Transport Bill, 1955—Second Stage.

Minister for Industry and Commerce (Mr. Norton)

I move that the Bill be now read a Second Time. The main purpose of the Bill is to enable the board of C.I.E. to raise the finance necessary for the rehabilitation of the railway system.

The railway system which the board inherited in 1950 had, through years of neglect, fallen into a general state of disrepair, much of the operating equipment being obsolete and ill-fitted to meet modern transport needs; no locomotives had been built since 1937 and no coaches since 1939; the number of wagons built had been far short of requirements and the permanent way had been neglected. In addition to these physical disabilities the board were faced with the ever-growing competition from road transport which threatened the very existence of the railways. The task before the board of rebuilding the railway system to meet modern requirements was indeed an unenviable one which required a high degree of enterprise, foresight and courage for its accomplishment.

The board applied themselves with vigour to the task before them. Having carefully surveyed the over-all position the board came to the conclusion that nothing less than a complete renewal of the rail operating equipment would save the undertaking from total collapse, and that the undertaking could only be put on an economic footing by an almost complete change-over from system to diesel traction. The wisdom of the board in plumping for diesel traction has perhaps been nowhere more clearly illustrated than in the recent decision of the British Transport Commission to change over to diesel traction in the very home of coal.

As a first step towards the rehabilitation of the undertaking the board prepared a programme of capital works in May, 1952, costing £2,500,000 which have already been largely carried out. Included in this programme were a number of diesel railcars which since their introduction have proved their worth both in their contribution towards the financial improvement of the board and in their appeal to the travelling public.

In 1953 the former Government approved of a ten-year dieselisation and reorganisation programme drawn up by the board, which involved an almost complete change-over to diesel traction, the renewal of a considerable proportion of the existing rolling-stock and the improvement of certain stations with a view to a more expeditious and economical handling of merchandise. The cost of this programme was estimated at £10,650,000. At the same time C.I.E. were authorised to proceed with the development of a suitable type of locomotive capable of burning either turf or oil. It was proposed that, when a suitable prototype had been developed, 50 of these locomotives should be constructed by C.I.E. at an estimated cost of £1,000,000. In addition to these capital programmes, expenditure of the order of about £250,000 per annum will arise on the provision of capital additions required for the normal development of the undertaking.

Under the Transport Act of 1950 the capital borrowing power of C.I.E. is at present limited to £7,000,000. A stock issue of £2,500,000 was made in 1953 to finance the programme of capital works drawn up in May, 1952. A further issue of stock for £4,500,000 to finance part of the dieselisation and reorganisation programme was made in April, 1955, thus exhausting the board's existing borrowing power. To enable the board to finance their capital development over the next three or four years it is proposed to increase their capital borrowing powers from £7,000,000 to £12,000,000 and provision is made to this effect in Section 2 of the Bill.

As Deputies are aware, the financial position of C.I.E. has already shown a considerable improvement due largely to the introduction of diesel rail cars to the system. The board expect as a result of the more complete change to diesel traction and the general reorganisation programme to be in a position within a few years to meet all revenue charges other than interest on transport stock. They hope to reach a position of complete solvency within a few further years.

In view of the improvement expected in the board's finances the payment of subsidy by the State, which had come to be regarded by many as an inevitable feature of our public transport system, has now been discontinued and it is proposed that any losses which the board might incur within the next few years should be met by short-term borrowing which may be guaranted as necessary by the Minister for Finance.

The existing statutory limit on temporary borrowing by the board is £1,000,000 and the amount which may be guaranteed by the Minister for Finance is limited to £500,000. Section 2 of the Bill provides that the board may borrow up to a maximum of £1,500,000 on a short-term basis and Section 3 provides that the Minister for Finance may guarantee such borrowing up to a limit of £1,000,000.

The prospect of a modern, efficient and self-supporting transport undertaking will be welcomed by all sections of the community. It will be particularly welcomed by the railway employees. Their position in the tottering organisation of C.I.E. in the past has not been an enviable one. Over a number of years the collapse of the railway system had been averted only by the substantial contributions of the taxpayers. The recurring deficits of the concern could only have meant for the railway worker growing insecurity and instability of employment. The reorganisation of the system should in time bring about that secure and stable employment which can only be provided by a self-supporting concern. The main economy to be secured from diesel traction is in fuel costs but there is also some reduction in staff requirements.

