Skip to main content
Normal View

Seanad Éireann debate -
Thursday, 13 Jan 1944

Vol. 28 No. 7

Dublin United Transport Company—Government Action (Motion).

Leas-Chathaoirleach

Before the debate opens, I feel that I should say that it appears to me that the terms of the motion in the names of Senators Mulcahy and Crosbie limit the debate to a certain extent. Three matters are referred to in the terms of the motion. These seem to me to be—failure to make any previous statement of Government policy or intentions; the pressure which, it is alleged, has been exerted on the owners of a public company and the request to the Government to make a statement on the whole matter and to provide an opportunity for its discussion in the Oireachtas. I take it that any full discussion of Government policy in regard to transport can only come after the Government has acceded to the terms of this motion and discussion must now be confined to the points that arise on the motion.

I move the motion standing in my name and that of Senator Crosbie:—

That the Seanad desires to express its disapproval of the fact that during a Parliamentary Recess and without any previous statement of Government policy or intentions, and without any possibility of Parliamentary discussion of the facts, pressure should be exerted under threat of Parliamentary action on the owners of a public company to constrain them to take action vitally affecting the interests of the company; and calls upon the Government to cause to be withdrawn the pressure which is being exerted on the shareholders of the Dublin United Transport Company to take certain important decisions on the 25th January and requests the Government to make a statement on the whole matter and to provide an opportunity for its discussion in the Oireachtas.

I quite agree with the ruling you have given with regard to the scope of the debate. It is not, and was not, my intention to discuss in any way the future of transport. The terms of my motion imply that we have not the facts on which we could at present usefully base a discussion on that matter. My reason for putting down this motion is that a meeting of the shareholders of the Dublin United Transport Company has been called for 3 o'clock on Tuesday, 25th January, at the Gresham Hotel and they are to be asked by the directors of the company at that meeting to take a decision which will affect the future of the company. They are to be asked to do that voluntarily, under threat from the Minister that if they do not voluntarily agree to surrender their interest in the company, to be merged in a general transport company to be formed some time in the future, a proposal to acquire their interest compulsorily will be embodied in legislation and the terms hammered out, we do not know how, between the directors and the Minister may not be embodied in it. If, whether under fear of the future or for any other reason, the shareholders, at their meeting on the 25th, surrender by their voluntary vote to the proposal of the directors and the threat of the Minister, a certain number of vital interests will be prejudicially affected.

The first injury will be done to our Parliamentary institutions. Everybody in the Seanad is sufficiently close to the history of the setting up of our Parliamentary institutions to realise that they were set up as democratic institutions where Irish men and Irish women would come together, face the facts of Irish life and, after full and complete discussion, take decisions which would become law. Senators are sufficiently close to the history of the time to realise that the reason we wanted Parliamentary institutions of that kind was to serve the interest of the ordinary people, so that, in so far as the country was able to provide goods and services, in an atmosphere of democratic freedom, everybody would have the goods and services that could best be procured for them. When, without any previous reference of any kind to the proposal which is now made, Parliament finds itself used as a threat by the Minister to get the owners of a public company to surrender certain rights, it is—if it is allowed to go through—a blow to Parliamentary institutions and to democratic practice. If that is so, it is introducing a note and a type of action into political life which cannot be for the good of the people because it is a blow to informed discussion of the vital interests of the country.

The second injury will be that done to the ordinary travelling public of the City of Dublin. It will be an injury to those for whom the company has particularly catered—those who have to use the public transport of the city to get to and from their work. In that respect, it is a blow to the economic and social well-being of the greater number of the workers of the city. It is a blow, I believe, to all the citizens of Dublin, through the Dublin Corporation, because, under statutes of 1870 and 1897, Dublin Corporation has power to acquire the Dublin United Tramways Company within a certain number of years. They could have acquired it in 1938 but, in 1927, Dublin Corporation agreed to extend the statutory period up to 1966. If the Dublin Corporation of 1927 could have foreseen that the passenger transport service of the city was likely to be taken over in this particular way and thrown into the general pool of railway transport, they would not, in my opinion, have extended the period during which the Dublin United Tramways Company could have continued as a public company. Dublin Corporation is entitled to acquire, under the terms of these Acts, the Dublin United Transport Company by the end of 1966. If the shareholders now dispose of the company in the manner in which they are being asked to dispose of it and, as a result of their action, it is merged in the general transport system of the country, then Dublin citizens, through their corporation, will suffer a blow.

The fourth interest going to be injured is general public confidence, which is the mainspring of enterprise in the carrying on of public business. There has been sufficient comment already on behalf of the shareholders, indicating that they are not going to get as fair a "do" in the proposals made here as, say, those who owned the bus companies that the Dublin Transport Company had to buy up in the last few years. These are the four different types of interest, both private and public, that are being injured by the action taken by the Minister during a Parliamentary recess, and by which the owners of the company are forced under a kind of threat to take a decision which may afterwards be irrevocable. The terms of the letter are available, and, in order to save time, I do not propose to read them, but I say that there is no preliminary notice at all. The last important speech which the Minister made on the question of transport and transport legislation was before the last general election, and was reported in the newspapers of June 17th, 1943. He made a speech at Inchicore. This is the report of it:—

"The framing of legislation dealing with reorganisation of railway capital and administration has been begun, it was announced by Mr. Seán Lemass, Minister for Industry and Commerce, speaking at Inchicore, Dublin. If the Government is re-elected it is expected that the general framework of the measure will be completed at an early date, and the drafting of the necessary Bill put in hands.

Mr. Lemass said that it is the Government's belief that the railways can be so reorganised and developed that they can, properly managed and co-ordinated with the necessary road supplementary services, provide long distance transport for goods and passengers, better, faster and cheaper than road transport can provide, if all the appropriate costs are charged against road services."

