is fair to the people. After all, it is the ordinary taxpayers who will be called upon to pay this compensation ultimately and I am not at all sure that the two years, 1948 and 1949, are not too much and that the Minister should not limit it to possibly one year's fees. However, on the general principle, my mind is still the same. I think the section should be passed. I think the principle of compensating people who could and, I think, would reasonably have expected to continue in those offices if there were no interference from the Legislature, should be maintained. There is precedent for that and no matter how Deputies of the House may feel with regard to the particular individuals or with regard to the work which they did or which it is alleged they left undone, nevertheless I think there was a precedent and a principle and that both the precedent and the principle should be upheld in passing this section.
I should like to know if it would be possible or if the Minister has considered whether or not some limitation of the section might not meet with general approval in the House. Would it be possible at this stage or at a later stage to consider the amount of compensation and to amend the section if the House feels that the principle should be upheld but that the compensation is too much? I know that Deputy Cowan put forward last night the point of view that the principle should be upheld but that the amount of compensation should be purely nominal. I do not agree with that point of view, but at the same time I am not entirely satisfied that the amount which the directors would get and which has been mentioned by the Minister is not somewhat too high. Consequently, we are up against the situation that all the complaints and all the attacks here to-day and yesterday evening were directed against the directors of Córas Iompair Eireann. No one has suggested that the directors of the Grand Canal Company should be made to suffer by the deletion of this section from the Bill. Nevertheless, that result would ensue from a defeat of this section by the House. Whether or not the Minister might rectify that, if those events should come to pass, I do not know. The cold fact of the matter— and it is on this that the Deputies must adjudicate now—is that the Grand Canal Company is included and coupled with Córas Iompair Eireann in this particular section. If the section goes out then both the directors of Córas Iompair Eireann and the directors of the Grand Canal Company are equally affected by it. In the case of the Grand Canal Company it is true to say that the amount of fees drawn by the directors in the years in question, 1948 and 1949, were very considerably less than those drawn by the Córas Iompair Eireann directors. Consequently, the maximum amount of compensation which they could get is again very considerably less than the maximum which could be secured by the directors of Córas Iompair Eireann.
Deputy Cowan said that this section was unwise, unnecessary, and that it would be objected to by the vast majority of the people. I think he is probably right in the last portion of that sentence. I think it is true to say that if this section is passed it will to that extent—to the extent that this section is included in the Bill—be an unpopular measure. I think it is true to say that the ordinary man in the street would feel, without going into the matter very considerably, that this section should be deleted and that there should be no compensation paid to the directors of Córas Iompair Eireann. It is a moot point as to whether or not we are discharging our responsibilities in this House by accepting a particular line of action, whether it is right or wrong, just because that line of action would be the popular line and because the contrary would be unpopular. It may be argued, and possibly argued quite reasonably, that our function as Deputies in this House is to represent the prevailing opinion amongst those who put us into this House, even if that opinion is arrived at without considering the facts and the various factors involved very closely, or, on the other hand, that it is our duty, as their representatives, to examine these matters on their behalf—to weigh up for ourselves all the arguments, all the pros and cons, and then, on their behalf, to come to a decision. I think it would be stretching the theory of representation a little bit too far, so far, indeed, that the elastic might snap a little occasionally, if we were to adopt the viewpoint that whenever either a wave of sentiment or indignation should surge over the people whom we represent we should be carried away by that without giving a thorough examination to the matters involved.
I think Deputy Cowan is right in saying that this section will be objected to by people outside. I have given the matter very considerable thought, even since he made that remark. Even though that is so and even though I believe that the vast majority of the people in my constituency will object to this provision, nevertheless I cannot help feeling that I would not be discharging my duties as a Deputy of the House or my duties to those whom I represent if I did not give the matter rather more examination and rather more careful examination because of that particular situation and because I know that they have not got the same opportunities of examining all the factors involved and the question of principle involved as we have. I know that they have not the same opportunity of doing it as we have of doing it on their behalf. Consequently, having given the matter, as I say, considerable thought, I do not propose to oppose this section. I have not quite decided whether or not I will support it but I rather think I will.
When, last night, I indicated opposition to the section and asked for information from the Minister on the grounds on which he felt the section was justified, I did not expect that the discussion would have been quite so broad. Maybe it has served its purpose. So far as I am concerned, I have no doubt as to my own personal feeling in the matter and I am prepared to express it as definitely as possible. At the same time, I was interested to learn how and in what way the House as a whole could justify the inclusion of the section and the way in which many who had spoken in the most critical manner of Córas Iompair Eireann during the past two years, could equally find it possible to justify this particular proposal.
There are two matters we can deal with. One is the question of principle in regard to compensation for directors; the other is the question of compensation for the particular group of directors referred to in the section. It is interesting to note that out of the whole House only two Deputies have got up to defend the section, both in respect of the principle and its application to these particular cases. Frankly, I do not see any principle involved at all. However, the case that is made in respect to principle answers itself. If directors are in fact representatives of the shareholders, then it seems to me the responsibility for expressing appreciation of their services and compensating these directors for any loss of office involving profit is the responsibility of the shareholders as such, especially when we consider what the actual work of a director is. A director is not a person who is engaged in the day-to-day management of a company. He attends a meeting possibly once a week, once a fortnight or once a month. His one concern is specifically to protect and further the interests of the shareholders and to the extent to which he discharges that duty efficiently, he is fulfilling the duties imposed on him by the shareholders and it is to the shareholders he should look for appreciation of his services in whatever form it may be thought suitable to express such appreciation.