I have had discussions with representatives of both sides of the industry in this matter and I have made it clear that the redundancy involved should be kept to a minimum and that the problem should be approached with the utmost humanity. I have been assured by the board that everything possible will be done to minimise the problem and to provide redundant workers with alternative employment. The board expect that a number of redundant employees will be absorbed on the construction of the turf/oil locomotives and on the carriage and wagon programme which are part of the reorganisation scheme. I have every hope that between new work and normal wastage most of the redundant men can be absorbed. This would be conditional however, on the men accepting the alternative employment provided by the board which in some cases may involve a complete change of duties.

Some cases may arise where the board are unable to offer any alternative employment to a redundant employee or where the conditions of the alternative employment are worse than those ordinarily attaching to that kind of employment. Section 4 of the Bill provides for the payment of compensation in such cases to permanent employees or to any employees with three years' continuous service with the board.

On the 30th November, 1949, the Dáil authorised the payment to C.I.E. (1945) of a repayable advance for capital expenditure amounting to £2,462,369. In view of the financial difficulties which the present board have been obliged to meet since their establishment in 1950 there has been no repayment of principal or payment of interest on this advance. While the efforts of the board have resulted in a substantial improvement in the financial position of the undertaking there seems to be little prospect that they will be in a position to discharge this liability in the foreseeable future. The Government have decided that in order to assist the board in their efforts to achieve solvency they should now be relieved of this burden of debt. Section 5 of the Bill provides that the advance in question should now be treated as a non-repayable grant.

The provisions of Sections 6 to 8 of the Bill are of minor importance. They are designed to remove some legal difficulties and anomalies which have emerged in the course of the operation of the existing legislation governing the abandonment of railway lines on which all services have been terminated. I do not propose to deal with them in detail now but if there are any matters which Deputies may wish to raise in regard to these sections they can be discussed on the Committee Stage of the Bill.

In recommending this Bill to the House I am sure that every Deputy will wish to facilitate the recovery now being made by our national transport system. As I have said the primary function of the Bill is to enable C.I.E. to proceed with their capital programme which, I am confident, will lead to an efficient self-supporting public transport system so vital to our agricultural, industrial, commercial and tourist needs.

Mr. Lemass

This Bill is identical, in all respects except one, with the draft Bill which was available in the Department before I ceased to be Minister for Industry and Commerce. That one point of difference is, however, of very great importance. The draft Bill which I prepared provided for raising the amount of money that might be borrowed by the Board for capital purposes to £15,000,000. This Bill raises it only to £12,000,000. Unless there has been some very substantial alteration in the board's capital development programme, £12,000,000 total on capital borrowings does not provide enough and the board will require further legislation to raise the limit to £15,000,000 or to something a little short of £15,000,000 before that programme can be completed. From the figures that were used by the Minister it did not seem that there has been any change in the board's capital needs or in the dimensions of the programme upon which it has embarked. If there has been any substantial change, I think the nature of the change should be specifically pointed out.

Mr. Norton

There is no change in principle. The object is merely to come back to the House with the idea of giving the House a chance of reviewing this matter when the £12,000,000 is exhausted.

Mr. Lemass

That is not a very convincing reason, because the difference between the amount fixed and the amount required to finance the full capital programme is comparatively small and I cannot see any sense in putting the board in that position— that they cannot plan with the knowledge that the capital necessary will be available to them as they require it.

The full cost of the programme which was prepared by the board and approved by the Government of which I was a member and apparently approved by the present Government involved the board in new outlay amounting to £11,650,000 assuming they got in about £500,000 in respect of the resale scrap value of their obsolete stock. Over and above that, I understood the Minister to say that the board would require during the next year or two about £250,000 to meet normal capital expenditure not associated with this programme at all. Upon that basis the limit of the board's requirements would be about £14,300,000, and eventually if the board carries through that programme in full the limit will have to be raised to something around that figure. I proposed to fix the limit at £15,000,000. I think it is not unlikely that during the next two or three years when this programme is being put into effect costs may rise and the board may find that its estimates for some of these expenditures—prepared as they were in 1953— are on the low side. Indeed, some of them are little more than intelligent guesses at the present time. The board has placed the order for the diesel electric locomotives and the cost of these locomotives is now known. I cannot say from memory whether the contract with Metropolitan Vickers contains any price variation clause. If it does, and if the supplier is entitled to increase the price if the costs of steel or labour—which are the usual variants in English contracts of this kind—increase, then it is almost certain, knowing as we do, that labour and materials costs in Britain are rising, that the board will have to pay more than the £4,750,000 which was specified when the contract was signed.