The speech was directed to the railways and dealt with long distance transport of goods and passengers. The report that appeared in the Irish Press of June 17th says the Minister made it clear that it was a hard job to do what he had in mind, that the capital he required could not be got from private sources, that the vast reorganisation and equipment contemplated would take some years to complete, and that it could not be begun until supplies again became available from abroad. He promised more traffic and more security to the railways and stated that the central point of Fianna Fáil policy was the railways' essentiality to the country's economic development, and that the measures taken to try to improve the position of the railways had not been operated by the managements with the vigour and resource sufficient to establish the system on a healthy paying basis, that he had endeavoured to remove competition from the railways in order to see whether the new transport system could then pay, but it had not succeeded. He continued:—

"Fianna Fáil tried to reorganise the railways by restricting competition. It did not prove sufficient. It is now necessary to put the railways in a position to beat competition."

I do not know what the Minister intended when he asked the electorate, to whom he was appealing on the eve of the general election, to take it from him that he was preparing railway legislation and that he was now going to see that the railways were going to have to face competition. I do not know what he intended by that. That was the last public speech the Minister made indicating what his outlook on transport legislation was. I submit that there is not the slightest indication there, either to the citizens of Dublin or to anybody else, that he was going to take a specialised passenger service and bring it into the general transport question. The proposals before the country with regard to general railway reorganisation, as indicated before the suggestion with regard to the Dublin Transport Company, are of a kind that nobody can know yet what kind of situation they are intended to bring about. The proposals published in October, 1943, are in themselves proposals of a kind as unexpected in their magnitude as the suggestion that the Dublin Transport Company should now be merged with the railways. There was an examination into the question of public transport. A report was published after the Tribunal on Public Transport went into the question in 1939.

With regard to this motion, are we to be allowed to range over the whole of railway policy? I gathered from the ruling of the Chair that we were not to be allowed to do so.

Leas-Chathaoirleach

No, that is what I stated.

I shall be glad if pulled up on any point when the Chair considers it necessary, but I am pointing out that there is a proposal now to force the shareholders of the Dublin Transport Company to surrender their interest in that company to a new company which is to be set up. I want to say something that will put that company into a certain perspective. The point I want to make is that nobody knows yet what that company is going to be, what it is going to do, and what the hopes for that company are.

When the railway company, before the Tribunal of Inquiry in 1939, put up their outlook on the railway situation, they indicated that they required an additional £2,000,000 capital. They thought they could get on nicely, from a capital point of view, if they got that sum. They wanted £1,000,000 of that for the compulsory acquisition of other companies, £500,000 for working capital and £500,000 for purchases of one kind or another. The tribunal found that the railways did not require as much as that, that all they required was £1,250,000; and it was suggested that Government guaranteed debenture stock be issued to the railways for that amount, to cover the acquiring of certain licensed hauliers, to extend their own services, to discontinue certain branches and to provide working capital. That report was made in August, 1939, when the railway position was fully examined.

Now, the Government's proposal, into which the Dublin Transport Company's proposal is to be merged, is a proposal to provide £8,000,000 additional capital for rolling stock, plant and reorganisation. There is a proposal to give certain stock to the present holders of the railway stock and then to have £8,000,000 for work of one particular kind or another in building up the general transport system of the country.

If there are any Senators here who think they understand what these proposals mean and if they have any clear idea of what kind of efficiency and cheap service is to be provided as a result of that huge expenditure of additional money on the transport system, they may have special information of one kind or another; but it is very hard to think that the travelling public, the passengers of the City of Dublin, can look with equanimity upon their fortunes being thrown into a melting pot of that size, particularly when, as the Minister indicated in his own speech in June last, it will be a hard job to make a success of the proposal and will take years to do it.

I submit that we ought to see these proposals as proposals made to Parliament and that we should have an opportunity of seeing them in operation before the transport services of the City of Dublin are thrown into that melting pot. I do not want to put this in an objectionable way, but I think the Dublin public were deceived by that speech of the Minister. At least, they could not read into it that their transport services were to be merged in the general transport system in the country. I think the Minister's outlook is somewhat inconstant. I do not understand what he means by saying that he is now going to put the railways into a position in which they will have to face competition. I think he is proceeding by a certain amount of trial and error. At any rate, the trials that have gone on in the past have not succeeded, as he now admits in that speech; yet here is a gigantic trial, and the bigger the trial in present circumstances the bigger the likelihood of error. The owners of the Dublin United Transport Company are acting as the owners of a statutory company, bound by certain limitations and with a certain responsibility to surrender their property to the Dublin Corporation at a particular time, and I think they are being very wrongly treated, from a public point of view, in being forced by pressure outside of Parliament to transfer their company in that way.

Even if it were to be a profitable thing for the shareholders of the Dublin United Transport Company voluntarily to cede their company to this new company, I think they ought not do so behind the back of Parliament. The interests that are really involved in this, and the interests for which originally the Dublin United Transport Company got statutory powers, are the interests of the travelling public of the City of Dublin. The company has been doing its work pretty well. Its capital and its bank overdraft on the 31st December, 1938, totalled £2,210,000. They had spent before that date, as a result of the operation of the Road Transport Act of 1933, £448,000 in buying up the other bus services in Dublin; and £276,000 in buying new buses for the City of Dublin, making a total of approximately £725,000. Before the tribunal they indicated that they were going to reduce their capital and pay off certain of their debentures in a particular way. The report says:—

"We are of opinion that the company should not be empowered to charge such fares as may be necessary to earn a net revenue sufficiently large to enable this proposal to be carried out. In our opinion it is unreasonable to expect that for the next ten years the community residing in the areas served by the company should be obliged to pay, not only for the current cost of provision of the services placed at its disposal by the company... but also to provide out of current revenue in such a short period so substantial a sum as £1,100,000."

