Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 9 May 1950

Vol. 120 No. 13

Transport Bill, 1949—From the Seanad.

The Dáil went into Committee to consider amendments from the Seanad.

I move that the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment No. 1:—

In Section 2, sub-section (1), line 31, page 5, "June" substituted for "April".

This amendment changes the date from 1st April to 1st June.

Amendments Nos. 1, 7, 8, 9, 12, 14 and 15 have the same object.

Is it proposed to take amendments Nos. 5 and 6 together?

I think there would be undue overlapping of discussion and argument if we were to discuss them separately. There can, of course, be a separate decision on each of these amendments if necessary.

And a separate discussion if necessary.

I suggest that there would be overlapping.

It may be possible to discuss them together.

Question put and agreed to.

I move that the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment No. 2:—

In Section 9, sub-section (3), line 2, page 9, "(not less than three)" inserted after "number".

This is carrying out a suggestion made in the Seanad that it should be set out in the Bill that the quorum of the board should be three.

Question put and agreed to.

I move that the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment No. 3:—

In Section 29, sub-section (6) (d), line 19, page 25, the words "transfer of" deleted.

This is a drafting amendment.

Question put and agreed to.

I move that the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment No. 4:—

In Section 29, sub-section (6), line 23, page 25, the words "apply to transport stock" deleted and the words ",in relation to transport stock, apply, with or without modification", substituted.

This is also a drafting amendment.

Question put and agreed to.

I move that the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment No. 5:—

In page 41, before Section 67 a new section inserted as follows:—

(1) The board shall pay to each person who was immediately before the establishment date a director of the Grand Canal Company a sum equal to the fees received by him as director of that company during the year 1949.

(2) This section does not apply to a director of the Grand Canal Company who becomes an original member of the board.

This is an amendment which was carried in the Seanad to provide compensation for the directors of the Grand Canal Company. The House will remember that in the Bill, as originally introduced, there was a section which proposed to provide compensation for the directors of both the Grand Canal Company and Córas Iompair Éireann and the amount of compensation was to be two years of their remuneration as directors. The matter was discussed here at some length and eventually, on a free vote of the House, the section was defeated by a substantial majority.

The matter was raised again in the Seanad on the Committee Stage and, on the Report Stage, two amendments were moved, one covering the directors of the Grand Canal Company and the other covering the directors of Córas Iompair Éireann. The provision for compensation in both amendments was one year's remuneration instead of two years'. These amendments were debated at some length and eventually were adopted unanimously by the Seanad. I am putting the amendments before the Dáil and I am recommending them to the Dáil, but I propose, as on the former occasion in connection with the section originally introduced, to leave the matter to be decided by the House by way of a free vote.

I do not know that it is necessary to say very much on these amendments. The principle was fully discussed here in Committee on the original section. I am recommending the amendments as I think they are reasonable. It was argued in the Seanad that this was a matter of principle. Some Senators held that provision should be made for the directors of the Grand Canal Company, but that provision should not be made for the directors of Córas Iompair Éireann. If it is a matter of principle, as I stated in the Seanad, I believe the directors of both companies are entitled to compensation. I think it ought to be both or none. I know that here as well as in the Seanad there was a view strongly held that the directors of Córas Iompair Éireann should not be compensated and that provision for compensation should not be made for them. It is true to say also that, when the original section in the Bill was being discussed in the Dáil, it seemed to be the feeling of the House that they would be prepared to provide compensation for the directors of the Grand Canal Company. Be that as it may, the two amendments are now before the House. As I say, I accepted them in the Seanad and I am recommending them to the Dáil. If the amendments go to a division, while leaving them to a free vote of the House, I propose to vote for them myself.

Whether it is possible for us to consider these amendments on their merits depends entirely upon the attitude of the Government. Do the Government want these amendments carried? I think the House is entitled to that information. So far as we are concerned, our attitude will be determined by the answer we get to that question. We know the history of this proposal. The Minister brought to the House a Bill containing provisions relating to the payment of compensation to directors of Córas Iompair Éireann and of the Grand Canal Company losing their position because of the provisions of the Bill. So far as the House was aware until the relevant section of the Bill came up for discussion, the Government had considered the matter fully and had decided to put this proposal to the Dáil and to recommend its enactment by the Dáil. When the section was discussed here, we found that the Minister spoke against it. Any Deputy who wants to check the accuracy of that assertion can do so in the Official Report. In his speech on the section, the Minister did not say one word in favour of it and, in the course of the discussion that followed, it was quite obvious that there was a serious cleavage of opinion amongst Deputies supporting the Government concerning the proposal. The debate ended with Deputy Larkin making a speech in which he pleaded to Deputies on his side of the House to vote against the proposal and to Deputies on this side of the House to vote for it. That nonsensical method of doing public business does not appeal to us. When the division was taken, we found that a majority of members of the Government who had participated in the division voted against the proposal.

We now have a proposal similar in principle back from the Seanad. It was, I understand, carried there upon the Minister's assurance that he would recommend it to the Dáil. He is recommending it to the Dáil. Is he doing so as an individual or as a representative of the Government? If the Government are trying to play politics in connection with this matter, so far as we are concerned we will direct our manoeuvres so as to cause the maximum embarrassment, irrespective of the merits of the case. We are prepared to discuss the merits of the question and to vote according to the merits if the Government follow the same line. If, however, we are presented with the position that the Government want to get it carried but want to ensure that any unpopularity that may attach to it will be shouldered by Fianna Fáil and that the Government will be able to escape it, we will regard that as releasing us from considering the matter on its merits and we will consider it as a political manæuvre. If we have on this occasion the same spectacle as before of members of the Government coming in and voting against a Government recommendation, we will keep the Minister going from this House to the Seanad and back again as long as the Standing Orders of each House permit it.