The estimate that the 50 locomotives designed to burn either turf or oil will cost £1,000,000 is little more than, as I said, an intelligent guess. The board's works engineers were asked to give a figure which would roughly indicate what one of these locomotives would cost to manufacture. In fact, I do not think the final protoype has been approved yet and consequently they could have submitted to the board nothing in the nature of a firm estimate of the cost. I think that is very largely true also in respect of the work that is to be done on the provision of new carriages and wagons. Their estimate for that was £5,500,000 and that expenditure is to be spread over five years. Costs are likely to vary considerably during that period. Again, the board's staff in the Inchicore works and other places where these vehicles are built gave what was, no doubt, a very intelligent and reasonable figure but I am quite certain they would not regard themselves as bound to it and under obligation to do the work within that limit.

I can see no sense, therefore, in changing this Bill for the purpose of reducing by £3,000,000 the limit placed upon the board's capital borrowings. If the board is to be told that the programme is approved it should have the evidence of that approval by the enactment of legislation by the Dáil providing ample capital resources to carry it through.

There are a few other points in connection with the programme to which I think the Minister should make reference. When the decision to change over to diesel electric traction was taken and approved by the Government of the day we were naturally concerned about the intended departure from the practice in which the locomotives used by C.I.E. were completely constructed in their own workshops. It is true that the great majority of the locomotives in use were very old, and, indeed, the steam locomotive must now be considered an obsolete engine. but the change is likely to have consequences which we should try to minimise. An examination was made as to the possibility of doing any substantial degree of manufacture on diesel electric locomotives and it was decided that that, generally speaking was not practicable. But we did decide that the replacement parts for these diesel electric locomotives should be manufactured by C.I.E. and C.I.E. was instructed to plan its general operations on the basis of manufacturing in its own workshops replacement parts for these locomotives; and the contract with Metropolitan Vickers, Limited, obliges them to provide the board with complete working drawings and all similar facilities to enable them to do that manufacturing. I think it would be a reassurance to the workers employed in the board's works if they are told that that is still the intention and that whatever case may be made for the initial purchase of new equipment abroad, the aim is to continue to operate the policy of manufacturing, as far as is technically possible, all the parts required for its operation.

They had included in the original programme—apart from the diesel electric locomotives to be supplied by Metropolitan Vickers—provision for 19 diesel hydraulic locomotives to be supplied, I believe, by a firm in Germany, and in relation to these 19 diesel hydraulic locomotives the decision was that only the engines and transmissions were to be imported and the locomotives were to be built in Inchicore. Again, I would like to have an assurance from the Minister that that intention is unchanged.

It would be useful, I think, at this stage if he told us what precisely is the position regarding the 50 turf-oil locomotives, these locomotives which are to be designed to burn oil and to be operated on oil during normal times but which are capable of being operated on turf fuel in times of emergency when oil supplies might not be available to us. The board has spent a long time experimenting on a suitable design for that locomotive. They did, I think, get a locomotive built which appeared to operate satisfactorily but then, so far as I know, certain changes in design were decided upon.

Admittedly, £1,000,000 is a substantial sum to lay out on what is really an insurance scheme, but it is not too much when one recollects the immense difficulties with which we were faced in this country during the last war when rail transport had to be very sharply curtailed because of inability to get adequate supplies of imported fuel. It was not possible then to operate the railways upon any fuel available from home sources. With the main part of the railway system operating by diesel electric traction we will be completely dependent on the import of diesel oil for it and it is essential that we should have available some locomotives capable of operating upon fuel derived from internal sources. Fifty such locomotives are a small number but the practicability of so designing locomotives that they can be economically operated continuously on oil, when there is no difficulty in importing oil, makes that outlay justifiable because it is not merely a matter of building 50 locomotives and putting them into cotton wool against a possible emergency; it is a matter of building 50 locomotives which will be in daily use, like all the other locomotives of the board, but which will be capable of being adapted for use with turf should any situation arise outside the country which would interrupt, whether for a short or a long period, the importation of fuel oil.