The report of the company here shows that the Dublin people are entitled to expect cheaper rates of transport even than they were having then—and that was long before the beginning of the emergency—so that there is a margin in the present services for giving cheaper and more efficient transport to the people of Dublin. That is being taken and thrown into the maelstrom suggested by the Minister's proposals. One of the indications of the result which will follow is the way in which railway shares have been soaring and Dublin United Transport Company's shares have been going down.

I raise this matter here because I believe that Parliament should assert itself on this occasion, even if there were no other interests involved than the democratic spirit and democratic practice that should guide us in working our Parliament, and by that means help us to do our work in a better and more orderly way for the good of all the people in the country who want goods and services. Therefore, I suggest that this resolution should be passed, to express the opinion of the Seanad on that major point, particularly in the interests of the travelling public of the City of Dublin, so that the Minister would have the opinion of the Seanad that his pressure should not be used, through the directors, on the shareholders of the Dublin United Transport Company, to surrender certain valuable services that the citizens of Dublin have and are entitled to, that is, cheap and efficient transport services until, if ever, having examined the facts of the situation, Parliament comes to a definite conclusion, after free discussion, that other national interests are bigger and higher than those of the travelling public of the City of Dublin.

I formally second the motion and reserve my right to speak later.

I hope the Senator did not think when I interrupted him on a point of order, that I was not in sympathy with his motion. I did feel that it was desirable to confine the discussion to the motion on the Order Paper, although I appreciate that references to the major railway policy may be necessary to explain his position. I do agree strongly with the motion, and I consider that it was wrong to embark on a policy to nationalise the Dublin Transport Company, and merge it with the railways company without a mandate from the citizens of Dublin. Suppose the Government had gone to the citizens of Dublin and said: "We intend to acquire your transport company and merge it with the railways," I am not at all certain that the results of the election in the city might not have been very different.

I think that by assuming this mandate the Government are acting in an undemocratic manner. It was not very general, but I think there was an indication that the Government intended to nationalise the railway services and, although it was not prominent in any Government programme, any intelligent voter could have assumed that that was going to be brought about. But there was no indication that the Dublin Transport Company was going to be merged, though there was a possibility that such a lucrative service—considering the revenue that is derived from Dublin United Transport Company—was going to be taken away from the citizens of Dublin. I think that should have been put before the country clearly at the last election.

Assuming the Government had got that mandate, what should be the opinion of this House with regard to their subsequent procedure? There I am not so clear in my mind. There was considerable complaint before when the Government reconstructed the stocks of the Great Southern Railways Company, the complaint being that they did not consult the directors. Here now we will assume that the Government have got a mandate to nationalise the Dublin United Transport Company and merge it in the general transport services. Have the Government gone the right way about doing that? Are the Government dealing with the shareholders in the right and proper way? I feel the right and proper way for the Government to act is to say: "These are our terms; we have a mandate; we are the sovereign body and you have to accept those terms." Instead of that it is put in this way: "Now that you are offered these terms, if you do not accept them you may not be treated so well later."

There is a veiled threat, or an indication that they may not be treated well if they do not accept. I imagine if the Dublin Transport people refuse these terms they will probably get similar terms, but I do not think it is quite honest. It leaves a nasty taste, a feeling that if they do not accept these terms they may get something else. There is an indication of a threat which I think might have been avoided. The whole thing could have been done in a much cleaner manner. I have very strong views on this question of the merging of the two services, but I would rather withhold comment on that matter until the appropriate legislation is introduced.

I agree with Senator Mulcahy that what has happened in connection with the proposed compulsory acquisition of the Dublin United Transport Company has gravely shaken public confidence. I also agree with Senator Sir John Keane that the method adopted was not the method that is best in keeping with Parliamentary tradition.

I have a constructive suggestion to make to the Minister which, I think, he may be able to accept and which, I think, he ought to accept. What is wanted in any country with a Parliamentary tradition is sound public education in political and social matters, such as this; education of Deputies and Senators, so that interest may be aroused in a particular subject and so that discussions outside and inside Parliament should be stimulated as much as possible. The method is the method of the White Paper lying on the Tables of both Houses. In a White Paper would be set out what you mean to do; your correspondence with the directors of the Dublin United Transport Company, for example, and your proposals—not necessarily detailed, but certainly an outline of your proposals.

The advantage of that method is that by the time the Bill is brought in, there has been discussion in the Press, discussion among Deputies and Senators, books read, newspapers read, and statistics studied. By the time the Bill comes in the Government, one may hope, has been to a great extent influenced in drafting that Bill by what has been said in public by Deputies, Senators and the people at large. Deputies, Senators and the people at large can talk only on facts, and they have not been given facts in this case.

I should like to remind Senators of the procedure that was adopted in connection with the Education Bill in England. What happened there was that the President of the Board of Education, Mr. R.A. Butler, embodied his proposals in a White Paper that was laid on the Table and the proposals were debated. We have here an exact precedent which I should like to read to the House. It is a precedent created by the Minister's predecessor in 1925. As Senators will recall, throughout 1924 correspondence was proceeding between the Government and Messrs. Siemens-Schuckert with regard to the electrification of the Shannon. On the 19th March, 1925, a White Paper was laid on the Table of the Dáil and a similar White Paper on the Table of the Seanad. The White Paper reads:

"The electrification of the Irish Free State.

(a) The Shannon Scheme—Siemens-Schuckert;

(b) The Shannon Scheme—report of the experts appointed by the Government.

Presented by the Executive Council."

If Senators care to peruse that document, they will see that, so far as one can tell, the relative information at the Government's disposal was placed before the two Houses and, by being placed before the two Houses, was also placed before the public at large. After due interval, about a fortnight or three weeks, a motion was put down in the name of the Minister for Industry and Commerce to this effect:

"Whereas the experts appointed by the Government to examine the proposals of Siemens-Schuckert for the hydro-electric exploitation of the River Shannon have reported in favour of the adoption with modifications of the partial development scheme, and whereas Dáil Eireann is of opinion that steps should be taken forthwith to give effect to the proposals recommended in the experts' report.