There is the other factor, bringing the thing somewhat nearer home—that is, the treatment accorded to directors as against other persons affected by legislation or the winding up of companies. The case is made that because we make provision for compensation in the form of superannuation for officers and servants of such companies, we are under the same obligation in regard to the directors. It always surprises me how many of us are so free to apply principles to those who are in no need of protection and to forget those who should have the first claim on our sympathy and interest. Here we have, in the case of Córas Iompair Eireann, a group of directors—and I am not now discussing the question of whether they discharged their functions efficiently or not—and to those directors we propose to guarantee—mark you, guarantee— the payment of a lump sum equal to the amount of the directors' fees for two years. Yet in this country during the last 20 or 25 years we have had a continuous spate of legislation dealing with transport problems.
Those of us who are connected with the working-class side of the problem are aware that within the period from 1924 to 1933, thousands of railway men whose sole means of livelihood consisted of their employment with the railway company, and whose sole guarantee of being able to provide for themselves and their family consisted of that employment, were given no such guarantee as is given here. Instead they were told to go before an arbitrator to argue their case and it depended on the decision of the arbitrator whether they were to obtain compensation or not. We apparently deal much more tenderly with the directors.
In the case of the workmen, they have nothing to fall back upon. It has been already pointed out that with this group of directors, this question of directorship is purely a pastime. I do not think they take it seriously themselves. It has been pointed out that, in one or two cases, we are dealing with gentlemen who to the public knowledge hold 14 to 16 directorships and whose position of affluence and security is second to none in this country. Yet, we are so concerned for their possible loss of an office involving profits, that not merely must we give to them the kind of terms we provided in earlier legislation for the unfortunate wage-earners, but we have got to give them a cast-iron guarantee of statutory powers to protect them. Deputy Davin reminds me that, in the goodness of our heart, we so drafted the provisions under which an arbitrator has to consider applications by workmen for compensation that, nevertheless, many thousands of the workers lost their claims under these provisions.
After all, when we are dealing with precedents there should be some consistency, and consistency should be applied to the most humble and the low-liest-paid worker as well as to the highly-salaried director. Any obligation imposed on the directors was an obligation to preserve and safeguard the interests of the shareholders rather than those of any other section of the community or any section engaged in the carrying on of the undertaking. It seems to me from the point of view of principle that any token of appreciation of the services of the directors, should come from amongst those whose interests had been protected by the directors, namely, the shareholders. In the case of Córas Iompair Eireann it seems to me that there is general agreement that the shareholders had been treated in the most generous fashion, and, out of that generous treatment provided for them, they can quite well afford, if they feel disposed to do so, to express their appreciation of the services of their directors.
So far as the Grand Canal Company is concerned, it is not correct to say that nobody has suggested that this payment to the directors of that concern should not be given and that therefore it would be unfair to suggest that this section should be deleted. I am equally opposed to any provision being made for the directors of the Grand Canal Company. I am on even more solid ground there because the Grand Canal Company has got a certain history. Many of these directors of that board have been associated over a long number of years with a policy under which the payment of directors' fees was a prior charge before the payment of a living wage to the workers of the company. When we have statements publicly made at the Labour Court by a representative of the Grand Canal Company, that he is not prepared to give any answer to an application for a modest adjustment in the wages of the workers and when in the same year, the directors' fees are paid, then I think the directors of both these companies are gentlemen who do not require any protection from us either on the ground of principle or precedent and we should oppose the section from that point of view.
Another aspect of the question that has arisen relates to the history of Córas Iompair Eireann. The Minister when asked as to his position in this matter was very frank. He said that he had felt under certain pressure from the point of view of procedure, in embodying a section like this in the Bill but equally he had felt under no obligation to defend the section or to press Deputies to support it. He had embodied the section in the Bill, he would take responsibility for it and he would vote for it in an effort to have it accepted but the responsibility for it must be accepted by each individual member who voted for it. I can see nothing wrong in that. In the whole course of the discussion, the Minister has taken the attitude that we are trying here to deal with a transport problem, that even though it may have a political background, it nevertheless is a common problem for all sides of the House and he was willing as far as possible, to accept the general guidance of the House and not to seek to impose rigid Party decisions. I think he has followed that attitude very consistently.
Except in the case of Store Street.
In regard to some of the major sections of the Bill, we have had, first of all, the original proposals in the Bill, then we had amendments submitted by the Minister, as he thought in response to the expressions of opinion from various sides of the House, which drastically altered the framework of the Bill; and when these amendments were considered later by the House, he again accepted the viewpoint of the House and made further alterations. I think that is an admirable approach to a matter like this. I know it was done on other occasions—very rare, I may say—by Deputy Lemass when he was Minister; and when he did so we gave credit for it. I see nothing wrong in that principle.
So far as the question of Córas Iompair Éireann directors is concerned, I feel that we are trying to see our way through a smoke cloud. The interesting thing I find is that we have had here, starting last night, a very excitable defence presented by Deputy Lemass and at the same time an attack. Whom is he defending? Not Mr. Reynolds, not the directors of Córas Iompair Éireann, but Deputy Lemass—because as Minister for Industry and Commerce from 1932 the national responsibility, so far as the Department is responsible, rested upon his shoulders. It is not a question that we have had a transport problem grow up overnight, or even grow up since 1940 or 1941. The transport problem has been with us as far back as 1917. I am not going to blame him for those mistakes, for not being any more foresighted than anyone else. The problem was there. From 1932 on, he proceeded to deal with that problem step by step until we reached the culmination in the 1944 Act.