I was one of the few Deputies who spoke in favour of compensation for the directors of both companies when this Bill was last before the Dáil. I did so because I felt and still feel that in a matter of this kind there is an important principle at stake and a principle which should not be clouded by any views with regard to individuals or by any particular matters in connection with either Córas Iompair Éireann or the other company. Here, by an Act of this Oireachtas, we are destroying both Córas Iompair Éireann and the Grand Canal Company. We are putting them out of existence and, at the same time, we have the right in this Parliament to decide what director or which of the directors should be compensated and, if so, in what way and to what extent. We are both judges and interested parties in the same matter. For that reason, I think a very strict rule should be observed and it should be the rule which has always been followed that, where by legislation we are destroying any existing office, we should provide for compensation for holders of that office. I realise that objection was taken with regard to this particular matter for probably very good and very sound reasons in so far as the directors of one of these boards — the directors of Córas Iompair Éireann — are concerned. I think it is unfortunate that those who held those objections should allow their particular grounds of argument against the directors of Córas Iompair Éireann to cloud the principle. If we abolish an office without providing for any compensation for the holders of that office, it is just the same as if, under this Act, we were providing for the dismissal of one, two or 100 workers — holders of redundant positions — and providing that they should not be compensated. I do not see that there is any difference in principle between the position of the lowest worker in either of these companies and that of a director.

Hear, hear!

If we provide for the abolition of an office, we must make some provision for the holders of that office. It is for that reason that I urge Deputies to accept these amendments inserted by the Seanad. I do not think any useful purpose could be served by the intervention of Deputy Lemass in this matter. Deputies who were present when the question was last debated in this House are well aware that Deputy Lemass spoke on both sides on this particular matter.

Hear, hear!

Prior to the adjournment of this debate one evening, Deputy Lemass was all out to ensure that any opposition from any side of this House which would seek to prevent any compensation being paid to these directors would be opposed by Fianna Fáil. It is quite evident that after, perhaps, an evening of thought and discussion with other members of his Party he changed his tune here. It comes very badly from Deputy Lemass to talk about playing politics in a matter of this kind.

Do the Government want the amendment passed?

If anybody, it is Deputy Lemass and his Party who are playing politics. I do not know what benefit he thinks he can derive from this attitude. I hope the lead which he has given here will not be followed by other Deputies and that they will approach the discussion of this matter calmly and discuss it purely on the merits of the proposal. It is an important matter and one that should not be decided upon hastily one way or the other. Certainly, I hope the considerations of cheap Party politics—evidenced by Deputy Lemass —will not influence other speakers in this debate. It is perfectly clear that Deputy Lemass, who has a very deep knowledge of matters of this kind, is quite determined that if he possibly can he will have the best of both worlds in relation to this matter. Of course we have not been told what view Deputy Lemass himself takes on this matter now, but I hope that other members of his Party will approach the matter from loftier motives than that which he evidenced. I urge, therefore, that the amendments tabled by the Seanad be accepted by the House.

The reasonable manner in which Deputy T.F. O'Higgins approached the discussion of the amendment would carry me a very long distance with him, if anything could. I think the point Deputy Lemass overlooks when he makes the charge against the Minister and against the Government of playing politics is that there are Deputies on this side of the House who feel sufficiently strongly on this question as not to be carried by the Government into supporting one at least of these amendments.

That is not in question. Do the Government want the amendment carried?

The Government can speak for themselves.

Deputies

Ah!

I am telling Deputy Lemass that there are two uncertain Deputies on this side of the House in connection with this matter and that I am one of the two. It is perfectly obvious that Deputy Lemass resents the fact that liberty of thought and freedom to express one's opinion is accorded by the Administration to the individual Deputy on this side of the House.

Do the majority of the Government want the amendments carried? That is the question.

Deputy Lemass very seldom speaks unnecessarily or uses unnecessary phrases. Very seldom will he be open to a charge of padding out what he may have to say but, certainly, it was completely unnecessary for him to tell us this afternoon that on this amendment he proposed to play politics. I think that was obvious from the debate in this House on the last occasion. Deputy O'Higgins made a reasoned case for the amendment but, to my mind, he approached it from an unrealistic point of view. I do not think we can consider these amendments as if we all lived in Cloud Cuckoo Land. This amendment, particularly the second amendment which refers to the directors of Córas Iompair Éireann, proposes to compensate people who, to the mind of many of us, have not earned that compensation and who are, in fact, in receipt of substantial emoluments from their directorships of other companies. It may be argued against me that I am illogical and that I am not considering this as a matter of principle if I say that I would approach this question in a completely different frame of mind if it could be pointed out to me that there was even one individual whose livelihood, or even a portion of his livelihood, depended upon the director's fees of which he was in receipt either from Córas Iompair Éireann or the Grand Canal Company. That position does not apply. Let us be realistic in our approach to this matter. We know that the gentlemen we propose to compensate are gentlemen who, to put it colloquially, are pretty well fixed as it is. There is one matter on which I should like the Minister to enlighten me and the House in general. I am not quite sure if my facts are correct or not, but I should like to know how many directors are common to the Grand Canal Company and Córas Iompair Éireann.

I understood the number to be two.

In point of fact, in so far as the directors of Córas Iompair Éireann are concerned, what the amendment proposes to do is to compensate gentlemen who directed a public corporation out of which they made private profits and were guaranteed, in effect, against private loss out of public moneys. I do not think any case can be made for compensating these gentlemen in these circumstances.

I invite the Minister and Deputies on every side of the House to approach the consideration of this matter purely on the merits of the recommendation, if there are any merits. Deputy Lemass has taken up a rather interesting attitude in the course of the short statement he made. He said to the Minister that, if the Government want this, "we will support them".

No, I did not. I said that if the Government want it, we will consider it on its merits.

The Deputy did not say the same in relation to some other measures. He did not say it with reference to land rehabilitation or with reference to the Land Bill, which caused so much discussion and was the cause of so much obstruction; neither did he say it in relation to other measures of equal importance to the one that is now being discussed. To my mind, this is the most brazen kind of proposal that has ever come before the House during my time, and, for the information of Deputy O'Higgins, let me say that I was sitting in this House during the discussions on the 1924 Amalgamation Act and the 1933 and 1944 Acts. The 1944 Act was the one that went through this House after Deputy de Valera insisted on having a general election in order to establish this dictatorship that we are now getting rid of. We all learn in the school of experience, and the Deputy has had his lesson from the people.