Now, therefore, it is hereby resolved that it is expedient that the necessary legislation be introduced at the earliest possible date to enable the said proposals to be carried into effect in accordance with the White Paper setting out the correspondence between the Department of Industry and Commerce and Siemens-Schuckert..."

That motion occupied a total of 16 hours of Parliamentary time in the Dáil, producing a most instructive debate. My suggestion to the Minister is that the correspondence with the Dublin United Transport Company might well be embodied in a White Paper and laid on the Tables of both Houses. If that is done it seems to me that the extraordinary general meeting of the Dublin United Transport Company need not necessarily be held on the date specified. If it is held at all it would be held when the shareholders have very much more information at their disposal about what is actually proposed. They would also know the general reaction of Deputies, Senators, the Dublin public and, indeed, the Irish public to what is proposed.

I think without repeating myself I can say—and I wish to emphasise it— that that is the Parliamentary system, the democratic system, where you take the people into your confidence, and then, having heard what they have to say, weigh it and go ahead with your proposals. I ask the Minister to take that course.

I was rather disappointed at the manner in which this motion was introduced, as I expected, having heard many rumours, more fireworks in connection with it. I was certainly disappointed at the manner in which Senator Mulcahy talked about the interests of the Dublin travelling public in this matter, and of the great financial and other losses which this merger would cause to the people of Dublin. I do not know whether or not that is intelligent anticipation, but the thing we have to bear in mind is that Dublin is not all Ireland. We cannot build up and reserve monopolies for ourselves, and, after all, the Dublin United Transport Company is a monopoly, and there was very little consideration given to their competitors when they were being bought out. They certainly got liberal terms, but out they had to go. They got a fair price all right. Another point to which I should like to refer is that raised by Senator O'Sullivan about the White Paper. He told us about the White Paper regarding the Shannon Scheme, but I do not remember that in any portion of the White Paper it was mentioned that the citizens of Dublin were going to be deprived of cheap electricity by the taking over of the Pigeon House. A great appeal was made at that time to us to forgo our rights and privileges to help the people in rural Ireland. Nevertheless, the people of this city paid very dearly for the taking over of the Pigeon House, and I do not think that there was any great outcry at that time about the terrible injustice done to the people of this city. That happened in spite of the White Paper, and that was Dublin Corporation property, not the property of private owners, but actual corporation property merged in a national scheme.

I do not know whether two wrongs make a right, but certainly the Dublin people suffered very severely on that occasion while the country generally benefited by the sacrifice of the people of Dublin. Are we going now to stand in the way of merging what is undoubtedly a profitable concern in the national interest? At the present time I am sure the Government is drawing enormous sums in super-tax from the Dublin United Transport Company. They will lose some of that if it is merged in the new company.

Senator Mulcahy talked about the procedure adopted. With a certain amount of what he said, I am in agreement, but does the House not think that the first protest against unfair treatment should come from the directors of the Dublin United Transport Company? As far as I know, they have made no protest whatever against the action taken by the Minister, and so far as I know none of the people engaged in the Dublin United Transport Company have made any complaint whatever, and consequently I cannot see that any great injustice is being done to them or to the people of the City of Dublin.

Surely that is a matter for the extraordinary general meeting? The complaint should come from the extraordinary general meeting.

At the same time, I think the people directly in charge of the undertaking should have exercised their right to complain about unjust treatment, if they felt that there was any. As I said before, I am in a certain amount of agreement with Senator Mulcahy regarding the procedure, but when he goes on to enlarge about the injustice done to the people of Dublin and the calamities that are likely to befall them, if the transport undertaking is merged in the new company. I part company from him at once. I am pretty well satisfied that by organising our transport system we are helping the industry of the country at large. If we leave out the plums of transport and allow them to be exploited for the private gain of a certain number of individuals, we are doing an injustice to the country in general. I believe that we are ruled out from discussing the major principle of transport in general, but I think it only right to put this point of view before the Seanad in order that we may know where we are.

I am glad, Sir, that you ruled that discussion on this motion should be confined to the specific matters mentioned in it, not merely because I have a natural inclination to obey the rules of order, but also because, in my opinion, it is undesirable that the normal Parliamentary procedure should be reversed by the introduction of motions in the Seanad. Clearly, Parliamentary procedure requires that the Government's proposals for legislation should be submitted in the first instance to the Dáil in the form of draft Bills and should come to the Seanad only if, and when, passed by the Dáil. I do not know if Senator Mulcahy and Senator Crosbie in moving this motion had the idea that they could secure a general debate on transport policy in advance of the publication of the Government's legislative proposals or obtain even a general statement on transport policy on behalf of the Government. If so, I must tell them that they cannot succeed. Clearly the Government's duty in this matter is to make that statement in relation to the specific proposals for legislation which it will in due course produce. Possibly Senators may have had the idea of influencing the attitude of the Dáil on these proposals for legislation when they appear, by securing a vote adverse to the Government on an ambiguous motion. I think that Senators will agree that this motion is ambiguously worded. In that I think they cannot succeed because I feel that the members of the Dáil and the majority of the members of the Seanad like the public as a whole, will prefer to withhold judgment on the merits or demerits of the Government's proposals until they see them as a whole and that they will not attempt to decide upon them piecemeal.

It is true that the Government contemplates the formation of a new statutory transport undertaking which will absorb both the Great Southern Railways and the Dublin United Transport Company. That fact has been made known.

Will it absorb the Great Northern Railway Company?