I never felt that the board's engineers were putting the drive into the development of that type of locomotive which they would have done if the prospect of another international emergency was closer at hand; and, with the improvement in international conditions, any drive there was seemed to diminish. But I am quite certain they should, by this, have produced a suitable prototype and should now be in a position to plan steady production of these locomotives.

Again, that prospect of substantial activity in the board's works on the manufacture of these locomotives, involving, as it probably does, the full utilisation of its capacity to produce locomotives for some years to come, will be an assurance to the skilled workers which the board employs in that activity. The need for substantial capital outlay upon new carriages and wagons is, I think, obvious. The programme involves replacing one-half of the existing carriages and 25 per cent. of the existing wagons. A high proportion of the wagons and carriages are completely obsolete and are extraordinarily expensive to maintain. The production of new carriages and wagons through that capital expenditure will substantially reduce operating costs and similar economies, I understand, are likely to be derived from the improvements contemplated through capital expenditure on the goods depots at Dublin, Cork, Limerick, Sligo, Ballina and perhaps some other centres.

As the Minister indicated in his speech one of the most important matters that arises in connection with this Bill is the effect of these developments upon the board's employees and, in particular, on the issue as to how any resulting redundancy will be dealt with. Of the annual saving to the board of something over £1,500,000, which it is assumed will come from this capital expenditure, £1,000,000 will, as the Minister said, represent a saving in fuel costs, and that is a real saving in every sense of the term, and the other £500,000 will result from the reduced expenditure upon maintenance activities—that is, the maintenance of rolling stock.

There is some suggestion that the reduced expenditure on maintenance is attributable to the purchase of diesel electric locomotives. That is completely wrong. If the board purchased an equivalent number of new steam locomotives there would be a similar saving upon maintenance. The saving arises from the fact that the board will have new equipment instead of old, obsolete and defective equipment. Apart from a saving on maintenance and the possible effect of that saving upon employment in the board's works there is the fact that diesel electric locomotives require fewer workers in their operation. The board estimated that some 40 per cent. of its employees in the operative grades would, in course of time, become redundant under this programme and about 20 per cent. of the employees in its workshops. Now that is a substantial number of people to have classified as redundant, but the problem is not nearly as serious as those figures would suggest because the normal wastage from the board's employment, the number of people who leave the board's employment for one reason or another during the year, averages about 600 so that in a couple of years normal wastage alone would take care of that redundancy problem provided there was free transferability of employees within the board's system.

The difficulty arising from these changes is not attributable to the fact that the total number of the employees of the board will be reduced. That is not a problem at all because normal wastage will take care of that and nobody will have to be disemployed for that reason. The difficulty arises from the fact that there are so many sections of workers in the board's service and a number of different trade unions catering for them, all of which have little restrictions of their own upon the admission of new members or the transferability of members from one type of employment to another. I was interested to hear that the Minister has had discussions with the unions representing these workers because it seems to me that their co-operation will be required if this redundancy problem is to be handled without any hardship.

Under the system of employment and under the agreements made by the board with the trade unions in respect of different classes of their employees, it is the practice to deal with redundancy on the basis of "last in, first out", and that means that if any number of workers are regarded as redundant it is the newcomers who are so classified; that is to say, the younger men. It seems to me that in the case of the younger men, those who have most recently entered the board's service, it is far preferable to offer them employment of any kind within the board's service rather than offer them a system of compensation by way of small pension. If the problem of redundancy had to be dealt with by pensioning off some of the board's staff, it is clearly those at the other end of the scale, those who are near the retirement age, who should be kept in mind. But the agreements to which I have referred preclude that. It is the younger men, the last in, who have to be dealt with. I imagine they themselves and those responsible for policy in that regard would agree that the better system is to offer alternative employment. The Bill provides that the board is obliged to offer alternative employment to any person who becomes redundant within the meaning of the term as used in the Bill and is not obliged to pay compensation unless the conditions of the new employment offered are worse than those ordinarily attaching to such employment.