This is the most brazen ad misericordiam appeal that I ever listened to. It is made on behalf of persons who, without any disrespect to them personally, can be properly described as professional directors. Deputy Lemass, if he gets up again, will not, I would imagine, assert that they were selected and put on the board under his 1944 Act because they had an intimate knowledge and personal experience of the working of a transport concern. Deputy Lemass knows, and so does the Minister for Industry and Commerce, that the shareholders' directors, as they are called, rightly or wrongly, are the nominees of the banks who act as trustees on behalf of the shareholders.

These banks, over a long period of years, were represented at the meetings of the ordinary shareholders and the chairman, on innumerable occasions, to the knowledge of the Minister and Deputy Lemass and other Deputies, had wide powers. When a motion was challenged at the shareholders' meetings, he was able to plank down 3,000,000 bloc votes on the table and rule out even eloquent spokesmen like Deputy Lemass from criticising the work of the directors on any particular matter. When it came to voting for the election of directors, it was a question of the nominees of those assembled in the hall as against those who were nominated beforehand, and the 3,000,000 bloc votes were planked on the table again and the poor people proposed in the hall got short shrift.

That is the type of person for whom the Minister is now recommending payment of compensation. There are other serious aspects of this whole proposal, but I will confine myself to this one for the moment. If Deputy O'Higgins were here long enough he would be aware that under previous Acts, when the companies were amalgamated, and later, provision was made for compensation for what were described — I do not know who invented the term — as redundant directors. Deputy O'Higgins says there is a serious principle involved here, and that is that the directors should get the same treatment as the men who lost their positions under previous Acts. If Deputy O'Higgins knew the history of the 1924, 1933 and 1944 Acts as well as Deputy Lemass does, he would know that hundreds of railwaymen and transport men were given the right to go before an arbitrator, but in hundreds and not individually. Under all these Acts, in the plainest of English it is written that compensation must be provided — and it has been paid under those Acts — for redundant directors who had many other directorships apart from the railway.

Why is it now suggested that we should give compensation to these gentlemen? The Minister for Industry and Commerce, in the course of the various discussions on this measure, gave innumerable reasons why these directors should not be compensated. Why should we compensate, for the first time, individuals, no matter how highly placed they may be, for proved incompetence and inefficiency? Deputy Lemass may endeavour to cover up what some of his colleagues said in the other House, but surely he cannot deny that it was the stockholders' directors who were responsible, by their silence, for the bankruptcy of the concern and forced the members of this House to take £4,000,000 out of the pockets of the taxpayers in order to balance the budget of Córas Iompair Éireann for the year ended 31st March this year?

We are asked to go around to the taxpayers to collect money for those individuals, who are very wealthy men and who are supposed to have a wealth of brains as well as wealth in other respects. We are asked to collect for them the equivalent of one year's fees. Let us discuss this matter on its merits. I absolve the individuals concerned from a good deal of responsibility because, under the 1944 Act, they were put in as super yes-men. It was laid down in that Act, which was supposed to have been passed by the will of the people, that unless one man, the chairman, was present, they could not hold a meeting and, even if the other directors expressed a particular point of view, he could oppose it. The point of view of the superman, the dictator, prevailed and the stockholders' directors had very little power or authority. If they had any power or authority, surely they had the right to dissent from decisions when serious decisions were taken at board meetings? Even if they did dissent, it did not much matter. I should like to know from the Minister if the stockholders' directors ever insisted on having recorded in the minutes their dissent from the policy of squandermania and sabotage in connection with the railway system.

The Deputy seems to be travelling along lines very different from what should be discussed.

If the Fianna Fáil Government had come back to power in 1948 and if, for the sake of argument, the late chairman continued to be chairman of the company, there is not a shadow of doubt that the branch lines would be butchered, just in the same way as you would cut up a tree.

The closed lines have not been opened yet.

Deputy Davin has gone on to another line — he is dealing with a subject not quite relevant to what is under discussion.

The records of this House will prove—if Deputy Lemass dissents from what I have said — that if the proposals made by the late chairman and submitted to the then Minister had been carried out, 3,500 railwaymen would be looking elsewhere for work. The stockholders' directors whom it is proposed to recommend for compensation played the part of yes-men in all these transactions.

They are recommended for compensation by the Government you support.

Deputy Lemass should try to get away from the old system of running a Government as known to him under Fianna Fáil. It is about time that the Deputy realised that circumstances are now quite different.

Who else recommended it?

It was not the first time we had a free vote of the House. That was democracy in action — which was unknown to the Deputy and to the Deputy sitting beside him in their time.

Who else would recommend it?

Deputy O'Higgins seems to have confused himself into thinking that so far as previous transport legislation is concerned, the railwayman was put on the same footing as the director. I say put these on the same level as those transport men who were given an assurance here under previous legislation that they would get compensation; but when they went before arbitration they found out their mistake. Put the directors who were responsible for the mismanagement, incompetence and proved inefficiency of our transport on the same level as the men who lost their jobs on the railway under previous Acts and who never got as much as one penny compensation.

I spoke in favour of this proposal when the Bill was first going through this House. I now raise my voice again in support of the Seanad amendment. I think Deputy O'Higgins has made the point as well as anybody could when he adverted to the fact that this matter should be judged as one of principle. I consider that these directors, be they good, bad or indifferent, are entitled to compensation for loss of office and I think one year's compensation is a very small sum.

Various Deputies have spoken on this matter. Deputy Lemass has adopted a rather peculiar attitude. He has spoken from various points of view. To-day, I think, he has at last let the cat out of the bag. He said — and I do not think I have ever heard such a cynical observation so pithily expressed — that his aim was to cause maximum embarrassment irrespective of the merits of the proposal.

Mr. de Valera

So long as the Government was playing politics.

Does the Deputy know whether or not the Government wants this amendment?

Let the Deputy make his speech.

Perhaps I would, first of all, be permitted to make my speech and then perhaps the Government would be allowed to have its own mind in the matter.

That is all we ask.

That is better.

I am merely pointing out to the House what Deputy Lemass said to-day. He said it was his object to cause maximum embarrassment irrespective of the merits of the proposal. That to me is one of the most extraordinary statements I have ever heard here. We know now that he will not consider this matter on its merits. He will consider it merely from the point of view of Party politics. I think that is rather a pity. Perhaps I am not alone in thinking that it is a pity. When we consider that the directors of Córas Iompair Éireann, be they good, bad, or indifferent, were chosen by Deputy Lemass when he was Minister——

They were not.