In so far as the former chairman, Mr. Reynolds, is concerned, I do not want to make any comment at all. He has retired from the scene. He has received his lump sum by way of commutation of his pension rights. I have no objection to his retiring to peaceful retirement and enjoying it. However, it would be much more honest of us, when we are discussing the activities or the failures of Mr. Reynolds, to say we are in effect discussing a transport problem which has been evolved gradually by Deputy Lemass over the years, and in respect of which Mr. Reynolds was merely the front or the covering. I have not got the same degree of admiration or respect for Mr. Reynolds that Deputy Lemass has. We had a situation in which, starting from 1932 and associated with the political régime in this country, we had gradually built up a framework and atmosphere in regard to transport that finally had its logical outcome in the 1944 Act. I suggest, that, with the framework that was laid there, the groundwork that was provided, any ordinary average individual with any knowledge of transport could have reached to the same position as Mr. Reynolds. When the Dublin United Transport Company was given the monopoly, there was no reason in the world why that company should not be successful. When that company, with its ability to milk the large mass of the population of Dublin, was then merged with Córas Iompair Éireann, there was no reason why that should not improve the fortunes of Córas Iompair Éireann. Everyone was aware of what was happening. In 1943-44, when the Transport Act was going through the Dáil, members will recall that the Dublin Deputies, almost from every Party, resisted violently—in some cases to the point of vote and in some cases to the point of vocal expression—the merging of that Dublin concern with Córas Iompair Éireann. The explanation was that it was necessary in order to place some sound financial basis under the transport system. Everything that happened was of such a nature that, when the decision was taken and started to operate, whoever was in the leading position in regard to transport in the country automatically must get the credit for it.
The weakness I see in the matter— and I still think the weakness exists even to-day and will exist after this Bill is passed—is that we were trying to deal with our transport on a patchwork basis, and for political considerations we have been deliberately avoiding a certain problem. We are still avoiding the problem even now, but sooner or later the problem will have to be faced up to, that is, the problem of whether or not we are going to treat transport as a service and take the decisions that flow from that. We are continuing to defer that decision, but no matter what machinery we may evolve, that problem will still face us. That is why, from that point of view and without commenting on the former chairman—I am not very much concerned with him as an individual but merely as a representative of policy—I say it is a question of exercising powers that were evolved by Deputy Lemass during the time of his Ministerial position, handing over those powers to the new machine created and the machine automatically ticking over. Even in the period of the emergency, I wish to say quite frankly that whatever success was achieved in keeping transport on the move at that critical time, the greater credit should be given to Deputy Lemass than to anyone in Córas Iompair Éireann. It is for that reason I am surprised that Deputy Lemass is running away from the position he himself has taken up. He is accusing the Minister of refusing to stand his ground and he is running away on this section.
Is it not a fact that it is Deputy Lemass who is running away? For over two years, both in the House here and outside, we have listened to Deputy Lemass making very skilful and very carefully established, and at times very excitable, explanations of and defence of Córas Iompair Éireann and the leading personalities in it. I do not object to him doing that. After all, it is his conviction and he is entitled to it. But if he takes the view —as he has indicated on a number of occasions within the last two or three days—that up to a certain point Córas Iompair Éireann was a successfully run concern and that when they ceased to be a successful concern and started to run into heavy deficits and finally reached losses of £1,000,000 and more in a year, that particular point is marked by the coming into office of the present Minister, then he should have the courage to stand by the people he is defending and stand by them in this Vote. If those directors did their job to the best of their ability, with the powers given to them under the 1944 Act, if they carried on Córas Iompair Éireann under great difficulties during the emergency, with difficult weather conditions, lack of coal and so on, and if they did succeed, as he maintains, up to a certain point in doing their job, then I say that, apart altogether from whether he is convinced there is a question of principle or precedent involved he has the moral obligation to record his belief in their freedom from responsibility for the present failure, by supporting the retention of this section in the Bill. If he does not do so, not only personally but with the support of his Party, then it is he who is running away and not the Minister.
I listened last night to Deputy Lemass and was quite satisfied at that time that we were going to see a position in which he would definitely take the view that the attacks made upon these directors were unjustified, were not only based on false premises but were formulated from a prejudiced point of view, and that the attitude of this House towards those directors should be to grant to them the form or type of compensation they were entitled to as gentlemen who had discharged their duties in a proper and efficient manner, within the limits allowed them by the Act of 1944. To-day, we suddenly find a complete change. He does not mind what happens to the directors. The Minister can have the section in or take it out, he can have a vote or no vote. Deputy Lemass does not mind. All he is concerned to find out is, whether or not, as he says, the Minister is going to stand his ground or run away. The final outcome to Deputy Lemass's speech, to my way of looking at it, is that the person running away is Deputy Lemass himself.
I do not mind in the least if this House passes this section. It is quite entitled to do that. I personally am going to oppose it and vote against it. But I personally believe that, if I had adopted the stand taken by Deputy Lemass and his Party, not merely since 1948 but since 1944, if I had behind me the record of having introduced the Act of 1944 to the Dáil and forced it through at the expense of a general election, coming back to this House and carrying the Act on to the Statute Book after that election, if I had the responsibility of the Minister adminstering that Act, making the appointments, and then, over a period of two years, seeking to explain the result of the working of that Act, seeking to defend the man whom I had appointed as chairman and his fellow-directors who had been appointed by the shareholders, and who had carried out not merely the machinery portion of the 1944 Act but the policy that I had given to them as Minister through their Government-appointed chairman, if I had felt under that obligation for two years, then certainly I would feel under the same obligation to-night to crown that work of four years by defending them by my vote in the House to-night. If that is not done by Deputy Lemass and his Party, then I think there is no other conclusion to come to than that he is not prepared to stand his ground and that the charge levied against the present Minister is more applicable to him.