That is the provision which I contemplated making and I think the Minister was wise in proposing a similar section here. It may be that some problems will have to be solved there. The complexity of the trade union situation is very considerable. If the Minister met the trade union representatives catering for the C.I.E. staffs he had a mass meeting, as I think I said once before here, because there are more than 30 unions involved and it is not always easy to get complete agreement on a scheme when so many people have to concur. But I would certainly urge on everybody concerned, the board, the trade unions and all those who can influence the course of events in this regard that it is far better to take these younger men and new entrants who would normally be dispensed with if redundancy had to be met in that way and to give them alternative employment and that for the time being any practices, regulations or restrictions affecting employment in the company's organisation should be modified so that the problem can be met in that way.

The Minister in his remarks rather suggested that even with all that being done, even with complete co-operation and goodwill in securing for those who are redundant in any part of the company's services new employment in some other part, some redundancy would still be left. I was rather surprised to hear that because when I discussed the matter with the representatives of the board in 1953 their advice to me was that provided they were able to handle the problem of redundancy by offering employment in other sections of the board's organisation, there would be no redundancy at all and no cost had to be taken into account in respect of compensation under that heading.

There was also a proposal which had a bearing upon this question being entertained by the board at that time to undertake the manufacture at Inchicore of equipment which was at that time being imported by other State bodies. The board contended that if they could get the business of manufacturing that equipment it would absorb a very substantial proportion of the redundant maintenance workers. I did not anticipate that there would be any difficulty in making arrangements to have that done provided the board were able to demonstrate their capacity to undertake the manufacture of that equipment efficiently at Inchicore.

As the Minister said, the other sections of the Bill are not very important. They deal only with certain modifications of existing law required to enable the board to abandon completely the railway lines on which they have ceased to operate services. I think certain defects in the law has shown up from experience in that regard. As I said, the Bill is in all respects similar to that which I had been prepared to introduce myself except in that one respect, the limit on capital advances, and that is a matter at which I think the Minister should have another look. I feel quite certain that there is wisdom in telling the board through the legislation that the capital reorganisation scheme has been approved in full and that the Dáil has given the authority to go ahead and raise the full amount of capital required for that purpose.

I think I would be merely expressing a view on which there would be general agreement when I say that I hope the day has come when this question of public transport can no longer be considered as a political question, a matter subject to political controversy. There is no doubt that, from the point of view of the travelling public of this country, the railways of the country have been falling into a state of very sad disrepair, and I think that, by and large, the travelling public and the business and commercial sections of the community who require rail transport will welcome the effort of any Minister for Industry and Commerce who co-operates with the board of C.I.E. in endeavouring to remedy that position. All of us will join with the Minister in saying that we hope the day is not too far away when we will have an up-to-date, modern and adequate railway system in the country.

Mr. J. Flynn

I appreciate the efforts being made by the Minister in this matter, but I should like to refer to his statement about the danger of redundancy. I submit that he is rather optimistic in his statement that no redundancy, or very little redundancy, will take place. So far as I can learn from C.I.E. workers in my constituency the approach of the board to this question is not very sympathetic. I may put it that way. Take the case of firemen and cleaners and such men who have been engaged in that class of work for a number of years. When this adjustment takes place and if the board decides to offer a certain type of work to a man who has been trained and who has given service in a special category, he will be totally unfitted for that work and the result will be displacement or unemployment. That is the point which has been put by the C.I.E. workers' union to the board and, so far as I can learn, the board are not very favourable. Their approach, to use the words of the chairman in reply to some of these representations, is: "Any type of alternative employment." That is the problem to which I should like to refer the Minister who I know will be sympathetic, and, as a trade unionist himself, will see that these men get justice.

That is why I referred to this matter at all. Because there is a danger that the board, in their zeal to bring forward some great development or very modern scheme, may do so to the disadvantage of these workers who will then have no alternative but to emigrate. They are in a special category as I have stated. It should not be the attitude of the board to say: "Take it or leave it, we have nothing else to offer to you." I hope the Minister will see to it that there will be no danger of these men being treated improperly and that he will use his best endeavour to intimate to the board that the Government will not stand for such treatment.