They were not chosen by me.

Why did Deputy Lemass as the Minister responsible for the 1944 Act put in the particular machinery in that Act which made them powerless? When one considers the matter it is obvious that Deputy Lemass is the person who probably carries most responsibility for the present personnel of Córas Iompair Éireann.

For not one single one of them do I take an iota of responsibility.

I think most people believe that Deputy Lemass, as Minister for Industry and Commerce at the time, carries some measure of responsibility in this matter. At any rate, it is somewhat odd to see Deputy Lemass now playing Party politics in this and admitting it in the way he has done to-day. We could talk at length on this subject. I think the only fair way to view the matter is from the point of view of the office. From that point of view I think these men are entitled to compensation.

We have had two approaches to this problem. One has been that of Deputy Dockrell, Deputy O'Higgins, and, to some extent, the Minister. The other has been a contrary view expressed by Deputy Lemass, Deputy Davin and others. Perhaps we might get rid of the principle first of all. Deputy Dockrell and Deputy O'Higgins asked us to accept this amendment because there was a principle involved. What is the principle?

Compensation.

For what?

For services.

I will take that. We have had on occasion to deal with Bills here under which, either directly or indirectly, men lost their employment. That was full-time employment. That employment was their livelihood. Without that employment they either became a burden on the rates or were compelled to seek ways and means of supporting themselves and their families elsewhere. During that employment they gave full-time service, often under very arduous conditions and for very low wages. They gave that service direct to the undertaking by which they were employed and their responsibility was to that undertaking.

Whom, in fact, do these directors represent? Whom do they serve? When the 1944 Act was passing through this House the case made on behalf of these present directors of Córas Iompair Éireann, was not that they would be directors serving the national interest and ensuring that we had efficient and effective transport from the point of view of the national interest; they were there to serve, protect and safeguard the interests of the private shareholders. That was the justification. I recall very vividly that when Deputy Lemass, who was then Minister in charge of the Bill, referred to the doubts in many of our minds as to whether or not his new system of transport would be effective, he stressed at great length the fact that these directors' shareholders would be sitting there with the direct responsibility, so far as the shareholders were concerned, of making the undertaking efficient and effective in order that dividends would be available for the private shareholders.

I am quite prepared to admit that there is a principle involved but it seems to me that we are going to the wrong pay office. If these directors — I do not want at the moment to go into the question as to whether or not they have satisfactorily performed their duties — have carried out their responsibilities and served the people they were appointed to serve, then it is to the shareholders of these two undertakings they should look for compensation. The shareholders of both undertakings have been dealt with very generously and they can well afford to pay compensation. That is my feeling in regard to this matter so far as principle is involved.

Let us now examine it from another aspect. Let us examine it from the point of view of loss of employment. I wonder could the Minister, or anybody else, tell us how many hours' service these directors gave to these undertakings in any month in any year. What were they paid for that service? Let us make a comparison then between their fees and the number of hours, not that they worked but during which they attended meetings of the directors, and relate that to the number of hours worked by the ordinary labourer on both the canal and rail system and the wages paid to that labourer for his work. It is all very well to talk about principle, but we invariably seem to apply the principle to those who least need protection while denying it to those who are in immediate and urgent need of it. Deputy Davin has pointed out that under previous Transport Acts thousands of men met with very grievous misfortune and there was very little principle applied to them and very little sympathy. Some of those on whose behalf our generosity and sympathy are requested to-day were not altogether unconnected with the manner in which many thousands of these ordinary labouring men were dealt with under that past legislation. I do not know what the views of the members of the Government are in this matter, but there are certain things upon which one has got to stand. I gathered from the Minister when he referred to this matter in an earlier debate that his view was that in this type of legislation there was a certain continuity of approach on the part of Governments, irrespective of their Party or political outlook and that with very considerable reluctance he was following that system of continuity and embodying this principle in the Bill so far as compensation to the directors is concerned.

I do not know whether I am correct in that; he is there to make his own explanations and is quite well able to make them, but that definitely was the impression I got. Certainly, I could not imagine, after the debate we have had in this House, that any feeling could exist amongst any large sections that there was a genuine and definite case to be made in support of this section of the Act other than the worn, threadbare and theoretical one of principle referred to by Deputies O'Higgins and Dockrell and indicated by the Minister in introducing this section in the earlier debate in this House. Whether there is a continuity of principle or not, so far as the drafting of these Bills is concerned, there is also the question of at least trying to be logical and consistent in our approach to the matter. I was twitted by Deputy Lemass at the end of the last debate for having appealed to the supporters of the Government to vote against the section and of having appealed to Fianna Fáil to support it. I am prepared to do the same thing again. Every time I find a person of Deputy Lemass' standing and political sagacity leaving himself wide open to that kind of approach, I am going to take advantage of it. Deputy Lemass, for long periods in this House, in the most eloquent and capable manner possible, quite frankly, with very little material at his disposal, made a case in defence of the management of Córas Iompair Éireann that, possibly, no other member of the House could have made. He rejected indignantly the various charges made against them and defended not merely the chairman, but also the board of directors. I then said, towards the conclusion of the debate on the Committee Stage, that if he believed in what he said during the course of the debate he should vote for the section. I do the same to-day, but the Deputy knows very well that this section is not popular and that, even with all his eloquence, he will find very considerable difficulty in justifying outside this House the payment of compensation to the gentlemen with whom we are dealing now. Even when he formulated the 1943 Transport Act he had not much faith in these directors. He took away from them every possible vestige of power. He made them merely the nominal representatives of the private shareholders and, so far as any question of the effective running of the concern arose, so far as there was any question of giving the nation an effective transport system in future, he placed his whole trust and dependence on the chairman in the new machinery he was building around him. So far as the directors were concerned he said to them: "You are to be nice boys, sit there and do what you are told." If they did what they were told, let them take the responsibility for what has happened; if they did not do what they were told, then we have still to hear it. They cannot have it both ways. If they were effective directors exercising authority and responsibility, then let them take the consequences for what has transpired, but if they were not in effective control and if they had no authority they could not do any effective work and therefore they are not entitled to compensation for loss of an office, the duties of which they never carried out.