I am not concerned whether the section is passed or not. The amount involved is very small. The question of the principle can be taken up again later in other legislation. I, personally, have an objection to what is proposed here but, certainly, so far as moral courage and political honesty are concerned, there is an obligation on Deputy Lemass to carry to its logical conclusion the course he has been pursuing for two years, which he feels is proper, which he felt called upon to pursue and which he thinks is justified, of defending the administration of Córas Iompair Éireann, its chairman and its board of directors. There is an obligation on him to carry that to the point where, by the votes of himself and his Party for this section, he records his appreciation of these men and of the manner in which they discharged the duties imposed upon them by the Act carried through the House by him as Minister, with the support of his Party, in 1944. Otherwise, it is quite clear that there has been a complete revolution in the attitude of Deputy Lemass since last night and a lack of courage is manifest on his side. I do not know what the explanation is except the simple one that he feels that defending the position in a long debate, in long speeches, is somewhat different from recording a vote which will be reflected in public payment of moneys to these directors. Whether that is the explanation or not, I do not know. Whatever difference I have with the Minister in regard to this section, if I were in Deputy Lemass's position to-night I would feel most peculiar in taking up the attitude of not supporting the section after what he has been saying for the last three years.
May I reply to Deputy Larkin's observation, in one sentence? He made a speech at some length which refers to a section of a Bill introduced by a Minister of the Government. He is a Government Deputy here. The first half of the speech was directed to giving reasons why the Government Deputies should vote against it and the second half to giving reasons why the Opposition Deputies should vote for it. The explanation is, of course, that he realises, as other Deputies opposite, that this is likely to prove an unpopular section and that the whole purpose of the Government manoeuvre is to get the section passed and to blame the Opposition for it. Deputy Larkin's speech was very convincing but he did not put enough bait on his hook.
Not enough for you.
I never heard a more two-faced speech in my life than Deputy Larkin's. He started off by saying why this section should not be passed and then nearly begged other Deputies to vote for it. It was a most twisted, two-sided speech.
It put you in Queer Street.
It did not put me in Queer Street or in Store Street either.
I rise to support this section. There has been a lot of talk about it and a lot of personalities in connection with it. I think it is a matter of principle. The directors of Córas Iompair Éireann, even if they have not been there individually for years and years, are the successors in title to directors going back for many years. It is an act of justice to compensate those men. In many cases they have done very good work. We know the company has had very difficult times in the last few years. There is just one thing on which I flatly disagree with Deputy Larkin, that is, when he said that the directors are there solely as the representatives of the shareholders.
I did not say that. That was the case made.
I understood that Deputy Larkin was saying that he believed that to be the case. But, whoever may have originally said that, I think it is nonsense and certainly there is no way in which shareholders could compensate directors for loss of office. This Dáil would be establishing a bad precedent and would be doing something unjust and inequitable if it did not compensate these men for the office they are now relinquishing. That would be done and should be done in the case of any employee of any company in which, as a result of State action, changes were made. The same principle should be applied to directors.
I would be failing in my duty as a representative of the workers if I did not refer to this section. For two days the House has been listening to the ex-Minister trying to explain his own failures and to blame the present Government. I would like to know why there is such commotion, both on the Government side and the Opposition side, about these gentlemen, who can retire without any compensation. What compensation was there in the 1944 Act when men had to be thrown out because they were redundant as a result of the closing of branch lines?
The same as there is in this Bill.
What did they get? Twenty shillings for life.
Many of them got nothing.
They got 37/6 if they were 65 years of age but they would not get that if they were 70. Here we have Deputies talking about people who have been well paid for doing, as Deputy Larkin said, a couple of hours' work a fortnight. We ought to be sensible. There was a general election in 1944, following the dissolution of the Dáil in the middle of the night, as a result of a decision on a Transport Bill. The public were promised faster trains, new stations, grander buses and cheaper fares. After four years, we are in a worse position than ever. We had the Minister telling us some months ago that he had to go to the Minister for Finance to get the money to pay the wages of the workers of Córas Iompair Éireann and why should we worry about these people who got thousands of pounds while in office? In my view, the chairman was very well paid in what he got, without getting any compensation, considering the way other sections were treated. I am not going to vote for this section to provide compensation for fellows who, if they were in another country, would be brought before a tribunal, and, if not executed, put in prison for life.
Mr. Maguire
In view of what we have heard about the woeful mismanagement on the part of this board of directors and the terrific loss which the nation has had to carry and will have to face up to, it is difficult to expect the House to adopt an attitude of generosity in this matter. If the business were being taken over as a going concern, as a concern which was paying its way, it would be quite understandable that the men who had assisted in the successful management of that concern over a number of years and who were being removed from office through no fault of their own should be compensated, but we know that it is the necessity for intervention by the State that has brought about the termination of these men's offices. If left on their own, there is no doubt about the inevitability of a complete stoppage and that position was very forcibly demonstrated in the Minister's statement that the concern was unable to pay its workers their weekly wages. In view of that, I cannot see the justification for offering compensation to men who must hold themselves responsible in some degree for the woeful state of bankruptcy into which, day by day and year by year, they brought this wonderful institution of ours known as Córas Iompair Éireann.