I want to say, in order to avoid any more interruptions of this kind, that I cannot by any process of cross-examination, be made to forecast precisely what the Bill will contain. The draft Bill is now before the Government, but the draft is not yet completed. Until the final draft has been received from the Parliamentary draftsman and approved by the Government, its terms cannot be disclosed except in so far as disclosure appears to be good policy in the view of the Government in the public interest. We considered it was good policy in the public interest to secure acceptance by agreement of the proposals relating to the Great Southern Railways Company. It was in connection with these proposals that it became known that the Government contemplated the establishment of a new transport organisation. We considered it was good policy to inform the Board of the Dublin United Transport Company that the proposals, when introduced, would include provisions for the compulsory absorption of that company in the new statutory undertaking. Senator Sir John Keane put his finger upon a very pertinent point when he reminded the House of the criticism which was offered to the Government in 1933 when we effected, by legislation, a considerable reorganisation in the capital structure of the Great Southern Railways Company, on the grounds that we had not consulted the board or the shareholders of the Great Southern Railways Company before putting these proposals to the Dáil. I do not want to say that it was solely as a result of that criticism that we adopted a different procedure on this occasion. There were other reasons. We considered that, apart from the desirability of informing the Board of the Dublin United Transport Company of our intention, that that intimation should also be made known to the public as a whole. The House is aware that, arising out of the proposals for the reorganisation of the capital of the Great Southern Railways Company, there were allegations of leakages of information, into which allegations a tribunal of inquiry is now sitting. I do not wish to refer to that further.

I do feel, however, that it would be impossible to bring a draft of these legislative proposals right to the stage of printing the Bill and submitting it to the Dáil without some risk of it being known in some quarters that the Bill contained proposals relating to the Dublin United Transport Company. I felt that the best way of minimising that risk was to make the information known to the public as a whole at once. As a preliminary to the public announcement, the board of the company were informed. I think courtesy as well as policy required that they should be so informed. They were informed that it was the Government's intention that their company should be absorbed in the new statutory undertaking, and that the Bill would contain the necessary provisions for the transfer to that new undertaking of all the property, rights, powers, duties and liabilities of their company.

It has been suggested that that course was in some way contrary to democratic principles. I must confess that I am completely unable to understand that argument. Senator Mulcahy objects, in his motion, on the ground that there had been no previous intimation of the Government's intention. Previous to what? Previous to the Government's intimation to the company, I presume—unless we are to take it from his remarks that he is of the opinion that this intention of the Government should have been stated specifically prior to the general election. I do not know if I am to regard that contention as a serious one. Surely every Senator will realise that the speculation—and I mean two kinds of speculation—that would follow such an announcement prior to a general election would be quite considerable, and that it would have been entirely wrong for the Government in the circumstances existing—a Government whose term had expired and was seeking re-election—to make such a statement which might seriously influence the fortunes of a number of private individuals, with the possibility that the result of the election would produce an entirely different policy. In any event, I am not at all sure that there are not precedents for our action.

This is not the first time in the history of this State at which transport companies have been absorbed or amalgamated, and I have yet to learn that on any occasion there was a prior intimation either before or after a general election of an intention to do so. Our predecessors in 1924 amalgamated a very large number of railway undertakings. Did they give prior intimation of their intention to do that? I do not think so. There was some reference to "dead wood" and to the necessity for getting rid of it; but apart from vague statements of that kind the intention to effect complete amalgamation of the railway undertakings was not known until the Bill was published, and that Bill provided in its terms for a similar procedure to that now followed. The various companies to be amalgamated were told to go and secure with the Great Southern Railways Company agreements relating to the terms of their absorption, and if they failed to make agreements they were told that a railway tribunal would determine the terms for them.

Senator O'Sullivan was, I think, a bit unfortunate in his reference to the White Paper which preceded the Shannon Scheme. I am not aware that there was any prior intimation in 1929 of the intention to compulsorily acquire all private electricity undertakings in the country, but their previous intimation of policy had been that they would not acquire them. The White Paper to which he referred outlined the scheme for the purchase of electricity in bulk, leaving the various undertakings with their independent status. In 1933 the Road Transport Act provided for the compulsory acquisition of all the operating omnibus companies in Dublin by the Dublin United Transport Company. There was no previous reference to the intention to effect that amalgamation in the election of that year. I wonder if there had been a plebiscite, as Senator Sir John Keane suggests, taken in Dublin that year, would we have got a majority for it. I doubt it. Most people admit now that the policy justified itself but would they have admitted then that the amalgamation would have been conducive to cheaper and better transport services, particularly when the Dublin United Tramways Company was to be the absorbing undertaking.

The motion also objects on the ground that this was done not merely without previous intimation of the Government's intention, but also without the possibility of Parliamentary discussion. Again, I fail to understand what Senator Mulcahy is getting at. This thing cannot be done at all without the full approval of the Dail. The Government at present is merely preparing proposals for legislation which will be submitted to the Dáil, and which the Dáil will be free to reject, free to amend, or free to pass, as they think fit. Every shareholder of the Great Southern Railways Company and of the Dublin United Transport Company knows that such is the position. There is certainly no intention to mislead them. These proposals will be discussed by both Houses of the Oireachtas when they appear, and they will appear as a full scheme. They will not be discussed upon the basis of an ambiguous motion in relation to one part of the scheme—the whole of the Government's proposals will appear in the one document which can be discussed and voted upon as a whole.

Let me say, however, that Senator Mulcahy's history of this meeting of the shareholders of the Dublin United Transport Company on the 25th January is slightly inaccurate. I have informed you that the Government merely intimated to the Board of the Dublin United Transport Company their intention to provide in a draft Bill for the absorption, in a statutory company, of their undertaking. At that stage, however, on receiving that intimation, the Directors of the Dublin United Transport Company, who are the representatives of the proprietors of that company, and who presumably are concerned mainly with the interests of these proprietors, suggested to the Government that, in their opinion, it would be more satisfactory to the people whom they represented —the shareholders of the company—if the acquisition was to be effected upon known terms, rather than left to the uncertain decision of an arbitration tribunal. They requested, formally, information as to what terms the Government would consider appropriate in all the circumstances, and after discussion, they were informed that the Government would be prepared to adopt and to defend the terms which were ultimately set out in the circular sent to the shareholders, if a majority of these shareholders approved of these terms.