The position is somewhat different in regard to the Grand Canal Company. Deputy Lehane has indicated that, in respect to the Grand Canal Company, he might be induced to take a different view from that which he has expressed in regard to the other directors. I hope he will not make any such distinction.

There have been many companies in this country with good and bad reputations but I know of only one group of employers in this country who repeatedly, time after time, have openly stated that they are not prepared to defend the condition under which their employees have had to work. That is the record of the Grand Canal Company. For more years than I care to remember, the men working that system have worked under conditions that any Christian country should have been ashamed to have revealed publicly. Men have had to work 24 hours for seven days a week. They have worked not only under the ordinary laborious conditions associated with an inland waterways system, but they have worked exposed to all the dangers of a canal boat travelling during the night with none of the ordinary safety devices which an up-to-date system would have provided. Many of these men have lost their lives and their bodies have not been found for days. Some of them have even been found smothered in the cabins of their vessels. They have all the responsibility of boatmen and they have also to work as dockers and stevedores, loading and unloading. When required they have to act as lock-keepers. They have also to work as skilled engineers, as captains in charge of a boat and again as members of the crew. For all these combinations of jobs, for the dangers they constantly incur and for the intolerably long hours they have to work, they get less wages than the average general labourer working in Dublin, paid to them by those for whom we are now asking compensation.

Within the last year a final opportunity was afforded to these directors, even in their last days of glory, of being generous in making some adequate provision for the men who carried on the system and made it possible for them to draw their dividends and directors' fees. A decision was given by the Labour Court in favour of an increase in wages and there was money available to meet the increase but these men had not the decency even in that last hour of saying: "Whatever may be our view of the future of the system, even if we were never to sit here again, at least we shall have the decency to show some appreciation of these men, many of whom have served us faithfully for 30 or 40 years; we shall give them this increase because it has been justified." Not even then had they the courage to take the responsibility. They had to go to the Minister and ask his permission whether they could carry out the decision of the Labour Court. The Minister told them that until this Bill became law they were still in charge of the canal company. The result was that, even in those last days of their work, they did not have that little touch of generosity and human feeling that makes the difference between a good and a bad employer. The men got their increase eventually but they lost three months of retrospective pay.

Perhaps the Minister would tell us who is actually the controlling shareholder in the Grand Canal Company? Is it correct that so far as effective control is concerned, it is vested in one man who has been a director of the company for many years and who, in addition, holds 18 or 19 other directorships in the City of Dublin? These are the practical aspects as opposed to theoretical questions of principle. Whatever may be the principle involved, when it comes to the question of Córas Iompair Éireann directors we have the definite and clear case that either these shareholders' directors exercised power in the full discharge of their responsibilities or on the other hand that they were mere figureheads, who are not entitled to compensation for something they never did.

With regard to the Grand Canal Company, so far as I am concerned if I have to walk alone into the division lobby, I will do so, because I am dealing here with the question of compensating directors whose attitude to their employees over the last quarter of a century has been that of people who were dealing with some kind of animals and not with human beings. The sooner those gentlemen learn the lesson that if they cannot run their industry on the basis of ordinary human conditions, the sooner it is taken over by those who have got some understanding of the problems of working men the better for this community as a whole. I feel that the directors of the Grand Canal Company have never missed their dividend. They have received each year in directors' fees more than any workman in the Grand Canal system was paid in wages for a full year's work. They have, in fact, received in fees, for probably two hours' work every fortnight, more than was paid for 24 hours' work on seven days a week and over 50 weeks in the year, to some of their workers. I think that the comparison I have made is a sufficient answer to this claim for compensation to the directors of the Grand Canal Company.

As I said in my opening, if there is a principle involved in this, then let those whom the directors directly represent — the shareholders — accept responsibility. They should be well able to do that because they — the shareholders — are being generously and adequately compensated under the provisions of the Bill. If they feel that the directors have discharged their responsibilities to them, then let them show their appreciation of that. I feel that so far as Córas Iompair Éireann is concerned the bill which is being presented through this House to the nation is sufficiently heavy already. So far as the Grand Canal Company is concerned, I think that the directors have been very well paid for their services over the last 50 years by the shareholders.

When a proposal similar to this was before the House some time ago I described it as a reprehensible one. That is my opinion still. If there was any question of principle involved I would certainly stand on principle. There is no question of principle involved so far as I can see, and there is no justification for the suggestion that these gentlemen should be paid a sum equivalent to a year's directors' fees because of the fact that they are going to lose certain fees when this Bill becomes an Act. We had in the railway service of Córas Iompair Éireann quite a number of old employees. They had given to the company of their best over the last 40 or more years. Now they are existing on a miserable pittance or a miserable pension. If there was a proposal to increase their pensions I certainly would support it. When I see a proposal like this coming out of the blue to pay over a few miserable thousand pounds to a few individuals who do not need it, I certainly am against that.

This House, by a free vote, rejected a proposal of this kind that was in the Bill. I think the Minister understood that that free vote was a decision of the House. I feel that when the matter was raised again in the Seanad he should have made it clear to Senators that if they insisted on inserting this amendment it would be rejected by this House. I do not think it serves any purpose to have this discussion again. Everything that could be said in favour of or against those directors has been said. It is not in their interest, I think, that there should be a repetition of the discussions we have had in regard to them. Their record has not been a very good one. It is not a record of efficiency or even of ordinary courage. It is not a record of common sense.

As Deputy Davin has said, some of those directors were just nominal shareholders of the banks, put into a position where they were entitled to receive substantial sums of money each year without giving anything in return. I think they have done very well over the years. The fact that we have to introduce this Transport Bill to establish a new board which is to try and make a success of transport, is an indication that those gentlemen, on whom responsibility rested for so long, did not do the job that they should have done. I indicated before my views in regard to one of the directors to whom it is proposed to pay a sum of money in compensation. There is no necessity for me to repeat what I said then. I did make it perfectly clear that I am opposed to this proposal, and that if it goes to a vote I will vote against it. I hope the House will have the courage to do what it did on a previous occasion, and that is to reject this proposal and so make it perfectly clear that no proposal of this kind is ever going to receive sanction or support from the members of this House.