Mr. Coburn

We all realise that in these modern up-to-date times there must be modernisation and it is only natural that the railway industry should come into line in that respect. However, there is a great danger, I am afraid, that the progress that will be made as a result of the dieselisation of the railway industry may be offset by redundancy. If that should happen it would be a very retrograde step. In that respect I am glad to know that the Minister has given an assurance that, as far as he possibly can do it, there will be as little redundancy as possible. The danger is there, never-the less, and I trust that when there is any actual danger the Minister will have conferences between the C.I.E. officials and the trade union officials so that they may arrive at amicable and mutually acceptable decisions.

With regard to compensation to redundant workmen, I would suggest that the figure would have to be very big indeed to be effective. We can recall, some time ago, at Greenore, County Louth, when some of the employees of the L.M.S., which was run by the Great Northern, were disemployed, they were compensated to some extent but they still had to emigrate. The amount of compensation was not sufficient. We could not offer them a sufficient amount to keep them for the remainder of their lives and we would then have a greater evil still in adding to the annual rate of emigration.

With regard to the possible effect of the dieselisation programme in Inchicore and Dundalk, I would imagine that if there was an effort made to set up a heavy industry it would, in some way, offset the redundancy in these railway workshops. You would not need much extra machinery to engage in such heavy industry because the plant would be available. I think that is a point well worth considering.

This Bill refers to C.I.E., but I do not think it would be amiss if I could get from the Minister an assurance that this threat of redundancy will not be applicable in any great degree to the Dundalk workshops of the G.N.R.

Mr. Norton

We have had more railway boards than parliaments in this country; there have been fewer Governments in this country than railway boards and nobody ought to know that better than Deputy Lemass.

Another point made against the proposal is that the whole purpose of dieselisation is to give the railways a sound railway engine, a piece of mechanical equipment which is recognised internationally for its sturdiness and durability. The replacement of parts is not something likely to occur with rapidity. The view of the makers, and the view now expressed by C.I.E. is that they hope they will rarely need parts and that such parts would not be needed in such volume or as frequently as would necessitate the setting up of a replacement section for diesel parts.

I notice that Deputy Lemass used one phrase in the course of his discourse: "As far as it was technically possible, C.I.E. should be asked to do so and so." I take it that the Deputy also takes the view that such developments should be looked at realistically; that he would agree that if, say, the making of parts would involve too abnormal an expenditure, or that you could buy quicker and cheaper elsewhere the necessary parts, C.I.E. should not be asked to commit themselves to uneconomic expenditure of this kind. On the general question of C.I.E. I have suggested to them that their works at Inchicore are equipped for the making of parts not only for themselves but for other State-sponsored bodies which, at the moment, have to import these parts. I have asked them especially to go after these State-sponsored bodies and see if they could arrange with these bodies who require such goods which they now import to have these goods manufactured by C.I.E. for them. In that way we are hoping to retain within the country manufacturing capacity which is at present going on outside the country. I know C.I.E. have discussed this question with some of these bodies and I hope further discussions will enable them to carry on this work of manufacture in their workshop at Inchicore.

I suggested to C.I.E. that in present circumstances in Great Britain, where the railway company has decided to embark upon a dieselisation and railway reorganisation proposal costing £1,200,000,000, C.I.E. might see whether, in the circumstances operating in Great Britain, and in view of possible redundancies here, they could not get some of that work here in order to keep our people in employment and in order to add to C.I.E. finances to some extent. I know that matter is under consideration by C.I.E. with a view to ascertaining what they can get in that field. On the question of locomotives capable of burning oil and turf, I have been pressing C.I.E. to get on with that work and to complete it as soon as possible In fact, with a view to ensuring that the board was in no doubt as to my desire to have this matter brought to finality with the minimum delay, I have asked the board to let me have a monthly report on the progress that is being made in the construction of the locomotives, and I think I must offer that as evidence to Deputy Lemass that in this matter I have been alert in trying to impress on the board the desirability of completing the programme which was assigned to them in that field with the minimum delay.