The position of the board, as I understand it, is that they, as representatives of the shareholders and guardians of their interests, are proposing to tell these shareholders at their special general meeting that in their view it is in their better interest to accept these terms, rather than to allow the original position to be restored, in which acquisition would be followed by the decision of an arbitrator as to the compensation to be awarded.

Senator Mulcahy did not read the circular issued to the shareholders of the company, but in order to round off my history of the events which led up to it, I propose to read it, because it is very clear and very precise. It seems to me that the position in this case is that the simple truth has been stated, and that, because it is the simple truth, certain people are refusing to believe it. The simple truth was set out in the circular, and may I say, in reply to the suggestion put forward by Senator O'Sullivan, that there was no correspondence between the Board of the Dublin United Transport Company and the Government. Events developed precisely as set out in the circular, which reads:—

"The Government has informed your directors that the proposals for transport legislation to be introduced in Dáil Eireann will include provision for the compulsory acquisition of this company by the statutory company to be constituted by the Act for the purpose inter alia of absorbing the Great Southern Railways Company. Following the receipt of this information, discussions between the appropriate Minister and your directors took place, resulting in a proposal for the voluntary acquisition of the company as an alternative to compulsory acquisition. This proposal will be submitted to an extraordinary general meeting of the company. While your directors feel themselves justified in recommending the acceptance of this proposal, they wish to make it perfectly clear that it is for the stockholders themselves to decide between the proposal as it stands and compulsory acquisition.”

Then follow the terms of the offer, of which I presume the House is aware.

The Minister might as well finish the documentation and read the rest of it.

It reads:

"The proposal for voluntary acquisition is as follows:—Stock-holders to receive for every £10 nominal stock, either preference or ordinary, £14 10/- nominal 3 per cent. Government guaranteed debenture stock."

Do I understand from the Minister that the information conveyed to the company by the Government was all purely verbal?

Extraordinary.

On the contrary, a very elementary precaution. I do not know if the references in the motion to the prior publication of information relate to the terms of acquisition. If so, I can merely say that not only did I take every possible precaution myself, but I requested the company to take similar precautions to ensure that there would be no prior publication of the terms of acquisition until the circular reached the individual shareholders. It is entirely a matter for the shareholders themselves to decide, but let me make it quite clear that I welcomed the suggestion from the board of the company that acquisition should be on the basis of known and agreed terms, rather than compulsorily on terms to be fixed by arbitration. I did so, because I appreciated that it would not be an easy matter to determine exactly the value to be placed for acquisition purposes on a concern which, first, has a monopolistic position secured to it with the assistance of legislation.

It would not be without precedent for the Government to confer benefits by legislation on private interests and then to buy back whatever rights these private interests had, at a subsequent stage, following a change of policy; but it is clearly a difficult matter to decide to what extent you can value and how fully should you value the benefit and advantage which private individuals have as a result of legislation enacted by the Oireachtas. Secondly, because of its history and because of the legislation to which I have referred, in the balance sheet of this company the goodwill item represents 60 per cent. of the total value of its assets. That is an unusual situation and clearly no acquisition based merely upon the value of the assets of the undertaking would be fair to the shareholders.

Thirdly, this concern is enjoying, as all other transport concerns are enjoying, a temporary accession of new revenue because of the circumstances resulting from the emergency. As everybody knows, transport services have had to be curtailed in their extent by reason of the scarcity of petrol and tyres and other causes, and instead of providing a full service, which involves buses travelling empty or half empty during valley periods, there is now an inability to cope with the traffic offering. All the buses are travelling full all the time, and also because of the emergency, the number of passengers seeking to travel on the buses has considerably increased. Similar conditions have to a greater or a lesser extent affected other transport undertakings and have resulted in a considerable accession of new revenue, despite the fact that there has been no increase in fares.

Taking these three factors, as well as others, into account—the monopolistic position of the company protected by legislation, the exceptional character of its balance sheet and the temporary revenue secured by abnormal conditions—it would be clearly a difficult matter to draft terms of reference for an arbitrator who would necessarily have to take these factors into account, without risking a decision which might be held to be grossly unfair to the shareholders.

Might I ask the Minister if arbitration is a necessary alternative to agreement? Could not the Government state their terms without any arbitration?

The Government, as I have said, is quite prepared to adopt and defend the terms set out in the resolution which will be submitted to the company's shareholders.

If the shareholders rejected the terms, could the Government not offer any other terms it likes, without arbitration?

Certainly, provided the Government thought they were fair to all the interests concerned. If agreement cannot be reached, obviously the wisest course for the Government to adopt is to leave it to some independent authority to determine the basis of acquisition and that authority will have to be given terms of reference. The 1924 Act, in so far as it did not provide for the absorption of the amalgamating undertakings by agreement, intimated to the Railway Tribunal that they were to give particular attention to the net revenue position of the amalgamating company. Even if we bring into the picture the inflation of the net revenue of this company during the war years and proceeded upon its record, say, over the past ten years, I think the terms which have been agreed and which are being submitted to the shareholders are more favourable to them than they would otherwise secure.

I believe they are.

The position is as I have stated, however. The Government will propose in its legislation, which will deal with a number of other matters, the absorption of this company. It will provide in the Bill for its acquisition upon agreed terms, if they are agreed, and compulsorily, if not agreed. Whether that legislation will be enacted at all, with or without amendment, cannot be forecast. In that matter, one person's judgment is as good as another's. The Government will not withdraw its proposal. It forms an integral part of a transport scheme which we think should be submitted to the Oireachtas, no matter what its ultimate fate may be, and we consider that members of the Dáil, like members of the Seanad, should have a full opportunity of discussing and deciding upon it.