Surely, we must have regard for the morals of our people and surely if men in responsible positions knowingly and deliberately so manage or mismanage public concerns, involving the interests of the whole community, not only financially but economically, as to bring these concerns into a state of chaos, it is not a good example to set to reward such services generously at the expense of the taxpayer. The Minister, I suggest, in view of his statements here, statements which, I am sure, he felt were justified and which he can substantiate, should reconsider the consequences of such a proposal as is now submitted to the House. These men failed to make good in their positions and they should accept their dismissal, as their dismissals would automatically have taken place. If we are to have this sort of thing, if we are to accept whatever losses may occur through inefficiency in management or neglect and if the State is to be asked to take over such a liability, and not only that but to compensate inefficiency and mismanagement, we are tending towards a state of affairs where our whole public service will be besmirched. Where, then, will be the encouragement for efficiency and what will be the necessity for it? "We are dealing with public money. Let us spend as we like and mismanage as we like. It does not matter if, when the terminus is reached, we have left debts behind us, because these will be borne by the State and we will be compensated, as if we had been highly efficient men". The proposal is morally wrong and unjust. It is an indication that, in future, men in such positions may do as they like, may make whatever mess they wish, through neglect or otherwise, and that their pensions will be safe. It is an outrageous proposal and should be rejected.
Tá
- Cosgrave, Liam.
- Dillon, James M.
- Dockrell, Maurice E.
- MacEoin, Seán.
- Morrissey, Daniel.
- Mulcahy, Richard.
- O'Donnell, Patrick.
- O'Higgins, Thomas F.
- Rooney, Eamonn.
- Sheldon, William A.W.
Níl
- Aiken, Frank.
- Allen, Denis.
- Beegan, Patrick.
- Belton, John.
- Blaney, Neal T.
- Blowick, Joseph.
- Bourke, Dan.
- Brennan, Thomas.
- Breslin, Cormac.
- Briscoe, Robert.
- Browne, Noel C.
- Browne, Patrick.
- Buckley, Seán.
- Burke, Patrick.
- Butler, Bernard.
- Byrne, Alfred Patrick.
- Carter, Thomas.
- Childers, Erskine H.
- Colley, Harry.
- Flynn, John.
- Flynn, Stephen.
- Friel, John.
- Gilbride, Eugene.
- Giles, Patrick.
- Gorry, Patrick J.
- Harris, Thomas.
- Hickey, James.
- Hilliard, Michael.
- Hogan, Patrick.
- Hughes, Joseph.
- Keane, Seán.
- Kennedy, Michael J.
- Keyes, Michael.
- Killilea, Mark.
- Kinane, Patrick.
- Kissane, Eamon.
- Kitt, Michael F.
- Kyne, Thomas A.
- Lahiffe, Robert.
- Larkin, James.
- Lemass, Seán F.
- Lynch, John.
- McEllistrim, Thomas.
- MacEntee, Seán.
- McFadden, Michael Og.
- McGrath, Patrick.
- McMenamin, Daniel.
- McQuillan, John.
- Madden, David J.
- Maguire, Ben.
- Collins, James J.
- Collins, Seán.
- Commons, Bernard.
- Connolly, Roderick J.
- Corish, Brendan.
- Corry, Martin J.
- Cowan, Peadar.
- Crowley, Honor Mary.
- Davern, Michael J.
- Davin, William.
- Derrig, Thomas.
- Desmond, Daniel.
- De Valera, Eamon.
- Donnellan, Michael.
- Dunne, Seán.
- Esmonde, Sir John L.
- Everett, James.
- Fagan, Charles.
- Finucane, Patrick.
- Moran, Michael.
- Moylan, Seán.
- Murphy, William J.
- Norton, William.
- O Briain, Donnchadh.
- O'Gorman, Patrick J.
- O'Grady, Seán.
- O'Leary, John.
- O'Reilly, Matthew.
- Ormonde, John.
- O'Rourke, Daniel.
- O'Sullivan, Martin.
- Palmer, Patrick W.
- Redmond, Bridget M.
- Reidy, James.
- Reynolds, Mary.
- Rice, Bridget M.
- Roddy, Joseph.
- Ruttledge, Patrick J.
- Ryan, James.
- Ryan, Mary B.
- Ryan, Robert.
- Sheehan, Michael.
- Sheridan, Michael.
- Smith, Patrick.
- Spring, Daniel.
- Sweetman, Gerard.
- Timoney, John J.
- Tully, John.
- Walsh, Richard.
Arising out of the division which has just taken place, I should like to ask the Minister for Industry and Commerce what steps he proposes to take next. Was the section approved by the Government as a whole when the Bill was introduced? It is important that we should know that because it is quite clear that the Constitution has been violated in one of its most important principles.
Do not be giving the game away on yourself.
Obviously the Minister for Industry and Commerce has not the confidence even of his colleagues.
Would the Deputy like to challenge that confidence?
Carry it to the country.
Put down a motion.
The Minister was afraid to put the question of confidence to the House on this.
Amendment No. 90:—
SECTION 60.
I move amendment No. 90:—
In sub-section (2), page 36, line 51, to delete "or 37" and substitute "37 or 39".
The object of the amendment is to extend the exemption from stamp duty to any agreement reached under Section 39, the section which provides that part of the annual compensation may be commuted for a lump sum.
Do you really want this amendment?
I thought that chapter was closed, but if you wish to reopen it all right.
I move amendment No. 91:—
To delete sub-section (3) and substitute the following sub-section:—
(3) Section 8 of the Finance Act, 1899, shall not operate so as to require the board to deliver to the Revenue Commissioners any statement or to pay any stamp duty under that section in respect of transport stock.