The only other question raised I think was the question of redundancy. This is a problem which at first looked as if it would provide some very acute difficulties, but I think the problem is less serious now. I saw the railway trade unions and I saw the railway company and I told them that this problem of redundancy on the railway, particularly if it was likely to be a problem which was widespread, would cause me quite considerable concern, and that I was most anxious that it should be dealt with in a way which would indicate complete understanding of the human needs of the people whose future and whose destiny we were dealing with. I told C.I.E. that I thought in the first instance they should put all their cards on the table and tell the railway trade unions what the extent of the problem was, and having done that, they should invite the co-operation of the trade unions in finding a solution. These discussions took place and I urged the unions to co-operate with the company so as to make a genuine contribution to the solution of the difficulty which would mean for the company smooth and efficient operation and for the trade unions and their members that their economic security had been safeguarded.

I went further and I suggested that when the broad problem had been discussed by the unions and the company, a small committee should be set up to deal with redundancy problems as they arose from time to time. I urged that C.I.E., while giving the unions information as to the full extent of the problem to be dealt with, should themselves so arrange matters that the whole problem of redundancy would be dealt with in a progressive way and that nobody was to be brought up against a crisis of large-scale dismissals or anything of that nature. I told C.I.E.: "You have to filter out this problem in small doses and let C.I.E. see what contribution they can make to finding a solution." I said it would be a disastrous failure from the point of view of the company's working, and horrifying in its consequences on the workers if we were faced with any announcement of large-scale dismissals due to redundancy on the C.I.E. system.

I think these discussions have gone well, or at least have gone as well as one would expect, having regard to the problems to be dealt with, and I hope that the company can so arrange matters that by wastage of staff it would be possible to avoid any redundancy whatever. I do not think it will be possible to keep all the people in the jobs which they have at present. It will probably be necessary to move a man from one job to another, but if that movement takes place the man will not suffer financially if we provide him with alternative employment of a character which will give him his wages. I think we are meeting the problem in as broad and humane a way as possible. I cannot accept Deputy Flynn's view of the problem at all—that you must keep a man in a particular job and if he is moved out of that job he has to emigrate. I think that is a horrible libel on the utility and versatility of Irish railway workers. I can see no difficulty in a man leaving one job and taking up another job. From his own point of view he might even have a better outlook and a better outlet, but to suggest that a man moved out of a particular job would have to emigrate to a country where very probably he would not get the same job as he left, and where, in any case, he would have to take up another job, is not a realistic approach at all.

I am not insensible to the fact that the trade unions may be a bit difficult on this issue of a man being removed from one job to another, but I would say to them that this is an issue in which a sense of protocol should not be allowed to obscure the facts and that no sense of punctilio should prevent the unions and C.I.E. from getting down to finding a sensible solution. I think if we can guarantee men alternative jobs at wages appropriate to these jobs—and I would hope at wages that would be not less than the wages in the jobs they left—we would make a significant contribution to solving redundancy. I should hate to see an able-bodied man rendered redundant and sent out with a relatively small pension either to rot on that or try to find employment elsewhere in this country or outside it, when the solution of this difficulty could have been found by the man taking another job in the company in which he had so many years' service.

My aim will be to avoid redundancy entirely. I have done, and I shall continue to do, my best with the company to ensure that the problem is dealt with in the most sympathetic way possible. If the unions make a contribution by a sensible approach to the problem on the lines I have indicated I hope it will be possible to avoid any redundancy and the dismissal of any person, certainly dismissal through redundancy of any person who is a permanent employee of the company. It may be necessary, as Deputy Lemass said—and I have mentioned this already to the board—that in order to avoid redundancy we should deal with the problem at the top, because of the beneficial reactions of tackling the problem at that end when a solution might not be available at the other end. It might be desirable if you had a grade where you could tempt men—I say tempt, not drive or force them—to go out on pension when they were near the retiring age by giving them certain pensions earlier or giving them a higher rate if they went out at that time, to try to find a solution for redundancy in that way.

These are matters which I have no doubt will occur to the versatile minds of the management and the similarly-constructed minds of union officials who will be negotiating with the company on these matters, and I must leave it to them to tease out the problem and endeavour to find a solution.

In conclusion, I want to say to the House that I am glad to have the support which has been expressed for the desire that this problem of redundancy should be dealt with in a very human way. In any subsequent discussions which I have with C.I.E. in this respect I shall make it clear to them that the views which I have expressed and which I still hold are not merely my own views but the views expressed in this House in discussing this problem.

Committee Stage ordered for Wednesday, 16th November.

Dáil Éireann debate - Wednesday, 9 Nov 1955