Let me say this, however, although, perhaps, it transgresses slightly the limits of the debate as set down by the Chair. Following the remarks made by Senator General Mulcahy, I do not contemplate that the course we are proposing to adopt will involve any injury to the citizens of Dublin. On the contrary, I believe that arising from the implementation of the general plan which the Government has in contemplation, we will be able to provide in Dublin, as in the rest of the country, better and cheaper transport facilities than have hitherto been available. I have no doubt, however, that the Dublin United Transport Company in the post-war period would be able to provide better and cheaper transport facilities, but there are advantages which the Government foresee will arise from its plans, and these advantages will be more clearly seen when the Bill comes before the Oireachtas. We will defend it on the grounds that it will, in fact, secure for the citizens of Dublin and for the citizens of the other parts of Ireland better and cheaper transport services than were hitherto available to them.

It is, I know, held in many quarters that it is unfair to the citizens of Dublin to amalgamate their thriving transport undertaking with what has been described as a "dud" company. I know as much of the history of the Great Southern Railways as most people. In this morning's paper it was announced that the company proposed the payment of arrears of dividends on the guaranteed, and dividends on the preference and ordinary stocks. That is an indication that even in advance of the enactment of the legislation contemplated, the Great Southern Railways Company is already getting out of the difficulties it encountered. I want, however, to correct certain false impressions created by newspaper reports that the improvement in the revenue position of the railway company is solely due to the increases in merchandise traffic rates which took place last year. These increases were approved for the purpose of making better provision for the preservation of railway assets during the war. They permitted a re-adjustment of the charging system of the company which resulted in the elimination of an appalling number of preferential rates, and discriminations as between traders, and the putting of the company's rates system on a more intelligent and, certainly, more equitable basis. Neither is the result of that increased revenue attributable to the increased traffics resulting from the emergency. In so far as the company has secured increased traffic, the enormous increase in costs occasioned by the war has offset the advantage to them.

The improved financial position of that company is due only to the application of business methods to its affairs. I have always believed that in the case of that company the application of sound business methods would prove it to be a healthy undertaking, capable of not merely providing an efficient service for the public, but also of yielding a profit to its shareholders. The fact that the application of sound business methods to the affairs of that company had produced such results already is an indication that the reorganisation and new legislation which we have in contemplation cannot be further delayed. We might have considered delaying it until after the war. I think it is clear now that if we are to take full advantage of the more favourable circumstances now prevailing, we must proceed without delay with the proposal for the establishment of a new body and for the other changes in the transport position we have in contemplation.

Neither is it true to say that we are doing an injury to the Dublin Corporation by this proposal. It is, I think, a very moot point whether the rights of the Dublin Corporation extend beyond the tramway system operated by the Dublin United Transport Company. Certainly, that right of acquisition which the Dublin Corporation secured was obtained at a time when the company operated tramways mainly, and it is obvious that it could not extend to a system of omnibuses which go, in many cases, far beyond the limits of the Dublin Corporation area. It is, I think, a matter upon which opinions may differ, but it is, at least, doubtful whether it can be contended that the rights of the corporation to acquire the undertaking of this company in 1966 extend beyond the tramways services, if in fact there are tramways in 1966.

There are just two other points I would like to refer to. They do not really relate to this motion, but I feel sure the Seanad will facilitate me in removing certain misapprehensions which may cause people to engage in unjustifiable speculation or wasted organisation. It has been suggested that the next step in the Government plan is the compulsory acquisition of the Grand Canal Company, and certain people have been speculating as a result of that. I want to say now that the Bill will not provide for the compulsory acquisition of the Grand Canal Company. The second point I want to make relates to private transport. Certain restrictions on private transport have necessarily been imposed in the public interest during the war. These restrictions are designed to ensure that the best possible use, in the public interest, is made of the limited supplies of petrol, tyres and other vehicular equipment which we have.

At the time the restrictions were begun and as various extensions of them were effected, I made statements in the Dáil and outside that these restrictions were occasioned by the circumstances of the emergency only and in no way represented any decision of the Government in relation to post-war transport policy. These assurances of mine were, apparently, not accepted. Certain people, for one reason or another, decided to proceed as if the assurances were never given or could not be relied on. Let me say definitely, so that a great deal of agitation will be allayed and unnecessary organisation prevented, that the Bill which the Government will produce in the next session of the Dáil will not provide for any restriction on the private transport of goods or of passengers. I doubt if I could make a more specific statement than that.

Can the Minister give us an assurance that no subsequent Bill will be introduced covering that point?

I know that some people have that idea. They have asked for a guarantee in perpetuity. I have told them that not only do circumstances change, but Governments change, and I can give no guarantee that either circumstances or this Government will not change. I can only say that in the circumstances we foresee after the war the imposition of restrictions on the private transport of goods is not contemplated.

So that a little organisation would be no harm.

What the Minister has said was good enough, but I would ask him what he means by the next session of Parliament? Approximately, when will the Bill be introduced?

My aim is to produce it as quickly as possible. I think the least delay there is the better. Both the Parliamentary draftsman and I have had considerable difficulty in shortening the period before the Bill is introduced.

Would the Minister amplify his statement? Does the Bill refer to private ownership for public hirage?

I was referring only to private transport of goods and passengers, not to public services.

The Minister speculated as to whether Senator Mulcahy and myself had hoped by putting down this motion to secure certain advance information from him as to his future intentions regarding transport legislation. Having studied the Minister's career for a long time I was never sanguine of getting very much information from him that he did not want me to get, but I must say as a result of this discussion to-night that I think the Minister has given the House some very reassuring information on the transport problem. I will come to the statement he made towards the close of his speech regarding his present intentions as far as private lorry transport is concerned. Like Senator O'Sullivan, I would have thought that a White Paper would have been issued before any steps were taken on this transport legislation.