Mr. de Valera

We have asked the Minister a question and I think the House is entitled to get an answer to it. What is the view of the Government on this question? Are the Government in favour of the amendment or are they not? We have not got an answer to that. The Minister brought in a Bill here with a certain section in it. I never saw, in my time anyhow, a measure brought into this House by a Minister which was supported so weakly, if I may put it that way, by the person introducing it as that particular section was. Then the Minister left it to a free vote. When it came to a free vote, lo and behold, the Minister who brought it in supported it, but many of his colleagues — I think they were in a majority — voted against it.

Now, there is something very, very important for the country involved in all this. We have, by our Constitution, imposed on the Government collective responsibility. That is done for very good reasons. It is done so that the House may get leadership, in regard to matters, by a group of people, who will themselves have thoroughly examined the questions at issue. Ordinarily, if a question of difficulty of this sort came up before a Cabinet composed of people who had any common outlook, they would examine this thing thoroughly. There might be certain individual differences, but they would finally come down on a decision on one side or the other or else the whole question would have to be shelved or, more likely, if the matter was of considerable public importance, it would be pushed to the point in which those who felt that it was an important matter of principle to them not to accept the majority view-point would resign and say: "We cannot share in the responsibility for that decision". That is done, as I have said, for a very good reason, because it means that in the Cabinet, where there can be the fullest and frankest discussion of every aspect of a question, the matter would be thoroughly sifted and then, as a group, as a team, as a body bearing collective responsibility, they would come to the House and give leadership in regard to the matter involved.

Here we have the spectacle of the Minister who is chiefly responsible for this measure coming to the House and telling the House they can vote as they please on it. If it is a matter of no consequence, why should we have to decide it? If it is a matter of consequence, why should the leadership that is expected from a Government not be given?

Is it a major matter?

Mr. de Valera

The point is that there are different views in various parts of the House with regard to it. The Government ought to sift the matter amongst themselves and, as I said, come here with their final view and indicate to those who might not have the opportunity of examining it as thoroughly as they, what the combined view of the Government is — their ultimate view.

Perhaps the Deputy will give us his own view on it.

Mr. de Valera

I would, quite willingly, if I had responsibility. That is just the trouble. The Deputies on the other side are trying to shift theirs. They are pretending to accept responsibility but they will not carry out the duties it puts upon them.

You should share yours.

Mr. de Valera

At any particular time there was no difficulty in our taking our view and we came to the House saying exactly what we mean and what we were doing.

Tell us about the revision of constituencies in 1937.

Mr. de Valera

Will the Deputy try to have some sense? It would be very difficult for him.

It is time you got it, too.

Mr. de Valera

The point is that when we were the Government we did decide these matters and when the thing was unpopular we took the unpopularity that was attached to it and, if there was credit attached to it, we took the credit of it.

What did you do in 1944?

Mr. de Valera

Whatever we did we were prepared to take the responsibility for it. The trouble is that we have people on the other side who will not take the responsibility for it. They are trying to shift the responsibility to this side. Nobody who was one year in politics would have any doubt as to the manoeuvres that are being tried. The whole thing is that they are looking for the vote on this side, which is practically equal to the vote on the other side, to decide the issues for them and we object to being made cats'-paws in that way.

As Deputy Lemass said, we are quite prepared to discuss this amendment and to argue it on its merits if the Government, on their side, will say they are either for or against it, but what we do object to is that two or three members of the Government take one view and the rest take another view when, according to the Constitution and according to everything that is right and proper for the administration here, they should take collective responsibility and have a collective view. They will not do it, of course. They want to have it both ways. When there is anything that is popular, they want to get all the popularity for it and when there is anything that is unpopular to be done, that they think is right, they have not the courage to say: "Yes, that is right. We will take responsibility for it and we will do it."

This is not the first time, of course, that this thing has been tried on here. We gave notice that we are not going to allow this thing to happen and that, if there are matters to be discussed here, the Government, in accordance with its constitutional duty, should give the leadership and say: "This is the Bill which we are introducing. These are the principles for which we stand and, if we change these as a result of arguments that may come before the House, then we will do it as a combined body and take collective responsibility for the change."

There is a great deal involved in this. Ministers, according to our practice, have charge of different Departments. Is each Minister in each particular Department to be allowed to run that Department without any consideration of the general policy? Is there to be no check on a Minister's conduct of his Department through the criticism of his colleagues? One of the reasons for collective responsibility is that at the Cabinet meetings, as there is collective responsiblity, each member of the Government feels that he has a right to be satisfied with the policy that is being carried out by the particular member of the Government who is in charge of a particular Department. You get effective criticism of administration in that way. If we are to give up the idea of collective responsibility, then, obviously, what will happen is that the individual Ministers will be allowed to conduct their own Departments without the informed criticism of their colleagues.

The matter is of tremendous importance for the welfare of the country and administration in general and, in order to do our utmost as a Party to insist on that principle being followed, we will not allow the Government to get out of their difficulties by our doing for them the work that they should do. We think it is of the utmost importance for the proper administration of public affairs that they should be made to bear the responsibility of the Government, which is combined and collective responsibility, and not be allowed to shift it on to the Opposition. It is in protest that Deputy Lemass said that we will not consider this amendment on its merits until the Government——

On a point of order. What has this to do with the merits of the amendment? Is not the Deputy off the rails altogether?

He is giving the House a lecture.

Mr. de Valera

A very relevant matter surely is the manner in which this amendment is coming before the House. Is this amendment coming before the House with the recommendation of the Government or is it not? When we were in office, there would never have been a suggestion that a Minister coming before the House with a measure did not represent the combined, collective Government view. I said that it is a matter that is very germane to this whole discussion as to how it is coming before the House, whether it is coming here with a Government recommendation or not. It comes here without it. It is left in the air. It is left to every one of us to make up our minds as we please about it, without any indication of what the people who are primarily responsible for the conduct of the country's affairs think about it.

The country does not want to pay those fellows.