This, again, is an extension under the 1944 Act in which substitute debenture stock was exempt from stamp duty. The Revenue Commissioners have agreed to extend the exemption to all issues of transport stock.
I move amendment No. 92:—
To insert before sub-section (4) the following sub-section:—
(4) Stamp duty shall not be chargeable on an arrangement under Section 24 or any Order under Section 25.
I move amendment No. 93:—
In sub-section (4), page 37, line 3, to delete "any dissolved undertaker" and substitute "either dissolved undertaker or on any instrument which is executed in order to supplement any arrangement under Section 24 or any other under Section 25."
I move amendment No. 94:—
In sub-section (1), page 37, line 6, to insert "(including an arbitration)" after "proceeding."
This is to ensure the carrying on of arbitration proceedings which are pending under earlier Transport Acts. There are some proceedings still outstanding.
I move amendment No. 95:—
Before Section 62 to insert a new section as follows:—
62. Every notice served by or on either dissolved undertaker before the establishment date the effect or term of which has not ceased or expired before the establishment date shall, so far as it is not inconsistent with this Act, continue in force and have effect on and after the establishment date as if it were a notice served by or on the board on the date on which it was actually served and as if the functions or property to which the said notice relates had on the same date already vested in the board.
I move amendment No. 96:—
In paragraph 1 (2), lines 21 and 22, to delete the words "and include at least one term of office of five years as a whole-time member of the board".
This schedule was based on the Electricity Supply Board Superannuation Act. The particular limitation which I am proposing to delete was contained in that Act as introduced, but I think it was deleted under an amending Bill introduced by the Minister.
If you mean the continuous period of five years, that has not been deleted. The Bill, as it stands, in respect of this provision is exactly the same as the provision which we inserted last year in the case of the Electricity Supply Board.
It seems to me to be an unnecessary provision. If the intention is that anyone who has served as a member of the board should get a pension, then it seems to me that he should get the pension whether appointed for three periods of three years each and one year, or for two terms of five years. If the corresponding provision in the Electricity Supply Board Superannuation Act has not been amended, then I think the position at the moment is that one member of the board—he has been a member of the board for a long period—is ineligible for a pension.
No. I think the Deputy will recollect that the amendment which we introduced to the Electricity Supply Board Act last year was to regularise the position of that particular member of the board. What we did was to make it one period of five years. This provision in the Bill is exactly the same as that.
On that question, I have no objection to the Schedule. I think, however, the fact that I have no objection is a matter worthy of mention in view of the discussion we have just had, because this Schedule is designed to ensure that every member of the new board who serves the minimum period on it will be entitled to a pension on leaving it and that the chairman of the board will also have the right to a pension on retirement which his predecessor had not got. I think that, on the whole, it is desirable that these provisions should be in the Bill. I think it was an omission from the 1944 Act that no provision was made for the chairman appointed under it. We have got to face the possibility that persons appointed to these boards will prove less useful on them than anticipated or may lose their utility in the course of time. It is always easier to effect changes involving the retirement of such persons when some compensation arrangement exists than when it does not. That is more likely to be the case in relation to this particular board because, as was pointed out, the stockholders' directors of the old company were generally people of means, certainly people with other sources of income, whereas that may not always be the case with all the members of the new board.
If I rightly interpreted some observations made in the course of the debate, there would be a view in the House that the rate of remuneration of directors of the old company was high, and one might, therefore, assume the expectation that the remuneration of the members of the new board would be less. I, however, would not support that. I have already expressed the view here that the management of this transport undertaking should be entrusted to a board of people so remunerated that they can, if necessary, give the whole of their time to its supervision. If we are to get competent persons capable of doing that work properly, it is likely they will have to be taken out of other employment, that they will be people who have already established reputations for themselves in some other sphere and who would be reluctant to leave a sphere in which they have established their reputations to take over the rather dubious task of managing this undertaking, with all the risks to their own reputations which will be involved in it, unless the remuneration is attractive and unless the prospect of pensions at the end of a reasonable period of service is before them.
While, therefore, in the heat of the discussion on the previous amendment, views may have been expressed in relation to the past, we should not allow them to prejudice our views in relation to the future, and I hope that, whatever opinion Deputies may have concerning the remuneration of directors as a class, they will appreciate the importance in this Bill of having, not merely adequate provision for remuneration, but the additional security provided for in the Schedule.
I must say that I thoroughly agree with what Deputy Lemass has said, that persons in a responsible position such as this should receive adequate remuneration and should be so placed by the terms of their employment that they would have to give full time to their duties on the board. While saying that, I do think that, in the conditions obtaining in this country, a salary of £6,500 per year is too high. I think that that will be accepted because, if we relate it even to the salary paid to a Minister, who has very heavy responsibilities——
Will the Deputy say what part of the Schedule mentions salary?
I am afraid I was out of order.
I was following Deputy Lemass, because the pension has relation to the amount of salary. Clearly, the amount of salary would have a bearing on the pension that is paid to the particular occupant.
The Schedule says that it is superannuation.
His superannuation is based on his salary. However, I am only making the point to the Minister with which I think there will be no disagreement—that the salary paid ought to be adequate. To go, however, into the realms of six or more thousand pounds is going beyond anything ordinarily understood in this country. I know of no official employment in this country where the salary exceeds £4,000 per year. I do not know what the Minister has in mind in regard to this board he is now going to appoint, but I, for one, would certainly support the Minister in ensuring that these directors, and particularly the chairman, will be able to give full time to the business of the board and that their remuneration will be reasonable and fair.