Unlike Senator O'Sullivan, I would not have been so concerned as to whether such a White Paper would have contained the correspondence, if such correspondence had existed, between the Government and the Dublin United Transport Company, but, Sir, surely the Government must by this time have at its disposal certain other information on transport problems. It has been an open secret for some time that the Government has been contemplating legislation for the purpose of national transport reorganisation and while nobody outside the Minister and his draftsman, perhaps, know the full details of what is contemplated it is again no very great secret that the kingpin of the contemplated legislation will be the Great Southern Railways Company.

Surely the Government and the railway company must have acquired by now some very interesting information as the result of the experiment which they were forced to adopt owing to the shortage of tyres and petrol in certain areas in this country. They have had the unique opportunity in Mayo, in the scheduled area there, over a period of 12 months, of operating a complete monopoly of road and rail transport. So far, neither the public nor Parliament have been given any information as to the result of what has happened in that part of the country where that service has been put into operation. No information is available as to whether the scheme is efficient, whether the service it gives compares favourably or unfavourably with the old situation when you had rail and railway company lorries and private lorries running in competition. Neither has any information been given whether the scheme has resulted in an economy in fuel consumption or anything else. I would have thought that prior to the introduction of general transport reorganisation legislation, a White Paper containing information such as that would have been of the greatest assistance to both Houses of Parliament.

I want to say that while I am pleased that the Minister has given that assurance in the House to-night as regards his present intentions in regard to private lorry transport, he also expressed the opinion that as a result of this acquisition and the ultimate acquisition of a national character which he is contemplating, not only would no injury be done to the citizens of Dublin, but their transport would be improved and would be cheaper and that the same would apply to the country in general.

As one who is not a native of Dublin, I have had experience of transport services outside Dublin. All I can say is this: my opinion differs from the Minister's. I feel sorry for the travelling public of Dublin. I do not think they will ever travel as cheaply or as efficiently again, and in a short while I expect they will get that discomfort and expense that we in other parts of the country have had to put up with from this kingpin of transport, the Great Southern Railways Company.

I do not want to labour this matter further. I stated the points involved in it, in my opinion, and I am still convinced that a very serious disservice is being done to democratic procedure by the methods of the Minister. I do not understand at all the attitude of Senator Foran when he says that Dublin is not all Ireland, and that Dublin passenger services may, therefore, be thrown into the general transport situation in the country. I do not believe Dublin is going to do anything but suffer as the result of any such merger if it is actually put through, and I imagine there will be a much clearer appreciation of what is involved by the time the Minister puts his proposals before the House.

The Minister is banking on the fact that rates and services are in a particular state at the present time owing to emergency circumstances, but I would like to draw the attention of the Minister to page 107 of the report of the Transport Tribunal where it is pointed out that between 1936 and 1938 the mileage run in the City of Dublin was reduced by 270,548 miles, but the number of passengers carried increased by nearly 13,000,000. The company, therefore, carried more passengers over a reduced mileage and at a proportionately reduced cost. You have now a service which had already been organised and developed before 1938, and under the post-war circumstances, the same condition of things would develop and the public in Dublin might have looked forward to much cheaper transport than at the present time. As to what the general transport situation is going to be—the situation in which Dublin is interested—we got a circular from the Department of Agriculture to-day warning us of the economic blizzard that inevitably is going to affect us in the post-war years.

How the economic blizzard that we are warned by the Department of Agriculture is going to affect the general transport situation in the country I do not know in view of the general transport organisation for which the Minister for Industry and Commerce is planning in this proposal. I think it is a very shocking thing that a highly specialised passenger service, upon which the working population in the City of Dublin depends, should be thrown into that uncertain mess. In spite of what Senator Foran said here to-night, I would advise the Minister that the citizens of Dublin will have a good lot to say about this, and of his proposals as broadly outlined.

Reference has been made to what has been done in Dublin in connection with the Shannon scheme. I do not think that electric light users in Dublin, or the citizens of Dublin generally, have lost in any way, either directly or indirectly, as a result of the taking over of the Dublin electricity works by the Electricity Supply Board. It is very easy to be glib with a remark as a kind of back answer by a statement like that. An examination of the situation would show that there was nothing but a glib remark in it. I think that the air will have been a bit cleared, and that we will be more alert in preparing to examine the proposals that will be put before us, as a result of the Minister's statement to-night.

The Minister seemed to imply that the proposals that are going to be put before the shareholders of the Dublin United Transport Company on Tuesday, the 25th, are proposals that came originally from the directors. I am sure that a lot of people who are interested in the running of public companies, on the one hand, and a lot of the shareholders of the Dublin United Transport Company, on the other, will be anxious to figure out how the directors came to make proposals such as the proposals that are here. However, as I said before, even if it were to the advantage of the shareholders of the Dublin United Transport Company to make these proposals, and if they were to be made in an orderly and democratic way, they ought not to have been made like this. I do not think Parliament should support that. Therefore, I submit that the Seanad should pass this resolution. I would like to assure the Minister that I did not want in any way to have a full discussion on transport, because the primary point in my motion was that we have not the information before us upon which we could take decisions, but that there is sufficient information on the broad facts of the importance of the Dublin transport interests which are being tampered with.

I would appeal to the mover of this motion not to press it to a division. We have had a very useful discussion, and I think it might prejudice future legislation and embarrass the whole of this problem if we had a division at this stage.

This is a very important House, and this is a very important resolution. I would not have put it up except for the purpose of getting the opinion of this House on it. I am not withdrawing the motion.

Question put and declared negatived.
The Seanad adjourned at 8.40 until 3 p.m. on Friday, 14th January, 1944.
Top
Share