Mr. de Valera

Let the Government take up that view. We are not telling them which view they should take, but what we do say is that they should discuss this matter, come to a decision, come before the Dáil with their decision and let the discussion take place, as it should take place in these cases, on a decision of the Government, as to whether we approve or do not approve of that decision. The present attitude will lead to chaos. The main purpose of this Dáil in electing and putting up a Government is to get a leadership for the House as a whole. We can disagree with that leadership; we can disagree even to the point of getting rid of it, but at least we have something concrete and definite to discuss when it has been thoroughly sifted by the body which is supposed to do the work having got all the information which it is possible to get and having looked ahead as far as they can to the various precedents that may or may not be established by a proposed line of action. We have not that here and, as Deputy Lemass said, as long as the Government fails to make up its mind and come and tell us, so long will we persist in our attitude and see that they will not get away with the trick they are trying to play on the House and on the country.

Deputy de Valera, in an interjection——

Is the Minister concluding the discussion?

Certainly. Deputy de Valera, in an interjection, said that the Party of which he is Leader would make up their minds as soon as the Government stopped playing politics.

As soon as the Government made up their minds.

Will the Deputy allow me to say what I have to say? That statement comes well from Deputy de Valera, the most astute politician inside or outside this House. The Deputy is so astute and he is so skilful a politician that he has spoken for the last ten minutes without any reference whatever to either of the two amendments or without giving any indication whether he is for or against them. The remarkable thing about the debate on these two amendments has been that every Deputy in this House who has spoken, with the exception of Deputy de Valera and Deputy Lemass, has indicated quite clearly whether he is for or against them.

What is the Government's view?

Let me assure Deputy Lemass and Deputy de Valera that they can shed their anxiety to get the Government out of trouble and out of difficulty. The Government is in no trouble or no difficulty about this matter, but Deputy Lemass and Deputy de Valera are apparently in very serious trouble and difficulty.

Have the Government a recommendation to make?

Deputy Lemass could never take it, and he cannot take it now.

Have the Government a recommendation?

Deputy Lemass is in difficulty; he has placed himself in difficulty, and he has placed Deputy de Valera and the Fianna Fáil Party in difficulty, because Deputy Lemass, as he has been reminded already, on the first day this matter came before the House came in here full-blooded in support of it. He spoke eloquently with great arrogance and assurance.

The Minister had better quote that because I have no recollection of it.

The Deputy has the most convenient memory of any Deputy in this House.

The Minister has the records to support his argument if it is correct.

Am I to be allowed to speak at all?

I have never any doubt when I am getting home on Deputy Lemass, because his reaction is always instantaneous. The Deputy was quite indignant at the bare thought that those men should not be recompensed and rewarded. The Deputy spoke for over an hour. Then the Adjournment came and there was a meeting of the Fianna Fáil Party on the following day and Deputy Lemass came in with that assurance which only he possesses and took a completely different line, the very opposite of what he took the day before, because in the meantime he discovered that he had embarrassed his Chief and his Party. They were in difficulty and he tried to extricate them from it.

Deputy de Valera — not for the first time — can simulate indignation when it suits as he did this afternoon. The Deputy is afraid that an assault is being made on the constitutional position. The Deputy is shocked that there should be a free vote. The Deputy is amazed that there should not be the most complete unanimity among Ministers.

"It never happened before in this House. The Minister should make up his mind. The Government should make up their mind as we always did," he said. It is easy to make up one's mind when there is only one mind. And it did happen before, as the Deputy was reminded. The last time it happened was only in the last year in which the Deputy was in office on the Revision of Constituencies Bill.

That is a different matter altogether, as the Minister knows.

There was no difference; it was a much more important matter.

It was a question of whether we would get Wexford or Mayo. There was only one anyway. The vote went for Wexford and you got Deputy O'Leary.

Deputy de Valera found himself in the difficulty that he had to make up his mind between Deputy Dr. Ryan and Deputy Boland.

Talk about facing up to responsibility. Here is the Leader of what we are reminded constantly is the biggest Party in this House, the man with the greatest sense of responsibility to this House and to the people outside and his Deputy Leader and neither one nor the other will indicate how he is going to vote or whether he will vote at all.

How is the Government going to vote? That is the question to which we are entitled to get an answer.

The Deputy will not get away with his cheap little political tricks here.

How is the Government going to vote?

The Deputy will find out when the division takes place.

Mr. de Valera

You know what happened last time.

Mr. de Valera

I think I did vote.

It would be interesting to hear what happened last time in the Fianna Fáil Party rooms.

I mean the Revision of Constituencies Bill.

The matter is being left before the House and the House is free to vote as it wishes. That is really what shocks Deputy de Valera and Deputy Lemass. That is something which they cannot understand because the only time they allowed a free vote of the House was when there was a sheer split in their own Party on the Revision of Constituencies Bill. There is nothing wrong in allowing Deputies on all sides of the House to vote as they wish on this. Will Deputy de Valera allow the members of his Party to vote as they wish on this? Has it been indicated that they can vote on this? Is there only one view on this in the Party opposite? How is it that the Fianna Fáil Party in the Seanad can have a view on this and express it clearly, but the Fianna Fáil Party in the Dáil can have no view? Or, if they have, they are not allowed to express it, or they are afraid to express it.

Mr. de Valera

We want the Minister to do that.

I will do that. The Deputy may shed any anxiety he may have about that.

Mr. de Valera

I am not thinking of the Minister; I am thinking of the country's affairs.

There is the whole trouble. Nobody thinks of the future of the country or of its affairs only Deputy de Valera. There is the old mentality again. Nobody can run this country only one man.

It looks like it, all right.

It has been demonstrated that it can be done not only as well, but far better, and by ordinary people.

There is not much in the amendment about that.

No, Sir, I quite agree. Perhaps the Chair will agree with me if I suggest that I am not further removed from the amendment than Deputy de Valera or Deputy Lemass.

Are you going to vote for it?

Certainly. I have already indicated that, and every member who spoke on this matter, with the exception of Deputy Lemass and Deputy de Valera, has indicated Whether he is going to vote for it or not, quite clearly and definitely and without ambiguity.

Does the Minister really want it carried?

If Deputy Lemass would only stop those cheap little cracks we can get at any street corner, his remarks might be taken much more seriously inside and outside the House. The Deputy is very glib, and apparently thinks he is a wit. He thinks he can put anybody here off a particular point by this sort of cheap little interjection. Let him make up his own mind as to what he is going to do.

I know what I am going to do. Does the Minister want this carried? Is not that a fair question?