It is reasonable that there should be decent superannuation or pension. I do not think, however, that it should be permitted to capitalise that particular pension. I do not think it can be done under this Bill. If the pension is, say, £500 per year, I do not think it is right that it might be capitalised into a sum of £10,000.
I say that that ought not to be done. It is a bad principle to do it. It is contrary to all the principles of superannuation and pension. Anyway, I do not think there is provision in this Schedule for it. Therefore, in treating the members of the board well and in expecting a good return from them, the Minister and the Government will be doing the right thing and I think the community will be doing the right thing in seeing that the chairman and directors are treated properly. But then we do expect from them full service and the exercise of all their abilities on behalf of the new Córas Iompair Éireann.
In view of the expressions of view that I gave in the course of the debate on Section 59, it would be as well if I indicated that I agree with the view expressed by Deputy Lemass and Deputy Cowan in respect of the provisions of the Second Schedule. But, having in mind the provision of reasonable and suitable superannuation treatment for the members of the board, I think we should also have in mind that we are formulating these provisions in respect of what may be regarded as a reasonable and adequate salary not only in relation to industrial and commercial employment, but also, as Deputy Cowan said, in the light of the commitments borne by other persons in the public life of this country.
More than that I do not want to say on the question of salary, except to refer to another reference in the Schedule connected with superannuation and to express the view that, if we are going to provide salary and, particularly, superannuation for members of the board, from that point of view alone I think there is a strong and unanswerable case to require the members of the board not merely to accept appointment as full-time members of the board, but, in fact, to give full-time service. I recognise that you cannot keep a board in continuous session but, at the same time, if they are required in the terms of their appointment to make themselves available on a whole-time basis, even though they naturally cannot be at meetings continuously they can be directly associated with various executive branches of the undertaking so as to familiarise themselves with the day-to-day work. I think the most regrettable thing would be if we had a board of persons who might be competent to discharge the duties of membership of the board but who, because of their contact merely consisting of attendance at board meetings and, possibly, some subcommittee meetings, would, in fact, be people whose day-to-day practical knowledge of the undertaking would be dependent on the reports and information made available to them by experts.
Nobody expects, for instance, a person coming out of commercial life and going on to the board to become an expert on transport, but in so far as he has a background in his knowledge of the commercial life of the country it will be helpful to him if, as a member of the board, he acquires an ordinary close knowledge of the actual working of the transport undertaking, some relationship with and some knowledge of staffs in the particular branch in which he may be interested, and some knowledge of the problems that are dealt with. He should acquire knowledge from the leading experts handling a particular side of the undertaking so that when matters come before the board he will not be in the position of being completely dependent on the reports available and unfamiliar with the actual day-to-day working of the undertaking. I suggest to the Minister that the warrants of appointment should require whole-time service on the board; it should involve whole-time attendance and an intimate association with the actual working conditions of the undertaking.
There was a good deal of discussion as to the type of board that should be appointed. Might I remind Deputies who took part in that earlier discussion that the discussion arose largely out of whether the general manager should be a member of the board at all.
How does that arise under superannuation?
To this extent, that we are dealing with superannuation on the basis of whole-time service; superannuation can only apply if the appointment is on a whole-time basis. We were discussing earlier whether the appointment should be whole-time or part-time. My own recollection of the discussion was that there was rather a loose and perhaps not a well-considered viewpoint expressed that these positions should be whole-time.
The viewpoint expressed by Deputy Larkin will arouse a good deal of sympathy here. There is that old feeling against directors who move from place to place and there is the feeling, since this is a national concern, that their appointment should be on a whole-time basis. Under sub-section (2) it appears they can qualify for superannuation only if their services are whole-time.
The Deputy referred earlier to this matter.
I believe I am still quite in order. The House had different viewpoints on this subject as to whether they should be whole-time or part-time and I suggest to the Minister that, when it comes to the point of issuing warrants for these appointments, he will see so far as the chairman is concerned that he will be a full-time chairman and in addition— and this is a condition which was not provided for—that he shall be deemed to be the chief executive officer of the concern between board meetings; in other words, that he should have responsibility.
I should like to hear from the Minister if the wording of sub-section (2) means that a director in order to qualify for this superannuation must have whole-time service as those words are commonly understood?
The Deputy is right.
Question agreed to.
THIRD SCHEDULE.
I move amendment No. 98:—
In column (5), page 42, to delete in paragraph 2 all words from "be payable half-yearly" to "December respectively" and substitute the following:—
"be payable—
(a) on the 15th day of July, 1950, in respect of the period of three months ending on the 30th day of June, 1950, and
(b) on the 15th day of January and 15th day of July in each year after the year 1950 in respect of the half year ending on the immediately preceeding 31st day of December and 30th day of June respectively."
This amendment is consequential, arising out of an alteration of the date. There are quite a number of such amendments running from this onwards.
You will have to alter it again.
I am afraid so. Deputies will talk and talk.
Do not blame them.
I am not blaming them at all.
The only thing I want to say on this schedule is this. The Irish Transport Stockholders' Association have sent a circular to all Deputies and the effect of their circular was contained in the amendment which Deputy Cogan put down, and which was not moved. Their point is this. They say:—
"The transport stock with which it is proposed to compensate the common stockholders of Córas Iompair Éireann is a 3 per cent. stock dated 1975-1985. The earlier the date of redemption the higher the present cash value of a given stock. The annual cost to the State of compensating the stockholders with 3 per cent. 1955-60 will be no more than that of a 1975-85 stock, and no one can foresee whether the terms on which the State can convert or borrow will be better or worse in 1955 than in 1975."