Let the recommendation be put to the House. I have said I am going to vote for it.

Mr. de Valera

It is the Government attitude we want to know.

Question put.
The Committee divided: Tá, 18; Níl, 75.

  • Blowick, Joseph.
  • Cosgrave, Liam.
  • Costello, John A.
  • Crotty, Patrick J.
  • Dillon, James M.
  • Dockrell, Maurice E.
  • MacEoin, Seán.
  • McGilligan, Patrick.
  • McMenamin, Daniel.
  • Morrissey, Daniel.
  • Mulcahy, Richard.
  • O'Higgins, Michael J.
  • O'Higgins, Thomas F.
  • O'Higgins, Thomas F. (Jun.).
  • Redmond, Bridget M.
  • Rooney, Eamonn.
  • Sheldon, William A.W.
  • Sweetman, Gerard.

Níl

  • Aiken, Frank.
  • Bartley, Gerald.
  • Beegan, Patrick.
  • Beirne, John.
  • Blaney, Neal T.
  • Boland, Gerald.
  • Brady, Seán.
  • Breathnach, Cormac.
  • Brennan, Thomas.
  • Briscoe, Robert.
  • Browne, Patrick.
  • Burke, Patrick.
  • Butler, Bernard.
  • Byrne, Alfred Patrick.
  • Carter, Thomas.
  • Childers, Erskine H.
  • Colley, Harry.
  • Corish, Brendan.
  • Cowan, Peadar.
  • Davern, Michael J.
  • Davin, William.
  • Derrig, Thomas.
  • De Valera, Eamon.
  • Donnellan, Michael.
  • Doyle, Peadar S.
  • Dunne, Seán.
  • Everett, James.
  • Fagan, Charles.
  • Finucane, Patrick.
  • Flynn, Stephen.
  • Gilbride, Eugene.
  • Giles, Patrick.
  • Gorry, Patrick J.
  • Halliden, Patrick J.
  • Harris, Thomas
  • Hickey, James.
  • Hilliard, Michael.
  • Hughes, Joseph.
  • Keyes, Michael.
  • Killilea, Mark.
  • Kilroy, James.
  • Kinane, Patrick.
  • Kyne, Thomas A.
  • Larkin, James.
  • Lehane, Con.
  • Lemass, Seán F.
  • Little, Patrick J.
  • Lydon, Michael F.
  • Lynch, John.
  • MacBride, Seán.
  • MacEntee, Seán.
  • McFadden, Michael Og.
  • McQuillan, John.
  • Madden, David J.
  • Moylan, Seán.
  • Murphy, William J.
  • Norton, William.
  • O Briain, Donnchadh.
  • O'Grady, Seán.
  • O'Leary, John.
  • O'Reilly, Matthew.
  • Ormonde, John.
  • O'Rourke, Daniel.
  • O'Sullivan, Martin.
  • Palmer, Patrick W.
  • Pattison, James P.
  • Rice, Bridget M.
  • Roddy, Joseph.
  • Ryan, James.
  • Sheridan, Michael.
  • Smith, Patrick.
  • Spring, Daniel.
  • Traynor, Oscar.
  • Tully, John.
  • Walsh, Thomas.
Tellers:—Tá: Deputies Dockrell and T.F. O'Higgins (Junior); Níl: Deputies Kyne and McQuillan.
Motion declared lost.

I move that the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment No. 6:—

In page 41, before Section 67, a new section inserted as follows:—

(1) The board shall pay to each person who was immediately before the establishment date a director of Córas Iompair Éireann (1945) a sum equal to the fees received by him as director of Córas Iompair Éireann (1945) during the year 1949.

(2) This section does not apply to a director of Córas Iompair Éireann (1945) who becomes an original member of the board.

Is the Minister accepting the decision the House has come to?

If the House wants to have a further division on this amendment, I have no objection.

I take it the Minister is recommending this amendment to the House also?

If he is prepared to accept the indication given in the division that it is unlikely to be carried, it will presumably have to be negatived from the Chair in order to send it back to the Seanad. It will be obvious, however, to the Minister and to the Seanad that the vote taken here does not mean that the Dáil has taken a decision upon the merits of the question and on any occasion on which the Government are prepared to come to the Dáil with a firm recommendation on this issue, a decision can be taken on the merits.

What are we debating now? Do we want a decision on amendment No. 6 or is the Deputy opening up a new debate?

If the Minister pushes this amendment which he is recommending to the point of having a vote on it, we will vote against it for the same reason for which we voted against amendment No. 5, but our vote will have nothing to do with the merits of the question. If the Minister can come to the Dáil at any time with a clear recommendation from the Government, he can get a decision on the merits.

I thought the Deputy might have chosen another occasion for making his apologies and explanations.

I am making no apology and no explanation.

Question put and declared lost.

I suppose it is the first time a Government recommendation was defeated in the Dáil without a division.

I move that the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment No. 7:—

In Third Schedule, column (5), paragraph (2), page 47, "the period of three months ending on the 30th day of June, 1950" deleted, and "the month of June, 1950" substituted.

This is a drafting amendment.

Question put and agreed to.
The following Seanad amendments to the Seventh Schedule were also agreed to:—
8. In paragraph 1, page 52, lines 38 and 39 deleted, and "the expression ‘the stated period' means the period of five months ending on the 31st day of May, 1950;" substituted.
9. In paragraph 5, page 53, line 10, "July" substituted for "May" and "August" for "June".
10. In paragraph 6 (2), lines 22 and 24, page 53, the words "and returns" deleted.
11. In paragraph 6 (3), line 27, page 53, the words "and returns" deleted.
12. In paragraph 6 (3), page 53, line 28, "July" substituted for "May".
13. In paragraph 6 (5), lines 36 and 38, page 53, the words "or return" deleted.
14. In paragraph 8 (1), line 49, page 53, "1951" substituted for "1950".
15. In paragraph 8 (2), line 51, page 53, "1951" substituted for "1950".
Report of Committee that they had agreed to amendments Nos. 1 to 4, inclusive, and Nos. 7 to 15, inclusive, and rejected amendments Nos. 6 and 7, put and agreed to.
Ordered: That Seanad Éireann be notified accordingly.
Top
Share