The association circular proceeds:
"In short, this association reiterates its demand for compensation at par value and, further, urges that the stock with which compensation is made should be dated 1955-60 instead of 1975-85."
My only reason for referring to that is because Deputy Cogan is not here to move his amendment, when he would have explained this particular thing, and I feel that the case made by the stockholders should be considered by the Minister. I am not putting it forward as a recommendation of my own; I am just giving expression to the fact that those stockholders request that and I leave it entirely to the Minister for his consideration.
It has been fully considered.
Question agreed to.
FOURTH SCHEDULE.
I move amendment No. 99:—
In paragraph 3, page 45, to insert "annual" before "remuneration" in lines 2, 6, 9 and 11.
This is just a drafting amendment.
The only thing I wish to do on the Fourth Schedule is to draw the attention of Deputy Davin and others to the fact that this is a replica of the Schedule in the 1944 Act, including among its provisions some arrangement for the calculation of service in a licensed omnibus undertaking as total service for the purpose of calculating superannuation.
With years added?
It is exactly the same.
Question agreed to.
FIFTH SCHEDULE
I move amendment No. 100:—
In page 46, to delete lines 7 and 8.
This is consequential on amendment No. 83.
The whole function and constitution of the tribunal will be reconsidered before the Report Stage?
It will be and, as the Deputy is aware, we will have a new submission.
I move amendment No. 101:—
Before the Sixth Schedule, in page 46 (between lines 8 and 9), to insert the following new Schedule:—
SIXTH SCHEDULE
Provisions Relating to the Transport Tribunal.
1. In this Schedule the expression "the tribunal" means the transport tribunal.
2. (1) The tribunal shall consist of such number of members (not being less than three nor more than five members) as the Government may from time to time determine.
(2) The members of the tribunal shall be appointed from time to time by the Government.
(3) The chairman of the tribunal shall be such one of the members as the Government may, at the time of his appointment or subsequently, nominate as chairman.
3. (1) Every person appointed a member of the tribunal shall, unless he sooner dies, is removed from office, resigns or becomes disqualified, hold office for such period (not exceeding five years) as shall be fixed by the Government when appointing him.
(2) A member of the tribunal whose term of office expires by effuxion of time shall be eligible for re-appointment.
4. Every member of the tribunal shall hold office upon such terms and conditions (including the payment out of moneys provided by the Oireachtas of remuneration and allowances for expenses) as shall be fixed by the Government at the time of his appointment.
5. Sub-sections (4), (6), (7) (except paragraphs (c) and (8) of Section 7 of this Act shall apply to members of the tribunal as those sub-sections apply to a member of the board appointed by the Government.
6. (1) At a sitting of the tribunal—
(a) the chairman of the tribunal shall, if present, be chairman of the sitting,
(b) if and so long as the chairman of the tribunal is not present or if the office of chairman is vacant, the members who are present shall choose one of their number to be chairman of the sitting.
(2) Every question at a sitting of the tribunal shall be determined by a majority of the members present and voting on the question and, in the case of an equal division of votes, the chairman of the meeting shall have a second or casting vote.
(3) The quorum for a sitting of the tribunal shall be—
(a) in case the tribunal for the time being consists of three members, and no more, two,
(b) in any other case, three.
(4) The proceedings of the tribunal shall not be invalidated by any vacancy in their number.
7. (1) The tribunal may for the purpose of the exercise of their functions do all or any of the following things:—
(a) summon witnesses to attend before them,
(b) examine on oath (which any member of the tribunal is hereby authorised to administer) any witness attending before them.
(c) require any such witness to produce any document in his power or control which the tribunal consider necessary.
(2) A witness before the tribunal shall be entitled to the same immunities and privileges as if he were a witness before the High Court.
(3) If any person—
(a) on being duly summoned as a witness makes default in attending, or
(b) being in attendance as a witness refuses to take an oath legally required by the tribunal to be taken or to produce any document in his power or control legally required by the tribunal to be produced by him, or to answer any question to which the tribunal may legally require an answer,
such person shall be guilty of an offence under this paragraph and shall be liable on summary conviction therof to a fine not exceeding twenty-five pounds.
(4) Where a witness attends before the tribunal as a witness in pursuance of a summons under sub-paragraph (1) of this paragraph, there shall, in respect of his attendance, be paid to him, out of moneys provided by the Oireachtas, expenses in accordance with a scale fixed from time to time by the Minister for Finance.
8. Subject to this Schedule, the tribunal shall by rules or otherwise regulate their procedure.
9. The decision of the tribunal on any matter before them shall be final.
I move amendment No. 102:—
In paragraph 1, page 46, line 12, to delete "In this Schedule" and substitute the following—
In this Schedule—
the expression "the stated period" means the period of three months ending on the 31st day of March, 1950;
This amendment is consequential on the change of date.
Does that apply to all the rest?
I think it does.
When is it proposed to take the Report Stage?
There will be a considerable number of amendments, but they are nearly all amendments arising out of undertakings given here on the Committee Stage. If Deputies will agree, it is proposed to take the Report Stage on next Tuesday week. If Deputies find that they have not sufficient time in which to consider the amendments when they are circulated I will be prepared to make it Wednesday or Thursday. Deputies will understand that I am anxious to get the next stages completed as soon as possible in order to have the Bill passed into law as early as possible. If the amendments are circulated in sufficient time, I take it the House will have no objection to having the Report Stage on Tuesday week.
Ordered: "That the Report Stage be taken on Tuesday week."